HMRC sending out assessment tax forms to pensioners.

Exodi

SouthCoastBoy said:

I never understand why people are upset when the state pension increases, as it is for eveyones benefit, even those currently working.

Silvertabby said:

Exactly, a lot of people don't seem to realise that it's not only the pensions actually in payment that receive the increases.

pinnks said:

I agree - it is locked in for everyone.

Sorry but I think this is a naive view at best, and disingenuous at worse.

It is virtually inevitable that the state pension will need to be cut back at some point in the future. The only people that don't acknowledge this possibility seem to be current pensioners.

The ageing population is adding and will continue to add considerable pressure on public finances without change. As an example, there are expected to be 25% more pensioners in 2050 than today, while the general population is only expected to increase by ~10%. Despite the common belief that there is a pot of money somewhere that people pay into earmarked to pay their pensions, in reality the state pension is paid by current tax payers so the only way to maintain the current pension as is would be tax the living smithereens out of the relatively fewer working people. That's ignoring the additional health and social spending required for an aging population.

The triple lock is inherently unsustainable, and I think we all know it's only in place because most political parties would not get elected if they dare touched it (as older people have the highest voting turnout). Current predictions are that the tripe lock could cost somewhere between £5B - £40B extra per year in 2050 above average earnings.

Currently the lever of choice for the government (as it is the less confrontational) is to just keep moving the state pension age up and up, but not only is it plainly unfair, but it disproportionately affects people in poorer areas with lower life expectancy.

Personally, I find it 'frustrating' to imply younger taxpayers should have no problem subsidising large increases to the state pension, when it's possible when they retire their age might need to begin with a 7 or an 8 before they can receive theirs.

It should just be linked to median full-time earnings. It is frustrating that pensioners hold politicians to ransom on this because they ultimately do not care whether the state pension is sustainable in the long term.

Silvertabby

Exodi said:

SouthCoastBoy said:

I never understand why people are upset when the state pension increases, as it is for eveyones benefit, even those currently working.

Silvertabby said:

Exactly, a lot of people don't seem to realise that it's not only the pensions actually in payment that receive the increases.

pinnks said:

I agree - it is locked in for everyone.

Sorry but I think this is a naive view at best, and disingenuous at worse.

It is virtually inevitable that the state pension will need to be cut back at some point in the future. The only people that don't acknowledge this possibility seem to be current pensioners.

The ageing population is adding and will continue to add considerable pressure on public finances without change. As an example, there are expected to be 25% more pensioners in 2050 than today, while the general population is only expected to increase by ~10%. Despite the common belief that there is a pot of money somewhere that people pay into earmarked to pay their pensions, in reality the state pension is paid by current tax payers so the only way to maintain the current pension as is would be tax the living smithereens out of the relatively fewer working people. That's ignoring the additional health and social spending required for an aging population.

The triple lock is inherently unsustainable, and I think we all know it's only in place because most political parties would not get elected if they dare touched it (as older people have the highest voting turnout). Current predictions are that the tripe lock could cost somewhere between £5B - £40B extra per year in 2050.

Currently the less confrontational option for the government is to just keep moving the state pension age up and up, but not only is it plainly unfair, but it disproportionately affects people in poorer areas with lower life expectancy.

Personally, I find it frustrating to suggest younger taxpayers should have no problem subsidising large increases to the state pension, when they might their age might need to begin with a 7 or an 8 before they can receive theirs, and it's for half the amount.

It should just be linked to median full-time earnings. It is frustrating that pensioners hold politicians to ransom on this because they ultimately do not care whether the state pension is sustainable in the long term.

It's already happening.  The long term aim of the new State pension is to save money while increasing NI payments.  Before 2016 those of us (and our employers)  in contracted out pension schemes (and that's ALL public sector schemes, for a start!) paid reduced NI.  Far from being 'peanuts' that meant for those on the average (2016) salary NI increased by £75 per month for the employer and £25 per month for the employee. 

