We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The reality of the Pension Debt (To encourage discussion)
Comments
-
Since NI is no longer considered to be towards your pension, (this is OFFICIAL!!!) they are effectively paying 20% extra income tax.
Citation, please, that this is the case? From a government source, not the Daily Mail or The Sun or pulled from elsewhere like other comments made else-thread.
Bear in mind that the government have recently lowered the number of years NI contributions required for full state pension, indicating that NI is still considered to be towards your pension.Conjugating the verb 'to be":
-o I am humble -o You are attention seeking -o She is Nadine Dorries0 -
The current system of having them sat around in large family houses freezing to death too scared to go out while their grandchildren sleep 4 to a room is ridiculous.
Ah.Clearly you have never heard of the Skiers club. This is probably a good thing as it might bring on premature death due to apoplexy.
:D Trying to keep it simple...0 -
Yes, you only have to do 30 years if you're young enough - seems to exclude the 50-80 age group. And burglar broon seems to have given enough notice/robbed a lot less from the under-50s, shurely shum mistake as they say...Paul_Herring wrote: »Bear in mind that the government have recently lowered the number of years NI contributions required for full state pension, indicating that NI is still considered to be towards your pension.
Wonder which age-group voted them back in (twice) - could it be the "they've robbed me" oldies, or the me me me, now now, now, givvus the credit/debt generation..?0 -
young people simply can't afford to save for a pension because taxes are too high.
I would argue that 'young people' can afford to pay into a pension simply because it is a matter of choice on where to spend the money, and I would argue that a good majority of 'young people' don't have enough savvy concerning what to do with the money they have. With credit being available almost free with a pint of Fosters at the local, the value of money is different to those of the older generation.
And another thing, keep your hands off of Cornwall. I like to holiday there and I don't want to scratch my car on discarded zimmer frames as I hurtle along the winding country lanes. Gordon Brown ate my hamster0 -
Wonder which age-group voted them back in (twice) - could it be the "they've robbed me" oldies, or the me me me, now now, now, givvus the credit/debt generation..?
From http://www.essex.ac.uk/bes/Papers/ec%20report%20final.pdfThe key finding here is that, as in 2001, age remains a crucial predictor of turnout – younger cohorts of voters are significantly less likely to vote than their older counterparts.
I guess, from that, it's the "they've robbed me" oldies.Conjugating the verb 'to be":
-o I am humble -o You are attention seeking -o She is Nadine Dorries0 -
SquatNow, it only takes a moments thought to realise that condemning millions of people for "asset stripping the nation" is senseless. If you thought about that statement for a little while, you would realise that the vast majority were just ordinary working people, told by the government and pensions policy makers how to pay for their pensions. If you want to blame anyone, blame the politicians and civil servants that created the situation, not those that benefited from it.
I see your point, but it doesn't answer the question.
Lets simplify it... they befitted immediately from being lied to... should we now compensate them for having been lied to? If we do, then how do we compensate them, given that they own about 90% of the nations wealth already?Paul_Herring wrote: »Citation, please, that this is the case? From a government source, not the Daily Mail or The Sun or pulled from elsewhere like other comments made else-thread.
I can't be bothered to find an exact quote, so try this one:
The creation of the National Second Pension plan or whatever they are calling it? Why would be need a compulsory second "national insurance" when we already have one?Paul_Herring wrote: »Bear in mind that the government have recently lowered the number of years NI contributions required for full state pension, indicating that NI is still considered to be towards your pension.
That was just a tax break/bribe for old ladies... pay a few hundreds in back taxes and be entitled to full state pension worth thousands.True, however if this data has come from ONS (which it probably has) then they use the median rather thn the mean to minimise the effect
Who appoints the head the ONS... would to be Gordon "fiddle the figures" Brown perhaps? The advantage of statistics is you can make them say what you want. You just tell the ONS to produce figures showing the average wages is enough to afford an average house, and boom, you have figures to show it. A tweak here, a tweak there... that's all it needs.Bankruptcy isn't the worst that can happen to you. The worst that can happen is your forced to live the rest of your life in abject poverty trying to repay the debts.0 -
SquatNow, there are several solutions available:
1. Increase taxes on pensioners earning over say 10,000 a year until 2030, phasing it out until 2040, capped at no more than 50% of the basic state pension in extra tax paid.
2. Increase taxes on the early baby boomers who are still working, say those aged over 55, so that they start to pay for some of the costs of the state pension benefits they will receive, just as their children must. Limited to only those earning more than 10,000 a year.
3. Already happening is increasing the retirement age of women so that women who work a full working life don't get to pay contributions for five fewer years, then get the same pension as a man for a life expectancy of five years more. But could be made to happen faster.
4. Already happening, increasing the retirement age. Could be made to happen faster for men in the baby boom period over age 55 today, so they retire later and contribute more to their pensions through a longer working life.
Each of these measures addresses some of the inequality in a pension system that had and has baby boomers paying taxes to provide pensions for a relatively small number of retired people, but which when they retire gives them a higher pension benefit paid for by a smaller proportion of working children.
It might be difficult for a government to get elected if it actually tried to do this - the same boomer generation is not likely to appreciate being asked to pay for its benefits when they could instead continue with the current practice of making their children pay for them.
Upset baby boomers should note that this post is only about the state pension that is funded by taxing those currently working to pay for those currently retired. Work and private pensions aren't in any way involved because those were paid for by contributions for the retiring person (and I'll ignore unfunded, paid for out of current taxes civil service pensions for the moment).0 -
Ah! right. :rolleyes:I can't be bothered to find an exact quote
[MIND THE CREDIBILITY GAP! ]
As it's a main point of your original [strike]rant[/strike] argument that [strike]your target hate group[/strike] older folks enjoyed lower taxes in the past, could you please be bovvered to point out the evidence for that claim over say the last 40-50yrs?
Otherwise I think your signature could be greatly improved by adding the words,
" by making it up as I go along! "
0 -
I can't be bothered to find an exact quote, so try this one:
The creation of the National Second Pension plan or whatever they are calling it? Why would be need a compulsory second "national insurance" when we already have one?
Yet more rubbish from someone who clarly has no grasp of the facts.That was just a tax break/bribe for old ladies... pay a few hundreds in back taxes and be entitled to full state pension worth thousands.
And again.
It's not worth debating with someone so poorly informed.Trying to keep it simple...0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards