Keir Starmer

[Bill Walker]

Agreed. And even if only taking state pension of people ago can possibly manage with smaller state pensions, how is that fair exactly?

Cohort A - you have not saved enough, so here is your full state pension.

Cohort B - you have been wise. You have made sacrifices and saved. You have forgone benefits so you can be better off in your old age. Well done. You are now not getting a full state pension so Cohort A can have it.

This is diabolical.

That's exactly the way it is in Australia the age pension is asset tested.

Then again we don't have to pay national insurance.

 

[mackenzie]

Agreed. And even if only taking state pension of people ago can possibly manage with smaller state pensions, how is that fair exactly?

Cohort A - you have not saved enough, so here is your full state pension.

Cohort B - you have been wise. You have made sacrifices and saved. You have forgone benefits so you can be better off in your old age. Well done. You are now not getting a full state pension so Cohort A can have it.

This is diabolical.

It's always been a real dilemma.
My Grandad was made redundant when he was a couple of years off pension age back in the mid 80s. Had worked since he was 15 and served in WW2.
Went to claim a contribution based benefit for a while and obviously qualified but it was reduced by his occupational pension.
His ex colleague had decided not to put in an occ pen so got the full lot.
My grandad was absolutely bloody livid.

 

[Kompany Car]

Pensionsioners are richer than working people now on average. Should pensioners be subsidies by poorer people ? I think 1 in 9 are higher rate tax payers

I am not really saying we get rid of it but something needs to be done so you not agree ?

Where did I apply them to all pensioners ?

Where did I say they are all loaded ?

I bet there are plenty who are struggling who could / should downsize or take out equity release and would then not be worrying. We would tell working people to do that especially if they are on benefits.

I also think people have to take some responsibility for there own retirement back in the day lots of people had great workplace schemes and other people saved tiny amounts into private pensions and ended up with big pots and valuable houses. Why have other people not managed the same when in similar jobs ? And now my generation or younger are making amazing choices using aps crypto forex stocks and share AI etc why should they pay for people not making those choices when the info is out there ?

The average pensioner is as well off as the average worker, not richer and is that really a surprise that peoples wealth increases the older they are ? In the same way that the average 18yr old is poorer than the average 30yr old.

You want people to somehow take retrospective responsibility for their retirement ? Telling people to take retrospective responsibility is a bit like telling someone now, that 15 years ago they should have bought a thousand pounds of Bitcoin or Nvidia shares. Great with hindsight, so why didnt you do it ?

The younger generation can make amazing choices now because the platforms exist to do so. Even as late as the early 2000s, if you wanted to buy or sell shares you needed to contact a broker who would take a sizeable comission and not be remotely interested in dealing with the sums of money which normal people had and buying fractional shares was not possible.

From the 60s to the 80s the stock market pretty much went nowhere, it was only from the mid 80s that it started to grow. Even then you were picking individual stocks and shares as there were no ETFs.

Whilst final salary pensions were available most private businesses stopped them in the late 90s. So if you changed jobs you were likely to go into a defined contribution scheme at which time the rules about minimum contributions and even the employer offering one were non existent.

For those working in finance or from affluent backgrounds it was great, but for the masses; stocks, shares, gilts and the like were a complete mystery. There was no YouTube or simple guides to investing, even now the vast majority of people dont understand investments and thats with millions of hours of free videos, courses and even the likes of Martin Lewis on TV, so what chance did people have back then.

Then you have the question of well why not invest your money now, unfortunately unless you have a big dose of luck, over short periods of time stock markets are very risky but over longer periods the risk becomes vanishingly small. One thing the elderly dont have is time, so relying on growth in the stock market to cover expenses in the next 2 years causes massive exposure to sequence of returns risk which people who are a long way from retirement dont have.

What should be done, well the triple lock should really be changed to a double lock only, so removing the incremental base increase of 2.5% in years when inflation and wages growth are very low. Doing so would save £5Bn per year but it would need to be done after a certain cut off age. In addition as I mentioned on a different thread, creating a wealth fund by using assets of the crown estate, remaining stakes in banks from the 2008 bailouts and the significant overfunding in many local government pension schemes would create a sizeable fund. This could be invested in growing the UK and negating the welfare spending crisis plus improving the UK for the better going forwards. Based upon publicly available figures the yield from such a fund would be in the order of £30Bn per year in todays money. This is not a pie in the sky proposal either, but one which has been proposed by the Institute for Public Policy Research and others.

 

[Chippy_boy]

That's exactly the way it is in Australia the age pension is asset tested.

Then again we don't have to pay national insurance.