Then, once we are out of the lengthy transitional period, the State pension will be forever capped at the (current) £221 per week instead of the maximum £360 per week that non-contracted out high earners could have accrued (more if they deferred under the old, much more generous rate, of 10% per year).  Then we have the fact that those in receipt of the full State pension will be just £2 or £3 over the means test limit, and so won't be entitled to Pension Credit or any of the myriad benefits that being in receipt of PC opens the door to.

But, yes, agree that it's quite possible that the triple lock will be watered down at some point.

dealyboy

Silvertabby said:

Exodi said:

SouthCoastBoy said:

I never understand why people are upset when the state pension increases, as it is for eveyones benefit, even those currently working.

Silvertabby said:

Exactly, a lot of people don't seem to realise that it's not only the pensions actually in payment that receive the increases.

pinnks said:

I agree - it is locked in for everyone.

Sorry but I think this is a naive view at best, and disingenuous at worse.

It is virtually inevitable that the state pension will need to be cut back at some point in the future. The only people that don't acknowledge this possibility seem to be current pensioners.

The ageing population is adding and will continue to add considerable pressure on public finances without change. As an example, there are expected to be 25% more pensioners in 2050 than today, while the general population is only expected to increase by ~10%. Despite the common belief that there is a pot of money somewhere that people pay into earmarked to pay their pensions, in reality the state pension is paid by current tax payers so the only way to maintain the current pension as is would be tax the living smithereens out of the relatively fewer working people. That's ignoring the additional health and social spending required for an aging population.

The triple lock is inherently unsustainable, and I think we all know it's only in place because most political parties would not get elected if they dare touched it (as older people have the highest voting turnout). Current predictions are that the tripe lock could cost somewhere between £5B - £40B extra per year in 2050.

Currently the less confrontational option for the government is to just keep moving the state pension age up and up, but not only is it plainly unfair, but it disproportionately affects people in poorer areas with lower life expectancy.

Personally, I find it frustrating to suggest younger taxpayers should have no problem subsidising large increases to the state pension, when they might their age might need to begin with a 7 or an 8 before they can receive theirs, and it's for half the amount.

It should just be linked to median full-time earnings. It is frustrating that pensioners hold politicians to ransom on this because they ultimately do not care whether the state pension is sustainable in the long term.

It's already happening.  The long term aim of the new State pension is to save money while increasing NI payments.  Before 2016 those of us (and our employers)  in contracted out pension schemes (and that's ALL public sector schemes, for a start!) paid reduced NI.  Far from being 'peanuts' that meant for those on the average (2016) salary NI increased by £75 per month for the employer and £25 per month for the employee. 

Then, once we are out of the lengthy transitional period, the State pension will be forever capped at the (current) £221 per week instead of the maximum £360 per week that non-contracted out high earners could have accrued (more if they deferred under the old, much more generous rate, of 10% per year).  Then we have the fact that those in receipt of the full State pension will be just £2 or £3 over the means test limit, and so won't be entitled to Pension Credit or any of the myriad benefits that being in receipt of PC opens the door to.

But, yes, agree that it's quite possible that the triple lock will be watered down at some point.

If I may propose adding the following words ... , all exempt from income tax.

Silvertabby

dealyboy said:

Silvertabby said:

Exodi said:

SouthCoastBoy said:

I never understand why people are upset when the state pension increases, as it is for eveyones benefit, even those currently working.

Silvertabby said:

Exactly, a lot of people don't seem to realise that it's not only the pensions actually in payment that receive the increases.

pinnks said:

I agree - it is locked in for everyone.

Sorry but I think this is a naive view at best, and disingenuous at worse.

It is virtually inevitable that the state pension will need to be cut back at some point in the future. The only people that don't acknowledge this possibility seem to be current pensioners.

