Current a level students won't get a pension till 77... Lets cut boomers pensions NOW

grizzly1911

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Searching?

I'm just reading. It's not exactly hard to find!

Just like it isn't hard to find posts that make out younger posters think old people are inferior to them and ready for Digitas once they claim a pension.

bugslet

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

The majority of people who go into care homes nowadays do so because of dementia. Looking after someone with moderate to severe dementia at home is not a viable option. It's not beneficial to anyone to attempt this, including the sufferer. It needs professional care in a managed environment. No doubt someone will disagree with this, but you have to have experienced the effects of dementia in someone first-hand to know that it is indisputably true.

I won't disagree George. My OH (71) suffers from dementia. I struggled with it for a year until it came to the point where I would have to give up work, (presumably get a carers allowance), should I have attempted to look after him. Had I done so, he would still have got to the point that he is at now, about to go into full time care, then I would have had to find employment again. He's currently in hospital and it is far better for him to be there, he's less stressed and responds to strangers instructions far better than he did to mine. Spend two hours trying to help someone with their toiletting needs and a care home becomes the right option for health reasons, and not for casual parking an unloved relative.

N1AK

PaulF81 wrote: »

Life expectancy is a lady far in excess of the state pension age, so why not raise the NPA NOW rather than delaying it to miss the big demographic bulge? The government could save a fortune at the same time and cause far less angst between generations.

I think we both, and most other commentators, know why: It would be hugely unpopular so no party would dare suggest it. That's regardless of whether it is right, moral etc.

Pensions are an emotive issue. People who are retired or near retirement are adamant that they have earned and were promised what they are currently entitled to. That is regardless of whether that is really true or not.



Someone else made some good points about private pensions and the risk in even bothering to invest in one. I currently have one purely because I get matched contributions however I constantly waiver on whether I should stop because I'm concerned that the minority with decent private pensions may be 'mugged' in future to redistribute the money to those without by tax and benefit changes.

ruggedtoast

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Just like it isn't hard to find posts that make out younger posters think old people are inferior to them and ready for Digitas once they claim a pension.

Actually no one has said that. If any of you bothered to actually read what was written on this topic rather than exploding into a foam of righteous indignation; railing about ageism and euthanasia, as soon as someone points out a particular generation; which just happens to be yours, has taken out a lot more than they've put in, then these discussions wouldn't always end up like this and you would look less silly and ungrateful.

N1AK

grizzly1911 wrote: »

We don't have a defect purely as a result of pensions though do we.

Winter fuel allowance was introduced to reflect the disproportionate cost of heating/energy relative to the index linking of pensions. It should have been added as pension and taxed if appropriate. TV licences are a no cost give away, because the BBC budget just isn't as big. In sales terms a no cost give away.

Travel subsidies are a back hand way of keeping buses running for all in society. If people don't need to use them I am sure that would often prefer to pay and retain their own transport freedom by keeping their own car, paying the associated taxes. It is not obligatory to have a bus pass or to use it.

Firstly great post Grizzly; a good and reasoned defence :T

What I would say is that taxation as a percentage of GDP has remained effectively unchanged at ~36% in the UK since the 1970s and is actually increasing recently (likely to be a blip). So if tax dodging has become a bigger issue it is only because the target tax burden has increased as well.

The bus subsidies, heating allowances and license fees can all be explained away as nominal costs or indirect subsidy but I think we both know that in reality they were brought in as vote buying measures (why not simply increase the state pension otherwise).

My main objection to most of the arguments defending the benefits the current elderly 'should' get is that it ignores the figures that support the view that it won't be affordable to offer to the future elderly.

The biggest voting block in this country is now either retired or close to retirement. They are now supporting government policies like auto-enrolment in private pensions and increased retirement ages; policies they wouldn't have supported when they were young enough to actually be negatively affected by them.

Yet the opinion of many now is that we should honour without question the extremely generous benefits that generation promised themselves without funding.

The_White_Horse

the problem isn't the Boomers per se - the problem is the lefty, as always.

the lefty wants to pay for more and more and more - without thinking of the cost. the lefty always looking to give chavs, layabouts and scroungers more. Oh, and always looking for more for themselves obviously. And who will foot the bill for all this? those filthy private sector workers who dare to try and make a living and provide for their family. How dare they.

Graham_Devon

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Just like it isn't hard to find posts that make out younger posters think old people are inferior to them and ready for Digitas once they claim a pension.

Well I've found it hard to find them? Where are these posts?

I think all this thread does is highlight how seflish we ALL are when it comes to taking out what we think were entitled too.

Everyone is about themselves. No one is about their children or their children. Were all in it for as much as we can take, for as little as we can put in. Natural I suppose.

Jennifer_Jane

N1AK wrote: »

I think we both, and most other commentators, know why: It would be hugely unpopular so no party would dare suggest it. That's regardless of whether it is right, moral etc.

Pensions are an emotive issue. People who are retired or near retirement are adamant that they have earned and were promised what they are currently entitled to. That is regardless of whether that is really true or not.



Someone else made some good points about private pensions and the risk in even bothering to invest in one. I currently have one purely because I get matched contributions however I constantly waiver on whether I should stop because I'm concerned that the minority with decent private pensions may be 'mugged' in future to redistribute the money to those without by tax and benefit changes.

N1AK, it IS true that people have "earned" their pension. As an example (and apologies because I keep mentioning it) I sent money from taxed money from overseas in order to receive more qualifying years for my State Pension. It is directly related to the amount you contribute. This as opposed to, say, JSA, where you may have had to be in the Country for 3 years, have an NI number or whatever the criteria is.

So how much your Basic State Pension is depends entirely and precisely on the individual contribution (we are not discussing how this is funded by the Treasury).