That would be fine if you give people 40 years notice.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

He may very well be. I am ;-)

But he doesn't behave like it on here. He behaves like a pompous, condescending nob.

I behave pretty much the same on here as I do in real life. And no one who knows me in real life would ever use those either words to describe me, including plenty of posters on here I’ll wager, and yet once again, without a hint of self awareness given your previous pontification you are evaluating someone of who you know nothing.

You appear to have serious anger issues (at least on here) and I think you should seek some help as it appears to be making you unwell.

 

[Kompany Car]

That would be fine if you give people 40 years notice.

This is the problem, the system of means testing pensions in Australia has been decades in the making, with much higher mandated contributions from employers than in the UK. Anyone who uses Australia as an example of why the UK should means test pensions is deliberately ignoring the history of what made it possible.

 

[metalblue]

That's exactly the way it is in Australia the age pension is asset tested.

Then again we don't have to pay national insurance.

So not the same at all

 

[metalblue]

The average pensioner is as well off as the average worker, not richer and is that really a surprise that peoples wealth increases the older they are ? In the same way that the average 18yr old is poorer than the average 30yr old.

You want people to somehow take retrospective responsibility for their retirement ? Telling people to take retrospective responsibility is a bit like telling someone now, that 15 years ago they should have bought a thousand pounds of Bitcoin or Nvidia shares. Great with hindsight, so why didnt you do it ?

The younger generation can make amazing choices now because the platforms exist to do so. Even as late as the early 2000s, if you wanted to buy or sell shares you needed to contact a broker who would take a sizeable comission and not be remotely interested in dealing with the sums of money which normal people had and buying fractional shares was not possible.

From the 60s to the 80s the stock market pretty much went nowhere, it was only from the mid 80s that it started to grow. Even then you were picking individual stocks and shares as there were no ETFs.

Whilst final salary pensions were available most private businesses stopped them in the late 90s. So if you changed jobs you were likely to go into a defined contribution scheme at which time the rules about minimum contributions and even the employer offering one were non existent.

For those working in finance or from affluent backgrounds it was great, but for the masses; stocks, shares, gilts and the like were a complete mystery. There was no YouTube or simple guides to investing, even now the vast majority of people dont understand investments and thats with millions of hours of free videos, courses and even the likes of Martin Lewis on TV, so what chance did people have back then.

Then you have the question of well why not invest your money now, unfortunately unless you have a big dose of luck, over short periods of time stock markets are very risky but over longer periods the risk becomes vanishingly small. One thing the elderly dont have is time, so relying on growth in the stock market to cover expenses in the next 2 years causes massive exposure to sequence of returns risk which people who are a long way from retirement dont have.

What should be done, well the triple lock should really be changed to a double lock only, so removing the incremental base increase of 2.5% in years when inflation and wages growth are very low. Doing so would save £5Bn per year but it would need to be done after a certain cut off age. In addition as I mentioned on a different thread, creating a wealth fund by using assets of the crown estate, remaining stakes in banks from the 2008 bailouts and the significant overfunding in many local government pension schemes would create a sizeable fund. This could be invested in growing the UK and negating the welfare spending crisis plus improving the UK for the better going forwards. Based upon publicly available figures the yield from such a fund would be in the order of £30Bn per year in todays money. This is not a pie in the sky proposal either, but one which has been proposed by the Institute for Public Policy Research and others.

Great post. I spat me pisco sour out when I read pensioners who can barely use the remote control should start trading Bitcoin.

 

[Ste68]

It's always been a real dilemma.
My Grandad was made redundant when he was a couple of years off pension age back in the mid 80s. Had worked since he was 15 and served in WW2.
Went to claim a contribution based benefit for a while and obviously qualified but it was reduced by his occupational pension.
His ex colleague had decided not to put in an occ pen so got the full lot.
My grandad was absolutely bloody livid.

My father, probably just a few years younger had exactly the same happen. The advice people had then was poor and the impact of contracting out was not properly explained. Ended up working as a night security guard to top up his money. Made sure I started a pension at 18 although I didn’t thank him for it at the time. Think it’s inevitable we will have to reform the system but need to do it fairly and with lots of advance warning and advice made available. Think pensions and social care costs are two areas I would like to see all parties come together and tackle but won’t happen.

 

[Heartofoakes64]

let him be clear, his father was a toolmaker.

His Dad did that for sure

Wow first time I heard that, but when you think about it, he is a right fucking tool isn’t he & technically his dad made him. Voila :)

 

[mosssideblue]

I know it’s off topic but pensioners are being discussed.

Let’s be honest, unless you are very very fortunate, adult life is a grind living day to day no matter what generation you are.