The ageing population is adding and will continue to add considerable pressure on public finances without change. As an example, there are expected to be 25% more pensioners in 2050 than today, while the general population is only expected to increase by ~10%. Despite the common belief that there is a pot of money somewhere that people pay into earmarked to pay their pensions, in reality the state pension is paid by current tax payers so the only way to maintain the current pension as is would be tax the living smithereens out of the relatively fewer working people. That's ignoring the additional health and social spending required for an aging population.

The triple lock is inherently unsustainable, and I think we all know it's only in place because most political parties would not get elected if they dare touched it (as older people have the highest voting turnout). Current predictions are that the tripe lock could cost somewhere between £5B - £40B extra per year in 2050.

Currently the less confrontational option for the government is to just keep moving the state pension age up and up, but not only is it plainly unfair, but it disproportionately affects people in poorer areas with lower life expectancy.

Personally, I find it frustrating to suggest younger taxpayers should have no problem subsidising large increases to the state pension, when they might their age might need to begin with a 7 or an 8 before they can receive theirs, and it's for half the amount.

It should just be linked to median full-time earnings. It is frustrating that pensioners hold politicians to ransom on this because they ultimately do not care whether the state pension is sustainable in the long term.

It's already happening.  The long term aim of the new State pension is to save money while increasing NI payments.  Before 2016 those of us (and our employers)  in contracted out pension schemes (and that's ALL public sector schemes, for a start!) paid reduced NI.  Far from being 'peanuts' that meant for those on the average (2016) salary NI increased by £75 per month for the employer and £25 per month for the employee. 

Then, once we are out of the lengthy transitional period, the State pension will be forever capped at the (current) £221 per week instead of the maximum £360 per week that non-contracted out high earners could have accrued (more if they deferred under the old, much more generous rate, of 10% per year).  Then we have the fact that those in receipt of the full State pension will be just £2 or £3 over the means test limit, and so won't be entitled to Pension Credit or any of the myriad benefits that being in receipt of PC opens the door to.

But, yes, agree that it's quite possible that the triple lock will be watered down at some point.

If I may propose adding the following words ... , all exempt from income tax.

Good point! 

MeteredOut

Exodi said:

SouthCoastBoy said:

I never understand why people are upset when the state pension increases, as it is for eveyones benefit, even those currently working.

Silvertabby said:

Exactly, a lot of people don't seem to realise that it's not only the pensions actually in payment that receive the increases.

pinnks said:

I agree - it is locked in for everyone.

Sorry but I think this is a naive view at best, and disingenuous at worse.

It is virtually inevitable that the state pension will need to be cut back at some point in the future. The only people that don't acknowledge this possibility seem to be current pensioners.

The ageing population is adding and will continue to add considerable pressure on public finances without change. As an example, there are expected to be 25% more pensioners in 2050 than today, while the general population is only expected to increase by ~10%. Despite the common belief that there is a pot of money somewhere that people pay into earmarked to pay their pensions, in reality the state pension is paid by current tax payers so the only way to maintain the current pension as is would be tax the living smithereens out of the relatively fewer working people. That's ignoring the additional health and social spending required for an aging population.

The triple lock is inherently unsustainable, and I think we all know it's only in place because most political parties would not get elected if they dare touched it (as older people have the highest voting turnout). Current predictions are that the tripe lock could cost somewhere between £5B - £40B extra per year in 2050.

Currently the lever of choice for the government (as it is the less confrontational) is to just keep moving the state pension age up and up, but not only is it plainly unfair, but it disproportionately affects people in poorer areas with lower life expectancy.

Personally, I find it 'frustrating' to imply younger taxpayers should have no problem subsidising large increases to the state pension, when it's possible when they retire their age might need to begin with a 7 or an 8 before they can receive theirs.

It should just be linked to median full-time earnings. It is frustrating that pensioners hold politicians to ransom on this because they ultimately do not care whether the state pension is sustainable in the long term.