Even though I hadn't planned at that stage to the UK, it was a part of my retirement planning, and I wish I'd started it earlier.

---

On another subject, the State Pension age is no longer linked to retirement. For myself, I qualified for mine at 60 (I am now 66, clickety click), but deferred it till 62 in the hope that I would live until about 70 when having lost the "capital" of the two years pension, I would get a higher weekly amount and break-even on the deal.

---

On the private pension argument, there are five arguments for having a private pension (which is actively managed and invested well into):
1) You get tax breaks. So on 20% tax level, that is the equivalent of a 20% return on your investment. There are few other investments which give that return on investment and which is a guaranteed ROI. You then also get, hopefully, gain on the actual investment.

2) Your company usually contributes, and the higher your contribution, the higher your company contributes. This is simply free money. What's not to love.

3) It's protected - it's difficult to get the money no matter how much you need it during your younger years. And also (unsure about this in the UK), protected if you go bankrupt).

4) On retirement the money usually purchases an annuity - and yes, I know you can have a different form where your lump sum is sold to give you your pension and you hope for growth to keep the lump sum going and your pension level high, just can't remember what it's called in the UK ("Living Annuity" in South Africa). UK rules may also be different. But this point is about the annuity - as you get older it seems that you have to be more fiscally canny than when you work. Having an annuity is plain and simple. That's the advantage I mention (and not how annuity rates may be really poor currently).

At the moment I am grateful for my annuity, rather than savings interest rates for my pension. It was also a Company rate and therefore no diminished because I was female (IIRC), and a better rate than I could get in the market place.

5) You get one-third out as a lump sum. I paid additional contributions into my pension. When I retired that money (which went in as tax-deductible, came out tax-free). I paid off my house, bought a car, and now have some savings as a cushion.

I realise that there are cons - the money is taxed when it comes out of the pot as income; it may not be bequeathable (the "Living Annuity" is - sorry for not remembering the UK name). Annuity rates are poor, and as people also live longer the rates reduce. (So they are reduced currently for women who apparently still live longer than men, although that will reduce as more women work longer, smoke, eat badly etc).

But I am very grateful for my private pension, and frankly I think everyone should be using ISA's AND private pensions for their retirement planning, to enable them to retire when they wish to, and to use the Basic State Pension as a top up when that kicks in.

CLAPTON

in general terms one would expect that as the age distribtuion changes then so would the resources (money) that are spent on them change too.

So if the birth rate drops one expects to see, in total the spending on the young drop, if the birth rate rises one would expect to see a rise in the total spending on children.
In general this is not 'funded' spending but simply money from current income/taxation (in total there is of course nothing else).

In a similar way one would expect the same for old people too.

So a sensible question is what sort of percentage of the country's income should be available to 'old' people? (or indeed children or people of working age)

grizzly1911

N1AK wrote: »

Firstly great post Grizzly; a good and reasoned defence :T

What I would say is that taxation as a percentage of GDP has remained effectively unchanged at ~36% in the UK since the 1970s and is actually increasing recently (likely to be a blip). So if tax dodging has become a bigger issue it is only because the target tax burden has increased as well.

The bus subsidies, heating allowances and license fees can all be explained away as nominal costs or indirect subsidy but I think we both know that in reality they were brought in as vote buying measures (why not simply increase the state pension otherwise).

My main objection to most of the arguments defending the benefits the current elderly 'should' get is that it ignores the figures that support the view that it won't be affordable to offer to the future elderly.

The biggest voting block in this country is now either retired or close to retirement. They are now supporting government policies like auto-enrolment in private pensions and increased retirement ages; policies they wouldn't have supported when they were young enough to actually be negatively affected by them.

Yet the opinion of many now is that we should honour without question the extremely generous benefits that generation promised themselves without funding.

Thanks for your thanks;)

You are right that tax dodging has always prevailed to some extent. There are three sides to it IMO. The first you quite rightly point out is that the expenditure side is hardening it is no longer ebbing and flowing.

The second is that individuals and corporations, in particular, are getting more aggressive in there dodging mechanisms, particularly as many are now global operators rather than domestic.

The third is that as larger numbers are becoming economically inactive the ratio of tax generators to tax consumers is deteriorating. This isn't so much the benefit itself is wrong it is that as we "decline", as a nation, those benefits need to be reassessed against other priorities. I know you like overseas aid but that is being increased when it must be questioned for example.

I agree that the benefits should have been "pensioned" but that was not done for political reasons no doubt.

For many pensions simply weren't available in the workplace like they are now. It simply wasn't an option. It wasn't offered by employers and it didn't have the headlines. For those that did make provision it was often by their own savings which are also now under attack with poor interest rates and inflation. This also has the added impact of putting them outside means tested benefits even they may technically be £1 over a relatively low threshold.

There will always be a percentage that are not in a position to make "meaningful" provision and the way the jobs market is going that is likely to get worse.

It was the governments of the day that set the tax laws and the older generations will still have paid what they were obliged too. If the governments had planned properly and individuals had been made to pay +x% they would have done so.

The economy has quite rightly been likened to the Titanic. It takes a generation or more for changes to ripple through and the helm should have been turning 20/30 years ago. In the same expecting soon to be pensioners to be suddenly stripped of "finances" at this point in their lifecycle is unjust. If there truly are pensioners with incomes deemed "too high" then by all means rein it in through judicious tax changes with reasonable thresholds in place.

Many pensioners with occupational pensions don't have mega pensions , more often than not just a few thousand to lift them out of the Pension Guarantee and additional benefit allowances such as "council tax relief". They often pay tax and will be consumers contributing to the pot through VAT.