To suggest that pensioners today are hurting the working class is, imo, simply wrong.

 

[Heartofoakes64]

Great post. I spat me pisco sour out when I read pensioners who can barely use the remote control should start trading Bitcoin.

Except for not mentioning that the triple lock put in place by the Tories was necessary at the time because we had the lowest pension as a percentage of average wage in Western Europe. The post correctly called out defined benefit or final salary pensions ceased to exist in private industry (not public employers) what was omitted was the cause. Gordon Brown the then Chancellor wanted some money to waste, so he imposed a tax raid on the growth invested by the fund managers of the schemes. Previously the growth of the schemes investment was shielded from tax which encouraged growth of the schemes value. After the tax raid by Brown the funds did not grow enough to meet the requirement of the published Defined Benefit which was a 1/60th of the final salary x the number of years contributed. Example 1/60th x 30 years contributions = half of final salary.
With the demise of the defined benefits scheme, Companies switched to defined contributions which means you pay a percentage of salary & that is invested. These schemes are not as beneficial as defined benefits.
The state pension is very complex, the media often quote a figure of 12k, very few pensioners receive this. Those that had a private pension have the year’s contributions to that scheme “ contracted out” therefore do not qualify for full pension. Also those born before 1951 only qualify for the “old state pension “ which is around 10k. This is ridiculous, you often hear today’s pensioners are affluent, that maybe the case for some, however the vast majority are just ok, not starving not well off. I sometimes get the impression that some people would be a lot happier if pensioners were living in poverty, forgetting that one day they may live to be pensioners. The majority of today’s pensioners have had to pay 35+ years into the NI scheme so therefore are fully entitled to receive the state pension.

 

[metalblue]

Except for not mentioning that the triple lock put in place by the Tories was necessary at the time because we had the lowest pension as a percentage of average wage in Western Europe. The post correctly called out defined benefit or final salary pensions ceased to exist in private industry (not public employers) what was omitted was the cause. Gordon Brown the then Chancellor wanted some money to waste, so he imposed a tax raid on the growth invested by the fund managers of the schemes. Previously the growth of the schemes investment was shielded from tax which encouraged growth of the schemes value. After the tax raid by Brown the funds did not grow enough to meet the requirement of the published Defined Benefit which was a 1/60th of the final salary x the number of years contributed. Example 1/60th x 30 years contributions = half of final salary.
With the demise of the defined benefits scheme, Companies switched to defined contributions which means you pay a percentage of salary & that is invested. These schemes are not as beneficial as defined benefits.
The state pension is very complex, the media often quote a figure of 12k, very few pensioners receive this. Those that had a private pension have the year’s contributions to that scheme “ contracted out” therefore do not qualify for full pension. Also those born before 1951 only qualify for the “old state pension “ which is around 10k. This is ridiculous, you often hear today’s pensioners are affluent, that maybe the case for some, however the vast majority are just ok, not starving not well off. I sometimes get the impression that some people would be a lot happier if pensioners were living in poverty, forgetting that one day they may live to be pensioners. The majority of today’s pensioners have had to pay 35+ years into the NI scheme so therefore are fully entitled to receive the state pension.

Another great post. It’s certainly complicated mate and you’re spot on, the triple lock was introduced because state pensions were shit. I don’t think that is necessarily the case now so the triple lock and made a double lock.

What fucks me off is you work a huge chunk of your life and you don’t qualify for the full state benefit for some reason or another but sit on your arse on the dole for your entire working age and you get the full amount. Thats all kinds of fucked up. Just give everyone the full entitlement.

 

[Gaylord du Bois]

I actually think he was gonna go for it but was surprised by the lack of support and is now waiting to see how it pans out. I think we could all be waiting till after the makerfield result for any meaningful developments now. Gonna be a long month or more.

Yep. He pulled the pin but he's still holding the grenade.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I know it’s off topic but pensioners are being discussed.

Let’s be honest, unless you are very very fortunate, adult life is a grind living day to day no matter what generation you are.

To suggest that pensioners today are hurting the working class is, imo, simply wrong.

Omg I agree. What's happening ;-)

Perhaps a semantic point as well but I will mention it: A habit Labour have is to try to claim a moral high ground by saying they want a "fairer" system of taxation, benefits, toothpaste manufacture, whatever.

This really fucks me off. They do no get to define what is "fair" as if they are the arbiters. What is fair to one person is absolutely not fair to someone else. They can argue for a "different" system, with "different" priorities, sure. But defining "fair" or indeed what is social "justice" Vs "injustice", is a gift they do not have.