I just went looking to see if I could find figures, but failed, but I suspect that it is middle income brackets that are largely paying for the current pensions, in relative terms, not younger tax payers.

I agree that the triple-lock is only in place for political reasons, but don't see an issue with state pension age changing with life expectancy. 

Albermarle

MeteredOut said:

pinnks said:

Silvertabby said:

SouthCoastBoy said:

If you are lucky enough to live to SPA even the currently employed will receive the benefit of the recent state pension. I never understand why people are upset when the state pension increases, as it is for eveyones benefit, even those currently working.

Exactly, a lot of people don't seem to realise that it's not only the pensions actually in payment that receive the increases.

I agree - it is locked in for everyone.

Whole swathes of younger generations have convinced each other via social media other than the state pension will either be gone, or means-tested to anyone without a private pension, by the time they reach that state pension age (which will apparently be 80 by then).

It's pervasive click-bait with only a small percentage seemingly wanting to spend time to actually look at the detail. Many are also believe that Starmer has committed to removing the 25% tax free withdrawal from private pensions.

Some are adamant they'll stop paying their NI contributions into THEIR pot when (not if) this gets announced either on October 30th or within the next couple of years.

Not just young people. We have many new posters on here, some in their 50's and 60's, who also believe all this stuff.
I suppose you can partly blame social media, but also plenty of scaremongering articles and headlines in some online newspapers who pump these sort of 'rumours as almost fact' on an almost daily basis.

Exodi

MeteredOut said:

Exodi said:

SouthCoastBoy said:

I never understand why people are upset when the state pension increases, as it is for eveyones benefit, even those currently working.

Silvertabby said:

Exactly, a lot of people don't seem to realise that it's not only the pensions actually in payment that receive the increases.

pinnks said:

I agree - it is locked in for everyone.

Sorry but I think this is a naive view at best, and disingenuous at worse.

It is virtually inevitable that the state pension will need to be cut back at some point in the future. The only people that don't acknowledge this possibility seem to be current pensioners.

The ageing population is adding and will continue to add considerable pressure on public finances without change. As an example, there are expected to be 25% more pensioners in 2050 than today, while the general population is only expected to increase by ~10%. Despite the common belief that there is a pot of money somewhere that people pay into earmarked to pay their pensions, in reality the state pension is paid by current tax payers so the only way to maintain the current pension as is would be tax the living smithereens out of the relatively fewer working people. That's ignoring the additional health and social spending required for an aging population.

The triple lock is inherently unsustainable, and I think we all know it's only in place because most political parties would not get elected if they dare touched it (as older people have the highest voting turnout). Current predictions are that the tripe lock could cost somewhere between £5B - £40B extra per year in 2050.

Currently the lever of choice for the government (as it is the less confrontational) is to just keep moving the state pension age up and up, but not only is it plainly unfair, but it disproportionately affects people in poorer areas with lower life expectancy.

Personally, I find it 'frustrating' to imply younger taxpayers should have no problem subsidising large increases to the state pension, when it's possible when they retire their age might need to begin with a 7 or an 8 before they can receive theirs.

It should just be linked to median full-time earnings. It is frustrating that pensioners hold politicians to ransom on this because they ultimately do not care whether the state pension is sustainable in the long term.

I just went looking to see if I could find figures, but failed, but I suspect that it is middle income brackets that are largely paying for the current pensions, in relative terms, not younger tax payers.

I agree that the triple-lock is only in place for political reasons, but don't see an issue with state pension age changing with life expectancy. 

Sorry I'm not clear on what your point is? Obviously any person paying NI (aka a tax payer ) will be paying for current pensions - unless you're making a point that higher earners contribute more? And that higher earners are generally older?

The reason I specifically referenced younger tax payers (which I didn't define, so please don't characterise it as an 18 year old with a part time job), is because an older tax payer that is closer to retirement will likely not have a problem with massive increases to the state pension knowing they'll be in receipt of it soon.

