Taxpayers' Alliance: Cut pensioner benefits 'immediately'

lisyloo

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

Do you include state pension? State second pension?
BTW - I contracted out of SERPS and have the money in my own virtual "pot" for exactly this reason.
This is also the reason may people like physical bricks and mortar.

princeofpounds

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

It may well be in times where resources are tight and demands increasing. The point I was making was more general, as you did appreciate, but I thought it might be of interest to some.


It seems, looking worldwide, that pension schemes are hard for humans to do. Individuals tend not to plan that far ahead. Governments find it too tempting to raid the schemes (witness somewhere like Poland, which had set up world-leading funded schemes, which have just been half-nationalised to solve a debt/deficit problem. Or closer to home, Gordon Brown's dividends raid.)


And when we do it, bureaucrats tend to make it all rather complex. It shouldn't be a complex thing, but they always make it so.

Nick_C

molerat wrote: »

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

lisyloo wrote: »

Do you include state pension? State second pension?

State Pensions (including SERPS and State second pension) are already taxable.

With the personal tax allowance now at £10,600 and heading for £12,500 people on a basic pension with a small private pension won't be paying tax. Better off pensioners do pay tax. And rightly so.

Thrugelmir

princeofpounds wrote: »

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?

Employers now have to contribute to pension schemes with contribution levels progressively increasing. Money is money.

lisyloo

State Pensions (including SERPS and State second pension) are already taxable.

Taxing is not the same as means testing.
Means testing the state pension means that better-off pensioners won't get it at all.
For the rich that might be fair enough, For average but hard working people it would be very unfair indeed.

princeofpounds

Employers now have to contribute to pension schemes with contribution levels progressively increasing. Money is money.

I know, I know. I used that as an example to illustrate a point (hence the 'let's say' in brackets) - it was not intended to be a factual number in any respect.

Nick_C

lisyloo wrote: »

Taxing is not the same as means testing.

Indeed

lisyloo wrote: »

Means testing the state pension means that better-off pensioners won't get it at all. For the rich that might be fair enough, For average but hard working people it would be very unfair indeed.

Nobody on this thread has so far suggested that the state pension should be means tested.

Are you suggesting it should be?

lisyloo

Nobody on this thread has so far suggested that the state pension should be means tested..

Apologies. I mis-read what Molerat said that taxing and NOT means testing should apply (as it does currently for pensions).
No I don't think state pension should be means tested because it's already contributions based although I recognise the exact rules (age, number of working years etc.) may have to change because we haven't funded it.

ukcarper

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Employers now have to contribute to pension schemes with contribution levels progressively increasing. Money is money.

I believe employees can opt out silly to do so but I wonder how many will.

Mummyisbeauty

ukcarper wrote: »

I believe employees can opt out silly to do so but I wonder how many will.

Hubby doesn't but where he works some do. Personally I think it is best to up level if they have to match it. Get more out of company coffers and get a better old age.