Council Tax reduction

wildwestfan

dodger1 wrote: »

As a pensioner you haven't heard me shouting. I've always said I'm very grateful for what I get as I think most pensioners are. What I find is that other people keep shouting for pensioner's rights without actually asking us what we think.

Pensioners are a different proposition to those
that have become used to very generous welfare benefits for those of working age. I think there are far less of us with an entitled to viewpoint. The take up of pension credit is still quite poor, not least because many older people still see it as 'charity' whilst seeing their basic pension as their right so no problem claiming that.

I'm not exactly grateful for what we receive in pension, anymore than I am grateful for the payments from my private pension scheme, it is what we paid for all those years.

There will always be those casting covetous eyes at pensioner benefits forgetting that for many of us it has been a long hard slog to get that far.

SandraScarlett

HappyMJ wrote: »

Yes...there is no way the contributions you have made will be enough to cover all the costs of living in retirement @ £1,500 a week. You would have had to earn a very significant income to be a net contributor to the system so you use your own money until it runs out then you can get state provided care for free.

Alas, there are many aspects to the way care fees are charged for self funders. If you are in this position, part of what you pay is to help the deficit of what is paid for those who are claiming.

The Councils state what they will pay Care Homes, and if this is insufficient to cover the costs for those that receive state funding, these are recouped from the self funders.

So in fact they are paying for their own care out of their savings, funding others if they are still taxpayers and helping to support those residents who have their insufficient fees paid by the council. That's really fair, isn't it.

I'm happy that DH and I have choice as to the sort of Care Home he will have to go to eventually, but is it fair that we should also help fund the others?

xx

SandraScarlett

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Absolutely. Those who didn't pay in end up better off than those who did. That can't be right. Nor is it in the spirit of the Welfare State.

So true. I know you are in a similar position to me SDW, and, as you say, the Welfare State wasn't formed in the spirit it is now being implemented.

xx

SandraScarlett

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I just do not see why people who have paid in for decades should then be penalised because they have managed to save some money, or accrue another pension as well as the State one, whereas someone who BY CHOICE has not paid in to anything can get the same or more.

And that's the crux of it. If those people choose not to pay in, why should they be better off?

xx

Marisco

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I agree that pensioners should not be exempt from the reduction in Housing Benefit.

I don't mind losing my WFA if necessary, but please don't touch my bus pass!

We too don't claim any extras, but I still don't see why those who have paid in for decades should not have more than those who haven't (unless it was beyond their control). Would you expect an insurance policy which you had paid into all your life to pay out, or would you expect the scheme administrators to say 'oh sorry, I know you've paid in alll your life but so-an-so hasn't,although they had the chance, so we are going to take some from you and give it to them'? I don't think so!

It was my understanding though, that how much pension you got, depended on how long you've contributed. I know it's gone from 39 years to 30 for women, so someone who hasn't paid in will only get a basic (don't know how much it is mind) pension, whilst someone who's put in a "full shift" gets more. Has this changed then?

But TBH I was talking more about the "extras" than the pension itself. If I used buses (which I very rarely do) I can afford to pay the fare, I can't really see it right that someone on a low income pays for the likes of me (who can afford to pay) to go free on a bus. I'd rather see the genuine job seekers who have to travel to interviews, and folk who cannot afford the full fare get it, than people like me.

Marisco

wildwestfan wrote: »

Pensioners are a different proposition to those
that have become used to very generous welfare benefits for those of working age. I think there are far less of us with an entitled to viewpoint. The take up of pension credit is still quite poor, not least because many older people still see it as 'charity' whilst seeing their basic pension as their right so no problem claiming that.

I'm not exactly grateful for what we receive in pension, anymore than I am grateful for the payments from my private pension scheme, it is what we paid for all those years.

There will always be those casting covetous eyes at pensioner benefits forgetting that for many of us it has been a long hard slog to get that far.

What age group are you talking about though? Although I'm a pensioner I certainly don't see it like that. If I had to claim I would certainly do so, no hesitation at all, and I wouldn't think of it as charity either.

wildwestfan

Marisco wrote: »

What age group are you talking about though? Although I'm a pensioner I certainly don't see it like that. If I had to claim I would certainly do so, no hesitation at all, and I wouldn't think of it as charity either.

This is the latest report I could find. Looks like about 2/3rd of those eligible take up pension credit.
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/department-for-work-pensions/series/income-related-benefits-estimates-of-take-up--2

About your other point. Yes theoretically pension is on contributions but if someone has made very few or in fact even no contributions then they can apply for pension credit which if awarded will give an income in excess of the basic pension plus lots of add ons. Pension credit is Income Support for pensioners.