MeteredOut

Exodi said:

MeteredOut said:

Exodi said:

SouthCoastBoy said:

I never understand why people are upset when the state pension increases, as it is for eveyones benefit, even those currently working.

Silvertabby said:

Exactly, a lot of people don't seem to realise that it's not only the pensions actually in payment that receive the increases.

pinnks said:

I agree - it is locked in for everyone.

Sorry but I think this is a naive view at best, and disingenuous at worse.

It is virtually inevitable that the state pension will need to be cut back at some point in the future. The only people that don't acknowledge this possibility seem to be current pensioners.

The ageing population is adding and will continue to add considerable pressure on public finances without change. As an example, there are expected to be 25% more pensioners in 2050 than today, while the general population is only expected to increase by ~10%. Despite the common belief that there is a pot of money somewhere that people pay into earmarked to pay their pensions, in reality the state pension is paid by current tax payers so the only way to maintain the current pension as is would be tax the living smithereens out of the relatively fewer working people. That's ignoring the additional health and social spending required for an aging population.

The triple lock is inherently unsustainable, and I think we all know it's only in place because most political parties would not get elected if they dare touched it (as older people have the highest voting turnout). Current predictions are that the tripe lock could cost somewhere between £5B - £40B extra per year in 2050.

Currently the lever of choice for the government (as it is the less confrontational) is to just keep moving the state pension age up and up, but not only is it plainly unfair, but it disproportionately affects people in poorer areas with lower life expectancy.

Personally, I find it 'frustrating' to imply younger taxpayers should have no problem subsidising large increases to the state pension, when it's possible when they retire their age might need to begin with a 7 or an 8 before they can receive theirs.

It should just be linked to median full-time earnings. It is frustrating that pensioners hold politicians to ransom on this because they ultimately do not care whether the state pension is sustainable in the long term.

I just went looking to see if I could find figures, but failed, but I suspect that it is middle income brackets that are largely paying for the current pensions, in relative terms, not younger tax payers.

I agree that the triple-lock is only in place for political reasons, but don't see an issue with state pension age changing with life expectancy. 

Sorry I'm not clear on what your point is? Obviously any person paying NI (aka a tax payer ) will be paying for current pensions - unless you're making a point that higher earners contribute more? And that higher earners are generally older?

The reason I specifically referenced younger tax payers (which I didn't define, so please don't characterise it as an 18 year old with a part time job), is because an older tax payer that is closer to retirement will not have a problem with massive increases to the state pension knowing they'll be in receipt of it soon.

Yes, that.

(I wasn't assuming you meant 18 year olds)

But, any younger tax payer (no age defined) should also be able to see that any increase now will also benefit them in future, although that is farther away. Unless they do believe it will become means tested by that point; and there is no evidence that that is being considered.

When my wife was a younger tax payer (no age defined), her state pension age was 60. It's now 8 years later. Things change.

And back on topic, i also think it fair that the state pension exceeding the lower tax bracket should mean income tax being due. I'd go farther and suggest that any benefits on top should also be taxed at the nominal rate, even if that meant increasing the payment amount initially, so that people didn't suddenly lose out.

Exodi

Albermarle said:

MeteredOut said:

pinnks said:

Silvertabby said:

SouthCoastBoy said:

If you are lucky enough to live to SPA even the currently employed will receive the benefit of the recent state pension. I never understand why people are upset when the state pension increases, as it is for eveyones benefit, even those currently working.

Exactly, a lot of people don't seem to realise that it's not only the pensions actually in payment that receive the increases.

I agree - it is locked in for everyone.

Whole swathes of younger generations have convinced each other via social media other than the state pension will either be gone, or means-tested to anyone without a private pension, by the time they reach that state pension age (which will apparently be 80 by then).

It's pervasive click-bait with only a small percentage seemingly wanting to spend time to actually look at the detail. Many are also believe that Starmer has committed to removing the 25% tax free withdrawal from private pensions.

