Vent - My Mother (and her generation?)

missbiggles1

NewShadow wrote: »

Sorry, but while I agree it's technically a contribution based benefit, I have to agree there is an entitlement and it's not good to call it a 'benefit'.

But...

Anyone retired now is (on average) taking more out of the (NI) pot than they paid in (partly due to inflation and partly because the forecasts were very wrong on projected life expectancy).

Plus, there seems to be a misconception that there's a big pot of money sitting somewhere, like a savings account - Sorry, but it's all been spent already!

I'm just waiting for this:





http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/521244/State-pension-pot-empty-within-year

In general, pensioners don't consider it to be a benefit whereas non pensioners do.

NewShadow

Not disagreeing with you, but I'm not a pensioner

I think the winter fuel allowance and bus passes are benefits (though I can see their value).

I don't see a pension you've paid contributions towards as a benefit just because it's been mismanaged by the state (in a way that if a company had done it would be illegal).

missbiggles1

NewShadow wrote: »

Not disagreeing with you, but I'm not a pensioner

I think the winter fuel allowance and bus passes are benefits (though I can see their value).

I don't see a pension you've paid contributions towards as a benefit just because it's been mismanaged by the state (in a way that if a company had done it would be illegal).

Don't worry, I am.;)

Just because something's based on contributions doesn't mean that it isn't a benefit - both JSA and ESA can be contributions based. In addition, many people get all or part of their pension based on NI credits rather than contributions, some have never made a contribution in their life but still get a full pension.

maman

Petra_70 wrote: »

So what? Why SHOULDN'T they spend all - or most of - their disposable income?

You can't take it with you!

Imagine saving and scrimping for your retirement; never buying new cars, or going abroad, or just squandering on frivolous, fun things, so you can 'save' for your retirement, and then you die at 66?!

What's more, what the hell do you think your national insurance contributions go towards? Many people are entitled to claim that pension from the state. The state pension is not a benefit you know! And many pensioners are entitled to housing benefit too, whether it gets up your nose or not.

I mean, for all YOU know, many of these people you are berating, have probably paid 5 times more tax than YOU have!

Frankly, you sound a bit bitter.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear.


I don't have a problem per se with people spending all their disposable income while others put some away for their retirement. That's a 'jam today' personal choice.

What I do have a problem with is when those who've spent their money looking to the taxpayer to fund their retirement because of the indulgent choices they've made. By funding I don't mean State Pension but the additional benefits claimed because state pension isn't considered enough to live on.

To me, benefits are intended as a safety net for those who've fallen on hard times through illness, disability, low wages etc. not just as a lifestyle choice for those who've had the option of saving/contributing to a private pension but chose not to do so.

Sea_Shell

If only we had a crystal ball to know how long our money had to last.

No good living the high life too early and then living to 100 and spend the last umpty years living on beans on toast. But similarly, no good having ££££ left when you die, having not had time/health to enjoy it.

I'm hoping to leave a note, "there's no money left"!!!

lisa110rry

I would just like to compliment the OP on being able to write her feelings down in such a cohesive way. We all need to complain/vent sometimes and the fact she loves her Mum means she didn't want to scream in her face.

I'm about five years younger than her Mum and very much a glass half full person, but my own mother, born in 1920, was very much like the OP's Mum and it was just essential to let the harshness float away without response.

I hope the OP sees this...

duchy

You are looking at it from a Tory rather than a Socialist viewpoint and the generation you are talking about grew up as the first generation that were guaranteed a pension if their NI contributions were paid -unlike their parents many of whom had no pension.

Private pensions were for the salaried rather than the waged when they were young people starting work. Have attitudes changed since then ? Yes but to despise them as you do for growing put at a time when there was an expectation that your NI contributions were paying for a pension is just plain ignorance on your part.

maman wrote: »

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear.


I don't have a problem per se with people spending all their disposable income while others put some away for their retirement. That's a 'jam today' personal choice.