I am fortunate enough to be better off than average (having started life with fuck all in a terraced house in Hazel Grove). I've paid *obscene* amounts of tax throughout my life, eye-watering amounts. With a "fairer" (to me) taxation system, I would have paid hundreds of thousands less. My retirement would be materially improved.

It sticks well in my craw when some champagne socialist **** with their gold-plated, index-linked, final salary government pension scheme says we need a "fairer" taxation system that would take even more off me, so people who have earned and paid bugger all can be better off.

That is not fairer. It's a different distribution they can argue for. But do not call it fairer.

 

[mancityvstoke]

But you're merely an offensive bellend with a persistently shit attitude who treats other posters, about you know fuck all, with contempt. That is not "people skills".

Not that your AI boss will value your "people skills".

I anticipate your cummupance with no small amount of schadenfreude.

No need for shit like this mate.

GDM has met most of us and I can safely say he is a great bloke. His footwear is shyte though.

Can't wait to see AI fit a new bathroom suite and fix plumbing. Put out fires. Batter fuck out of terrorists. Play for City. etc etc etc

 

[Vic]

Except for not mentioning that the triple lock put in place by the Tories was necessary at the time because we had the lowest pension as a percentage of average wage in Western Europe. The post correctly called out defined benefit or final salary pensions ceased to exist in private industry (not public employers) what was omitted was the cause. Gordon Brown the then Chancellor wanted some money to waste, so he imposed a tax raid on the growth invested by the fund managers of the schemes. Previously the growth of the schemes investment was shielded from tax which encouraged growth of the schemes value. After the tax raid by Brown the funds did not grow enough to meet the requirement of the published Defined Benefit which was a 1/60th of the final salary x the number of years contributed. Example 1/60th x 30 years contributions = half of final salary.
With the demise of the defined benefits scheme, Companies switched to defined contributions which means you pay a percentage of salary & that is invested. These schemes are not as beneficial as defined benefits.
The state pension is very complex, the media often quote a figure of 12k, very few pensioners receive this. Those that had a private pension have the year’s contributions to that scheme “ contracted out” therefore do not qualify for full pension. Also those born before 1951 only qualify for the “old state pension “ which is around 10k. This is ridiculous, you often hear today’s pensioners are affluent, that maybe the case for some, however the vast majority are just ok, not starving not well off. I sometimes get the impression that some people would be a lot happier if pensioners were living in poverty, forgetting that one day they may live to be pensioners. The majority of today’s pensioners have had to pay 35+ years into the NI scheme so therefore are fully entitled to receive the state pension.

Plus Pension Credit for those on the old scheme taking most to £12k plus other benefits.

 

[Chippy_boy]

You appear to have serious anger issues (at least on here) and I think you should seek some help as it appears to be making you unwell.

Doing it again with your condescending attitude. Seems you cannot help yourself. Bye

 

[KS55]

Except for not mentioning that the triple lock put in place by the Tories was necessary at the time because we had the lowest pension as a percentage of average wage in Western Europe. The post correctly called out defined benefit or final salary pensions ceased to exist in private industry (not public employers) what was omitted was the cause. Gordon Brown the then Chancellor wanted some money to waste, so he imposed a tax raid on the growth invested by the fund managers of the schemes. Previously the growth of the schemes investment was shielded from tax which encouraged growth of the schemes value. After the tax raid by Brown the funds did not grow enough to meet the requirement of the published Defined Benefit which was a 1/60th of the final salary x the number of years contributed. Example 1/60th x 30 years contributions = half of final salary.
With the demise of the defined benefits scheme, Companies switched to defined contributions which means you pay a percentage of salary & that is invested. These schemes are not as beneficial as defined benefits.
The state pension is very complex, the media often quote a figure of 12k, very few pensioners receive this. Those that had a private pension have the year’s contributions to that scheme “ contracted out” therefore do not qualify for full pension. Also those born before 1951 only qualify for the “old state pension “ which is around 10k. This is ridiculous, you often hear today’s pensioners are affluent, that maybe the case for some, however the vast majority are just ok, not starving not well off. I sometimes get the impression that some people would be a lot happier if pensioners were living in poverty, forgetting that one day they may live to be pensioners. The majority of today’s pensioners have had to pay 35+ years into the NI scheme so therefore are fully entitled to receive the state pension.

Yup. Browns tax raid had a dire effect on equities, growth slowed to a crawl.

 

[Heartofoakes64]

Plus Pension Credit for those on the old scheme taking most to £12k plus other benefits.

Pension credit is means tested, very low bar too, & its based on household income, I think some people should try living on means tested benefits, not sure there would be many booking weekends in London for the cup final.