Some are adamant they'll stop paying their NI contributions into THEIR pot when (not if) this gets announced either on October 30th or within the next couple of years.

Not just young people. We have many new posters on here, some in their 50's and 60's, who also believe all this stuff.
I suppose you can partly blame social media, but also plenty of scaremongering articles and headlines in some online newspapers who pump these sort of 'rumours as almost fact' on an almost daily basis.

As Albemarle said, it's certainly not just young people who buy into misinformation, more recently we've seen more examples of older people worried that Labour will 'take their pensions' or conspiracies that stopping the WFP was a secret plot to freeze and kill off pensioners, reducing the state pension burden...

Of course, I'd also add it's good to not be naive about the future of the triple lock because I don't agree with the alternative of all burying our heads in the sand and pretending that the triple locked state pension will be able to last forever - it definitely won't. There's countless studies and reports that show this for anyone that cares to look. To give an example, a report last year by the IFS which is quite an interesting read: https://ifs.org.uk/publications/future-state-pension.

Hoenir

MeteredOut said:

Exodi said:

MeteredOut said:

Exodi said:

SouthCoastBoy said:

I never understand why people are upset when the state pension increases, as it is for eveyones benefit, even those currently working.

Silvertabby said:

Exactly, a lot of people don't seem to realise that it's not only the pensions actually in payment that receive the increases.

pinnks said:

I agree - it is locked in for everyone.

Sorry but I think this is a naive view at best, and disingenuous at worse.

It is virtually inevitable that the state pension will need to be cut back at some point in the future. The only people that don't acknowledge this possibility seem to be current pensioners.

The ageing population is adding and will continue to add considerable pressure on public finances without change. As an example, there are expected to be 25% more pensioners in 2050 than today, while the general population is only expected to increase by ~10%. Despite the common belief that there is a pot of money somewhere that people pay into earmarked to pay their pensions, in reality the state pension is paid by current tax payers so the only way to maintain the current pension as is would be tax the living smithereens out of the relatively fewer working people. That's ignoring the additional health and social spending required for an aging population.

The triple lock is inherently unsustainable, and I think we all know it's only in place because most political parties would not get elected if they dare touched it (as older people have the highest voting turnout). Current predictions are that the tripe lock could cost somewhere between £5B - £40B extra per year in 2050.

Currently the lever of choice for the government (as it is the less confrontational) is to just keep moving the state pension age up and up, but not only is it plainly unfair, but it disproportionately affects people in poorer areas with lower life expectancy.

Personally, I find it 'frustrating' to imply younger taxpayers should have no problem subsidising large increases to the state pension, when it's possible when they retire their age might need to begin with a 7 or an 8 before they can receive theirs.

It should just be linked to median full-time earnings. It is frustrating that pensioners hold politicians to ransom on this because they ultimately do not care whether the state pension is sustainable in the long term.

I just went looking to see if I could find figures, but failed, but I suspect that it is middle income brackets that are largely paying for the current pensions, in relative terms, not younger tax payers.

I agree that the triple-lock is only in place for political reasons, but don't see an issue with state pension age changing with life expectancy. 

Sorry I'm not clear on what your point is? Obviously any person paying NI (aka a tax payer ) will be paying for current pensions - unless you're making a point that higher earners contribute more? And that higher earners are generally older?

The reason I specifically referenced younger tax payers (which I didn't define, so please don't characterise it as an 18 year old with a part time job), is because an older tax payer that is closer to retirement will not have a problem with massive increases to the state pension knowing they'll be in receipt of it soon.

When my wife was a younger tax payer (no age defined), her state pension age was 60. It's now 8 years later. Things change.

Previous generations had far tougher working lives in poor conditions. Life expectancy just 50/60 years ago was far far lower. Medical science has moved forward in leaps and bounds. 8 years in the scheme of things is a fair compromise.