2015 - what will it hold?

Crashy_Time

Aberdeen house prices will collapse.

tkane

MrRee wrote: »

So the lazy chav who hasn't paid at all .... gets a bigger Pension than someone who has paid in for 50 years??

Yeah, right, that's fair then!

The lazy chav gets working age benefits, housing benefit, free prescriptions etc. whilst you are out working and paying tax.

Is that fair?

Do you propose to dismantle the welfare state?

Masomnia

purch wrote: »

Good. I'll be dead by the time you retire.

Hmm, you'll be pushing 90, as I don't plan to work past 60. This may be wildly optimistic, though.

Pennywise

MrRee wrote: »

Means tested State Pension .... is it really fair that someone who has worked hard for 50 years and paid in NI Contributions all that time gets their Pension entitlement removed, just because they have been successful and built up a Pension Pot worth £50,000 a year?

Is it really fair that parents who earn over £50k get the child benefit taken from them? No.

Those "hard workers" who have supposedly paid in all those years will have almost certainly benefitted from other state services over that time, such as the infrastructure, NHS, schools, defence, emergency services, etc. The average "hard worker" will have paid in only a fraction of what they take out over their lives.

Is it fair that someone receiving twice the national average wage in retirement continues to get state benefits? No.

The country is virtually bankrupt. A few % points of spending cuts won't even begin to scratch the surface. Those with bigger pockets have to pay more. If there's a choice between tax/nic rises for everyone as opposed to slightly reducing the income of the top few percent then that sounds like a good plan.

lisyloo

Is it fair that someone receiving twice the national average wage in retirement continues to get state benefits? No.

My view is that depends on what basis you paid it.
(I am aware that state pensions aren't "funded").
If you pay in purely to help the less fortunate and you are fortunate then you should not expect anything back.
However if you pay in partly to fund your own benefits and you are told that for decades then it's perfectly fair to expect a return EVEN if you won the lottery (we're talking about fairness here not deservingness).

The problem of course is that it's not "funded" i.e. the money isn't saved, so current pensioners have to be paid for by current tax payers.

I don't think rich people are "deserving" of state benefits, but if they paid in and there was an agreement, then it's perfectly fair that they should expect something back.
Taking things off people which in all fairness is theirs, simply because they aren't deserving, is tantamount to theft.

Of course "we are where we are" so there's no point saying "it should have been funded" when the fact is it wasn't.

CLAPTON

Pennywise wrote: »

Is it really fair that parents who earn over £50k get the child benefit taken from them? No.

Those "hard workers" who have supposedly paid in all those years will have almost certainly benefitted from other state services over that time, such as the infrastructure, NHS, schools, defence, emergency services, etc. The average "hard worker" will have paid in only a fraction of what they take out over their lives.

Is it fair that someone receiving twice the national average wage in retirement continues to get state benefits? No.

The country is virtually bankrupt. A few % points of spending cuts won't even begin to scratch the surface. Those with bigger pockets have to pay more. If there's a choice between tax/nic rises for everyone as opposed to slightly reducing the income of the top few percent then that sounds like a good plan.

in what way are we virtually bankrupt?
we are one of the richest countries in the world and enjoy an appropriate lifestyle.

fairness is a total nonsense: impossible to define what it means and impossible to get people to agree even a working definition.

Pennywise

CLAPTON wrote: »

in what way are we virtually bankrupt?
we are one of the richest countries in the world and enjoy an appropriate lifestyle.

But our supposed richness and lifestyle is based on debt.

We spend more on debt interest than we do on education. We're lucky that interest rates are so low - a few percentage points higher and we'd be spending more that on the NHS making the current year deficits even worse.

Total govt debt is over a trillion pounds.

It will only get worse as the number of pensioners is forecast to increase greatly.

Our supposed richness is simply a ponzi scheme that will eventually collapse.

Pennywise

lisyloo wrote: »

I don't think rich people are "deserving" of state benefits, but if they paid in and there was an agreement, then it's perfectly fair that they should expect something back.
Taking things off people which in all fairness is theirs, simply because they aren't deserving, is tantamount to theft.

It's already started though hasn't it with the increase in state pension age which will only increase further.

I know there are a lot of women frothing at the mouth that their official state retirement age keeps getting put back.

What's "fairer"? The official retirement age getting pushed back time and time again for everyone, or means testing for the small proportion of relatively wealthy pensioners who don't actually "need" the state pension, i.e. as I suggest, those earning over £50k, i.e. twice the average wage for workers. If an individual is getting £50k or more income once they retire, then they simply don't need a state pension at a time when workers have to survive on £26k before tax and NIC.

Perelandra

lisyloo wrote: »

However if you pay in partly to fund your own benefits and you are told that for decades then it's perfectly fair to expect a return EVEN if you won the lottery (we're talking about fairness here not deservingness).

Indeed.

Either way, there should be an unchangeable promise made (yes, today's workers will get the pension regardless of their income // no, today's workers will get a mean-tested pension), so that people know what to aim for. If I want a target of £x p.a. in retirement, including state pension, I don't really want to have to overshoot on the expectation that state pension might be withdrawn from me.

Unfortunately, announcing a means-tested state pension would probably deter large numbers of those on the boundary from making any form of private provision. You'd need a pretty complicated form of tiering to keep people invested in their futures.

lisyloo

I know there are a lot of women frothing at the mouth that their official state retirement age keeps getting put back.

That's a tricky one, because I don't believe it was ever fair for women for retire earlier than men, although I do understand that expectation is very important especially if you've based a lifetimes financial planning on it.
If I was in their situation I would consider how much extra life expectancy I'd gained.

What's "fairer"? The official retirement age getting pushed back time and time again for everyone

When people are receiving a longer life expectancy it seems perfectly reasonable i.e. FAIR, for retirement age to go up (unless people opt to pay for it in taxes or personal retirement savings).
There is nothing stopping anyone saving more for their retirement unless they absolutely live on the breadline (most working people don't).

or means testing for the small proportion of relatively wealthy pensioners who don't actually "need" the state pension

I don't agree that it's morally justifiable to steal from the rich.
I have a car I don't need and 2 motorbikes - do you think it's ok for someone who needs them to just come and take them?

i.e. twice the average wage for workers

Does it make a difference if I have 10 spare cars?
Is it ok to steal them then?

when workers have to survive on £26k before tax and NIC.

So stealing is ok if you are poor and someone else has more?
Sorrry I simply don't agree.

BTW - I'm not rich, although I am planning my OWN retirement date that's not dictated by the state.