KxMx

SandraScarlett wrote: »

And that's the crux of it. If those people choose not to pay in, why should they be better off?

xx

Life isn't always fair, and the welfare system is never going to be 100% perfect.
There are many reasons why a person reaching retirement may not have savings/paid in.
It would be impossible to "police" everyone and a judgement made whether or not they "chose" how they have ended up, and award them benefits or not, what a silly notion.
I do not begrudge pensioners the money they have saved or the pensions they have worked for and paid into.
But fairness aside if the country cannot afford to pay something will have to give. The Government in their wisdom (!) want the welfare bill down. If this has to hit pensioners too then it has to hit pensioners.
To me it really is that simple.
Things like WFA and bus pass should have a cut off point, albiet a generous one in recognition of contributions already made.
And something should be done about pensioners living alone in 3 bed social houses with full rent and council tax paid.
Can the country afford to keep pensioners in houses bigger than they need? That is not in the spirit of the welfare state either when there are families living in B&B accommodation. Help those who need help not those who could in some cases downsize.

wildwestfan

KxMx wrote: »

Life isn't always fair, and the welfare system is never going to be 100% perfect.
There are many reasons why a person reaching retirement may not have savings/paid in.
It would be impossible to "police" everyone and a judgement made whether or not they "chose" how they have ended up, and award them benefits or not, what a silly notion.
I do not begrudge pensioners the money they have saved or the pensions they have worked for and paid into.
But fairness aside if the country cannot afford to pay something will have to give. The Government in their wisdom (!) want the welfare bill down. If this has to hit pensioners too then it has to hit pensioners.
To me it really is that simple.
Things like WFA and bus pass should have a cut off point, albiet a generous one in recognition of contributions already made.
And something should be done about pensioners living alone in 3 bed social houses with full rent and council tax paid.
Can the country afford to keep pensioners in houses bigger than they need? That is not in the spirit of the welfare state either when there are families living in B&B accommodation. Help those who need help not those who could in some cases downsize.

Is it fair though that someone who has paid in very little or nothing is in a very similar financial position to someone who has worked for decades plus gone without some luxuries voluntarily in order to make better provision for themselves in retirement.

I do agree that the reduction in housing benefit payments when one has extra rooms should probably have applied to pensioners but who is going to turf out an 80+ year old? Nature is going to take care of that issue.

I freely admit that we could manage without the WFA but it was started originally in place of a rise in the basic pension. It actually is £1.92 a week each for us. Simply because it is paid in a lump sum people tend to think it is a huge amount. There are very few of us, benefit claimants or working who would claim that losing less than £2 a week is going to plunge them into poverty.

I honestly wish the government would announce a small rise in basic pension perhaps £2 and do away with the WFA. That would then be one thing less to complain about pensioners receiving. Plus of course a rise in taxable pension would mean 40p or so back to the exchequer each week. So would only cost £1.60 a week for taxpaying pensioners. I could complain about ESA, DLA etc not being taxable benefits whilst retirement pension is.

I don't think anyone claiming DLA mobilty should get the bus pass as they already have help with mobility needs.

portly1

Marisco wrote: »

It was my understanding though, that how much pension you got, depended on how long you've contributed. I know it's gone from 39 years to 30 for women, so someone who hasn't paid in will only get a basic (don't know how much it is mind) pension, whilst someone who's put in a "full shift" gets more. Has this changed then?

How many Qualifying Years do I need?

Since 6th April 2010 the amount of qualifying years required to receive a full Basic State Pension is 30 years. If you have less than 30 years, you get a thirtieth (1/30) of the State Pension for each qualifying year.
More than thirty qualifying years does not mean that you will get more than the full Basic State Pension though.
Before this date, women needed 39 qualifying years and men needed 44 qualifying years.



I've worked and paid my NI for 44 years (16 - 60) In all of my working life I have never claimed any benefits as never out of work and never long term sick.

Up to 2010 that would have guaranteed me a full state pension at 65. Now they have reduced it to 30 years - what happened to the other 14 years of contributions?
Looking back now I would be no worse off if I had ditched starting to work until I was 30. Drawn every benefit available for those years up to age 30 AND still qualified for a full pension.

Then we have the 'rip off' of being told that if we work as hard as we can in those 44 years and earn as much as we can, we will get an uplift in our state pension to recompense the large amount paid into the NI scheme.

So as I said I worked 14 years too long and earned far too much simply because for all of the years that my salary exceeded £100,000 a year the nice government are giving me an extra £58 top up a week as a 'second pension'!!

Ironically if I had never paid any NI (worked cash in hand) and claimed maximum benefits whenever I could, the lovely government would be handing me a guaranteed pension of £145.40 a week.

So for the princely sum of an extra £23 a week I nearly sent myself to an early grave!! And that is fair???