Taxpayers' Alliance: Cut pensioner benefits 'immediately'

Sapphire

Not at all. I think any sensible person can live comfortably on £150 a week after paying rent. Many people manage on far less.

I'm afraid the reality is much worse than you paint it (perhaps from your own experiences it is not too bad?). However, I've seen how badly off many pensioners are – I'm not talking about anyone who has a heated pool and other luxuries, but those very far from it. And £150 does not leave much over from the 'basics', which include very expensive heating, as well as food, to gain any real enjoyment out of life. Remember that some elderly people have decades ahead of them once they have retired. What do you expect them to do? Sit in front of the TV and read books, or go on an occasional inexpensive outing if they can afford it? Some reward at the end of an often productive life.

As I said, callous – especially towards people who have put in a huge amount during their lives, unlike many who are given free housing, education and health services while having put in absolutely nothing. The pension provisions in Britain are very low compared to those of other 'civilised' countries – but then that just illustrates ageist attitudes towards elderly and often very vulnerable people in this country, with remarks such as 'they've stolen money from us', or those from the idiot from the taxpayers' alliance who thought he was being so very funny, etc. Disgusting.

Nick_C

Sapphire wrote: »

£150 does not leave much over from the 'basics', which include very expensive heating, as well as food, to gain any real enjoyment out of life.

That £150 is more than they would have if they were working 40 hours a week for minimum wage and paying rent.

Its twice as much as they would get if they were of working age but unemployed.

From that £150, I could easily cover the basics and still have £50 a week for luxuries.

Remember that some elderly people have decades ahead of them once they have retired.

Indeed. I have retired, and I hope I have decades ahead of me!

What do you expect them to do? Sit in front of the TV and read books, or go on an occasional inexpensive outing if they can afford it? Some reward at the end of an often productive life.

I am finding that there are lots of enjoyable ways to spend your time that cost little or nothing. Since retiring three years ago, I have been surprised how little I need. No more expensive travelling to work. No need to buy new clothes. And some of the best things in life really are free. A walk in the park, a visit to a museum, the time to visit friends and family or talk to neighbours.

But this is somewhat irrelevant. I'm not attacking people on Pensioner Credit - the ones with £150 a week to live on. I'm saying people above this level of income - people like myself - should not get WFA, bus passes, free prescriptions. We don't need it. That money would be better spent reducing the national debt and easing the burden on taxpayers.

missyrichards

Nick_C wrote: »

Indeed. I have retired, and I hope I have decades ahead of me!

But this is somewhat irrelevant. I'm not attacking people on Pensioner Credit - the ones with £150 a week to live on. I'm saying people above this level of income - people like myself - should not get WFA, bus passes, free prescriptions. We don't need it. That money would be better spent reducing the national debt and easing the burden on taxpayers.

Yes, exactly. I would feel the same way in your position.:T

molerat

I have a friend who looks forward to his "christmas drinks payment" every year

I think taxing rather than means testing is the way forward. That includes ALL benefits for ALL age groups.

Nick_C

molerat wrote: »

I have a friend who looks forward to his "christmas drinks payment" every year

I think taxing rather than means testing is the way forward. That includes ALL benefits for ALL age groups.

The Christmas Bonus is a joke. When it was introduced in 1972 it was £10. If it had been uprated with inflation, it would now be £126. It would be best if it was now scrapped for everyone.

Taxing all benefits would create a further administrative burden. Take the WFA. Would you pay it net or gross? If net, then non tax payers would have to claim back the tax. If paid gross, then taxpayers would have to declare the income and pay the tax. That's just not cost effective, and places a further administrative burden on both pensioners and the government.

And how would you tax the value of free prescriptions?

Means testing already exists for Pensioner Credit. Make that a passport for the other benefits, and you have a cheap solution to targeting WFA and the like using existing systems.

princeofpounds

pensioner's benefits absolutely should be means tested.

Means-testing of benefits is superficially sensible. It ensures money goes to the poorest. Who can argue with that?


The problem is that, just as with any benefits system, there is an unsolveable dilemma at the heart of it.


If you means-test benefits, you end up with a situation where those at the border of the benefit are mathematically faced with a punishing marginal tax rate. This disincentivises providing for oneself, promotes dependency and raises the bill of the benefit.


Why bother working 48 hours a week at a minimum wage job in the approach to your retirement, when you are only 10% better off (let's say - it's only to make the point) than your peer on benefits who has a week of pure (yet admittedly frugal) leisure time?


You can reduce the impact of the marginal tax rate, but then you have to widen the boundary of people caught in the trap. You can allow people to retain their benefits for longer whilst starting to provide for themselves, but then it is more expensive.


That's just mathematics. An impossible trinity of cost, marginal tax rates and benefits coverage.


Personally, I think that if any benefit is fair to be considered universal, it is the basic state pension. Old age affects us all, whether rich or poor.


There is something of a mistaken assumption these days that all taxes must be progressive to be 'good', as if redistribution were the only virtuous function of the tax system, and it is a similar mistake that all 'good' benefits must be means-tested (although I think for the majority of benefits it does make sense)

ukcarper

Just watched Liam Fox say he is against cutting pensioner benefits this parliament.

MrRee_2

My Winter Fuel Allowance pays to heat my swimming pool over the cold months, therefore it's needed.

This pool keeps me healthy and fit - therefore it's an absolute bargain for the taxpayer.

Would you rather me be using a hospital bed and taking up valuable/expensive time and drugs?

What seems perverse is sometimes not .....

Nick_C

princeofpounds wrote: »

Means-testing of benefits is superficially sensible ... The problem is that, just as with any benefits system, there is an unsolveable dilemma at the heart of it ...

I agree, but I still thinks its a reasonable solution to a short term problem.

We should of course be trying to ensure that people save throughout their lifetime for their pensions. I think the (coalition) pension reforms are putting things right. A decent basic state pension, coupled with a requirement for all employers to provide pensions as well.

Thatcher recognised the problem of the pensions timebomb back in the 80s, but she didn't do enough about it. I started personally saving/investing for retirement when I was 22. I didn't expect state pensions to still be around when I got to pensionable age. Unfortunately most people have not done this. If anything, Thatcher's "personal pension" reforms resulted in many people ending up with worse pensions than they would have done if they stayed in SERPS or their company schemes.

But we will always need a safety net. You might think from reading some of these posts that all pensioners have worked hard and paid tax all their life. But of course some have not. The safety net still needs to be there for some people, and it should be enough for them to get by with a reasonable standard of living, but not keeping them in luxury. I think the Pensioner Credit scheme does that, and is if anything possibly too generous. But real success will be when pensioners no longer look to the state to provide for them in their old age.

lisyloo

some-one of 'contribution ' age (say at least 15 years old ) in 1930 would now be 100 years old. Probably not too many people to worry about

I think you've missed my point (and that's almost certainly my fault).
In the 40's, 50's and 60's and even 70's, not many people had the means to contribute and those brought up in early times who are unsophisticated financially may never have expected to make provision.
So it's not fair to label those more elderly people in our society as !!!!less or lacking a moral compass just because they haven't made provision.