What I do have a problem with is when those who've spent their money looking to the taxpayer to fund their retirement because of the indulgent choices they've made. By funding I don't mean State Pension but the additional benefits claimed because state pension isn't considered enough to live on.

To me, benefits are intended as a safety net for those who've fallen on hard times through illness, disability, low wages etc. not just as a lifestyle choice for those who've had the option of saving/contributing to a private pension but chose not to do so.

mumps

duchy wrote: »

You are looking at it from a Tory rather than a Socialist viewpoint and the generation you are talking about grew up as the first generation that were guaranteed a pension if their NI contributions were paid -unlike their parents many of whom had no pension.

Private pensions were for the salaried rather than the waged when they were young people starting work. Have attitudes changed since then ? Yes but to despise them as you do for growing put at a time when there was an expectation that your NI contributions were paying for a pension is just plain ignorance on your part.

I thought the first state pensions were introduced in 1908 and in 1925 a contributions based pension for those aged 65 and over was started. The social policy module of my degree was along time ago but I do remember my mother talking about her grandmother getting her pension and she was born in the 1880s. She had a very hard life and my mother remembered her crying as she looked at the money in her hand and saying she couldn't believe she was going to be given that money every week.

My mother, born in the 1920s and not a baby boomer, certainly grew up with the expectation she would get a pension if she paid her "stamp" and she did pay it and she did get it.

ash28

mumps wrote: »

I thought the first state pensions were introduced in 1908 and in 1925 a contributions based pension for those aged 65 and over was started. The social policy module of my degree was along time ago but I do remember my mother talking about her grandmother getting her pension and she was born in the 1880s. She had a very hard life and my mother remembered her crying as she looked at the money in her hand and saying she couldn't believe she was going to be given that money every week.

My mother, born in the 1920s and not a baby boomer, certainly grew up with the expectation she would get a pension if she paid her "stamp" and she did pay it and she did get it.

You are right, the first state pension was introduced in 1908 for those age 70 or over, it was means tested and was 5/- a week.

In 1925 a contribution based pension was introduced, it was non means tested and payable from the age of 65.

The ages were changed for men and women in 1940 - 60 for women and 65 for men, that was to reflect the age difference between married couples as men were generally older than their wives and if they were claiming an enhanced pension because they had a wife they often had to wait several years to claim the "wife" element.

From 1948, men had to retire as well as reach 65 to claim the new Retirement Pension paid under the National Insurance scheme. If their wife was still under 60 when they reached 65 and retired they could claim an addition for her.

State pensions, in one form or another have been around over 100 years.

Pollycat

NewShadow wrote: »

Not my generation

Thank you to everyone for your remarkable interest in my fit of pique.

I do love my mother. I will miss her when she's gone (assuming she doesn't out live me).

In some ways we are very alike, and in others completely different.

(*Yorkshire violins*)

The fact is, I didn't get sent to an academy then grammar school; I didn't have my uni accommodation and food paid for; I didn't have my driving lessons paid for; I wasn't bought a car, I wasn't bought a house; I didn't have jobs 'found' for me when I was struggling to find work; I didn't inherit anything from my grand parents; and I'm not going to inherit anything from my parents.

She was well off - as the only child of an accountant, and was fortunate to have financially secure and generous parents that chose to pay the majority of her bills until she married. I understand this is not representative of everyone's experiences.

My mother, quite simply, did have it easier than me. My grandparents worked their socks off, never took holidays, and bent over backwards to make sure my mum had a much better quality of life than they had.

Truthfully this thread has made me realise how lucky she was, but how dependent/selfish it made her - I did for myself - no one to blame but myself if I screwed it up. No one to bail me out or make it all go away.

I can't say if it's easier or tougher now, but I'm fairly confident I could manage and make do wherever I might get plonked down. Take my mum's friends and family away - not so sure...

I wouldn't be at all surprised if your grandparents are turning in their graves (well, spinning actually) at how selfish their only very privileged daughter has turned out.