State pensions should be slashed

jamesd

nashly wrote: »

down to unemployment benefit rates as state pensions are the biggest drain on this country by far

nashly wrote: »

I think you need to re look at your figures, government spending purely on pensions alone is higher than health welfare or defence, in 2014 it will be 144 billion pounds.

You seem to have a very inflated idea of just how much the state pension budget is, and to be completely disregarding the National Insurance income which pays for the state pensions and other things like the NHS. It appears that you're using a misleading figure that even the apparent source describes as a guestimate. If it's a guestimate not deliberate false propaganda it might be including all pensions, including pensions for former government employees, not just the state pensions.

If you're interested in being accurate, the real spending on the state pensions in 2011-12 was £74.22 billion. Another source gives 2012-13 estimated spending on retirement pensions, including the Christmas bonus, as £79.321 billion. The same source reports that the National insurance Fund has for many years had a surplus of about £2 billion of income over expenditure, leading to a total surplus today of around £30 billion. That is desirable because the baby boomer generation is starting to retire and both cease paying NI and start to draw their own pensions.

You are getting what you asked for, though. This government has proposed a flat rate state pension that slashes pensions for those who have reasonably full working lives, cutting the state pensions from around £190 a week for a low earner to £144. Unfortunately, the pension portion of the NI Fund is to be used to replace means tested benefits like Pension Credit by paying that higher state pension to those who haven't worked at all or much or who just didn't pay in to the pension part. That will shift the spending from means tested benefits to the state pension budget for many people, making it look more like welfare than a benefit people have been paying for during their working lives.

CLAPTON

somethingcorporate wrote: »

Nice strawman there - because the alternative to giving people money is letting them starve? I wasn't aware that consuming fivers was part of a healthy diet.

Not heard of food vouchers or food banks? I don't see many people in this country starving and plenty of them don't have an income for one reason or another.

obviously I was using 'starving' as a (cryptic) metaphor for the essentials of life i.e. food, clothing, housing, heating etc

somethingcorporate

CLAPTON wrote: »

obviously I was using 'starving' as a (cryptic) metaphor for the essentials of life i.e. food, clothing, housing, heating etc

There are people with literally zero income - very few are naked, starving on the streets (I've never seen any).

My point was more than we don't actually have to give people cash money in the form of a pension to deal with those issues (clothing, housing, food).

CLAPTON

somethingcorporate wrote: »

There are people with literally zero income - very few are naked, starving on the streets (I've never seen any).

My point was more than we don't actually have to give people cash money in the form of a pension to deal with those issues (clothing, housing, food).

Indeed so.

However paying a pension to people at retirement age seems a fair and proportionate system and one I believe that will last a long long time given the alternatives.

Alikay

I'm pretty sure there won't be any state pension by the time I reach retirement age in 2027 (and I expect that'll change by another year or two before then!). I would expect at the very least state pension will become means-tested, so those with a private or employee pension, and their partners will only get it if their income is below a certain level.

There's just not going to be enough money in the pot to pay state pensions to all, and as with most other things such as social housing and child benefits, it'll be allocated according to need.

CLAPTON

Alikay wrote: »

I'm pretty sure there won't be any state pension by the time I reach retirement age in 2027 (and I expect that'll change by another year or two before then!). I would expect at the very least state pension will become means-tested, so those with a private or employee pension, and their partners will only get it if their income is below a certain level.

There's just not going to be enough money in the pot to pay state pensions to all, and as with most other things such as social housing and child benefits, it'll be allocated according to need.

If the state pension doesn't continue it will because stupid voters don't vote for parties that support it.

With the overall (non state ) pension provision falling then voting for smaller state pension is turkeys voting for christmas

nashly

Why can't a single person pension be £70 per week, if non pensioners are meant to be able to survive on unemployment benefits then pensioners should not be a special case and they should stop shafting the rest of us.

CLAPTON

nashly wrote: »

Why can't a single person pension be £70 per week, if non pensioners are meant to be able to survive on unemployment benefits then pensioners should not be a special case and they should stop shafting the rest of us.

in parts of the country rents will be more than 70 per week

nashly

CLAPTON wrote: »

in parts of the country rents will be more than 70 per week

For most I would thought who were renting, but what is your point ?

nashly

nashly wrote: »

Why can't a single person pension be £70 per week, if non pensioners are meant to be able to survive on unemployment benefits then pensioners should not be a special case and they should stop shafting the rest of us.

And don't forget a lot of them are the boomers that got this country into high debt as well with extortionate house price rises and easy credit, I think it's time they paid back society and be ashamed as well for what they have done.