State pensions should be slashed

CLAPTON

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

I don't understand how that has anything to do with what I was saying.

I am saying that successive govermnents have accepted contributions in return for a guarantee that in due course a pension will be paid, of a specified amount which is indexed each year.
That's a contract, by the normally accepted laws of this country. We don't make contracts with governments for other services - so much defence, so many miles of motorway, etc, but we do with our pensions, which is why our payments are called "contributions" not taxation.

we don't have a contract with the government for our pensions nor do they guarantee any specified amount or even at what age it will be paid or how it will be indexed linked.

the reason why, at any point in time, the details of the pension promise are defined is obvious, whereas there is no point in trying to define the eventual future motorway infrastructure or level of policing or defense.

hugheskevi

Some excellent Government expenditure statistics here. These show (2013/14 statistics unless stated):

• State pension expenditure is £83bn. Expenditure on all pensioner benefits is £110bn. Total spend on benefits and tax credits is £204bn (Great Britain)
  
• State pension is 51% of DWP annual expenditure.

Expenditure on public service pensions (NHS, Teachers, etc) is £36bn (source here).

NIESR estimated that:

A study into intergenerational transfer found that Britons over the age of 40 have been net beneficiaries from the state, leaving a multi-trillion-pound bill that will have to be picked up by future generations.

While the average 65-year-old has enjoyed a net £223,183 state subsidy above the tax paid, a new-born child will have to contribute a net £159,668 over their lifetime.

nashly

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

Just to add that the very rich are "means-tested" in a way. The State Pension is taxable and the tax regime reduces tax allowances so that ultimately the very rich are paying the same tax as anyone else.


https://www.gov.uk/income-tax-rates

Some unemployment benefit is taxable as well

mgdavid

a few posts seem to suggest that NI contributions are specifically for the State pension fund; what about the NHS? - I thought that was supposed to be funded from NI contribs too? If NHS spend uses up all the NI contribs, and then some, one could postulate that the State pension must be being paid out of general Gov'ment funds and is therefore on the same basis as a benefit.

BobQ

nashly wrote: »

down to unemployment benefit rates as state pensions are the biggest drain on this country by far, as the government states that a single or couple can live on unemployment benefit then why can't pensioners who don't have to spend money looking for work and probably eat less than younger people live on the same rates ?

It would save the UK from a catastrophe that the pension bill will cause.

A friend of mine told me 20 years ago that I would live to see the day pensioners were provided with a compulsory cyanide pill for their 75th birthday.

And I thought he was joking.

Thrugelmir

Andy_L wrote: »

The pension is CPI, but then has the triple lock of inflation/wages/2.5% so its reasonable to call them the same.

At some point it will become a single lock of wages.

Thrugelmir

Andy_L wrote: »

The pension is CPI, but then has the triple lock of inflation/wages/2.5% so its reasonable to call them the same.

At some point it will become a single lock linked to wages.

Broadwood

BobQ wrote: »

A friend of mine told me 20 years ago that I would live to see the day pensioners were provided with a compulsory cyanide pill for their 75th birthday.

And I thought he was joking.

Advances in medicine combined with the welfare state have continued to raise life expectancy seemingly almost without limit. We can't predict what it will be 25 or even 50 years from now.

Maybe in time we will realise that quality of life is far more important than length of life and adjust our morals and ethics to accommodate this fact. I personally want to end my life at a time of my choosing and not be kept alive past my natural mental or physical "use-by" date.

IMHO this needs to be openly discussed instead of being almost a taboo subject.

taktikback

How exactly did we get from "state pensions should be slashed" to "we should kill ourselves"?

CLAPTON

Broadwood wrote: »

Advances in medicine combined with the welfare state have continued to raise life expectancy seemingly almost without limit. We can't predict what it will be 25 or even 50 years from now.

Maybe in time we will realise that quality of life is far more important than length of life and adjust our morals and ethics to accommodate this fact. I personally want to end my life at a time of my choosing and not be kept alive past my natural mental or physical "use-by" date.

IMHO this needs to be openly discussed instead of being almost a taboo subject.

rubbish

it's discussed widely in the newspapers and TV

people can end their lives quite easily if they wish
most choose not to

quality of live is in the eyes of the beholder

do you ever discuss this with your friends and family?