Retired people could work for pensions..

PaulF81

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Ah right...re-mortgaging her house to free up cash?

We did this to give our son the deposit for a flat. We personally would not do it for frivolous things.

However, if you can pay the mortgage, why not?

(We have since repaid the loan we took out and are now mortgage-free again).

However, I have heard it said on these forums that we boomers should not fund deposits as it just keeps house prices high. So if we can't fund deposits by 'MEW'ing and helping someone onto the housing market, but on the other hand are sitting on all this (alleged) wealth, what would you like us to do? Just give away our houses to the younger generation?

Seeing as the under 35's are paying for all the increases in asset value on your homes and givi you the equity to release, it would kind of be the fair thing to do. Seeing as we are keeping you alive well past your years.

StevieJ

Dunroamin wrote: »

They can be considerably more than the basic pension - a maximum of £240 rings a bell.

I thought the pension in excess of the basic pension (serps etc) was contributory i.e. similar to a private pension?

PaulF81

thorsoak wrote: »

According to PaulF81 and his friend Toasty, we should all be giving our homes to our children/g/children who are paying 40% tax on their incomes and just buy a 1-way ticket to Switzerland!! I for one, do not intend to do this!!

Society may not agree with me now, but once the structural deficit is balanced, you better watch out.

CLAPTON

PaulF81 wrote: »

Seeing as the under 35's are paying for all the increases in asset value on your homes and givi you the equity to release, it would kind of be the fair thing to do. Seeing as we are keeping you alive well past your years.

the good news is that soon you will be over 35 yers old so you can then stop paying for all that asset value inflation.

alternatively you could start bulding lots of new houses and so increase supply and hence reduce the prices

PaulF81

paulmapp8306 wrote: »

Not sure I believe anything the BBC says. My figures came from SEVERAL different sources, which all quoted a similar figure.

I didnt say anything about raising the pension age for anyone. I think a couple of years is a good idea - for anyone still working. I dont think you can say to someone who is already retired that they have to go back to work though. There has to be a cutoff.

Also - theres a reason why pensions are the biggest outlay - its because theres a lot of peopl getting it. If you divinde those benefiting from pensions byt the out lay, and did the same to other liabilities, there will be others far more worthy of cutting.

I really dont get the Anti-Boomers. Im not a boomer (quite) but there not to blame for anything as a whole group, and the vast majority of them are not well off and struggling now as they have their whole life. If you talking about those in power, high paid jobs, or have means - its the same whatever generation you talk about.

Your whole attitude is "why should I support anyone else" - its distinctly "me me me" and shows all thats wrong with todays society in general.

I believe that all things myust be cut. I dont understand why people are up in arms about education cuts, NHS cuts, or any other cuts TBH. We - as a country - WANT these things but cant AFFORD these things. Its not differnt from a family who buys things they want on credit cards when they cant really afford them. Ultimately it bites back.

Every individual however, regardless of age, deserves an income that allows them to exist in reasonable comfort (by which I mean a roof, heat, clothes and food - NOT flat screen TVs, IPods and mobiles).

As such, targeting the state penion is just wrong. Make it means tested sure but dont cut it. Ultimately those that dont need it will retire when they like - its only those on the poor end of society that cant live without that pension who will be forced to work longer.

By the same token - state benefits should not be targeted by those who need them. Im the first to agree that many on benefits dont actually need them. There are lazy people, there are people who jump at any excuse not to work and still seem to believe they should be entitled to all the good things life can offer - BUT, its not everyone.

So - make state pensions means tested, make access to state benefit payments tougher, and only give what is needed to live on at a reasonable level. We need to cut spending in health, education, and every other service. This needs to be done by cutting waste if possible (and it is in most cases, its just easier to cut jobs/services than finding where the waste is). If high cost medication and treatments arnt affordable, then their not. The NHS was set up to give everyone access to BASIC medical care - NOT cutting edge medical care.


One final thing to PaulF81, Im assumning his parents are boomers (or if not his grandparents) - and it was them who paid for and supported him in his childhood and youth. Yet its that generation of people he seems to blame for all the problems (as he sees it) in the country. Wil lhe cut his parents off when they retire (if not already).

The NHS isn't being cut. That's my other big point. You might want to see who the biggest net beneficiaries are of the NHS budget to see why.

If you means test the state pension, me and a load of people who pay a lot of tax will be off to more equitable shores.

PaulF81

CLAPTON wrote: »

the good news is that soon you will be over 35 yers old so you can then stop paying for all that asset value inflation.

alternatively you could start bulding lots of new houses and so increase supply and hence reduce the prices

I would do. Unfortunately some boomer with a purple rinse in the Cotswolds has shouted from the top floor of the outrage bus and put a stopper on coalition plans of green field development.

PaulF81

BobQ wrote: »

I can sympathise with this view to an extent and would not be surprised if the state pension is means tested at some point in the future.

What I have difficulty with is that many people (me included) have paid mandatory NI contributions for four decades in the expectation that I would receive the state pension. You seem to advocate an instant change under which previous contributions are ignored and an unspecified level of means testing applied. I ask is it fair? If you say "yes", I ask if you apply the same criteria to the NHS (ie that its only free for some (Medicare)? I suspect you may say this is fair too.

The difficulty I have with your argument is that I believe that there should be a universal basic pension and that those who have paid contributions to it should should recieve it whatever their means. I also think it will be less bureaucratic to do this. Equally I agree that those who receive it that have other income should pay tax on it which is a form of means testing.

Suck it up. The non boomers are feeling the pain, you should to.

PaulF81

Angry_Bear wrote: »

I’d agree with all of that. I guess what I’m trying to do is address the feeling that people should get out something proportionate to what they’ve paid in. But in some ways that’s what we already have – with private pensions being a top-up to state pension. Then the question becomes whether the state pension is “too much”, “too little” or “just right” and I don’t really have a feel for that.

I tend towards the opinion that a state funded pension should be survival level, and if you want better you provide it for yourself – but I don’t know how close/far it is from that just now.

The practical problem seems to be that you have a generation approaching retirement who didn’t make private provisions because they were under the impression that their NI contributions were making those provisions for them. This clearly isn’t sustainable long term, but moving the goal posts for people about to retire is unfair to say the least.

However, we need to ensure that this (perception of NI contribution being sufficient for a future pension) is corrected for future generations - including me - so that people know that if they don’t make their own provisions, then they should expect a breadline retirement

I am against raising the pension age because I doubt that a 70 year old in 30 years time will be any more capable of doing a job than a 70 year old today (that is, some 70-year olds will be capable of doing some jobs but many will be ruled out due to physical demands). So the options are back to raising taxes, reducing pension costs, or both.

Out of curiosity, what will you do when you rule the world?

It's more unfair for the generation who are going to have to pay for unfunded benefits they will never see the likes of.

CLAPTON

PaulF81 wrote: »

The NHS isn't being cut. That's my other big point. You might want to see who the biggest net beneficiaries are of the NHS budget to see why.

If you means test the state pension, me and a load of people who pay a lot of tax will be off to more equitable shores.

indeed yes
the people who get the greatest per capital benefit from the NHS are those people that fought in the WW2 and left that massive debt of 250% of GDP for their children and grandchildren to pay off.

personally I think they are worth it.

Dunroamin

StevieJ wrote: »

I thought the pension in excess of the basic pension (serps etc) was contributory i.e. similar to a private pension?

I thought that you were in SERPS unless you'd contracted out and were paying into an occupational pension - it's one or the other, isn't it?

ETA

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Earnings-Related_Pension_Scheme

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_Second_Pension