UK State Pension

[denislawsbackheel]

first response to the OP is its a fucking joke - we are supposed to be 5th or 6th largest economy in the world however a lot of that money if offshored to avoid taxes that would pay for pensions. We have had successive Govts telling the pensioners who's votes they depend upon they are protecting them with the triple lock but telling would be new pensioners that you have to work longer before you can take a state pension ( when I started working it was 65 - its now 68 and I have no faith that will be the date I can apply for it) - its a benefit - its not something you paid into and can now withdraw you paid in when you worked to pay your dad or your grandma's pension. I'll stop now coz this is basic knowledge that is out there but people prefer to avoid - simple answer is tax wealth and pay decent pensions like the rest of Europe at a decent age. If you disagree go speak to your elderly relatives who got a state pension at 60 (female) or 65(male) and tell them they are spongers on benefits ............

The state pension age is currently 66 it will be 67 by 2036, and 68 by 2046.

 

[BrianW]

We may be the 5th, 6th or 7th biggest economy, but per capita, it's more like 27th, which is much less impressive. It's mainly built around services too, not manufacturing.

As for wealth tax, the only one that would work would be Land Value Tax as the rich cannot take their land out of the country. But the Daily Mail would, overnight, be full of stories about little grannies having to pay tax on their gardens, and people would still fear that even if you made a point of excluding a main residence from the scope of the tax.

 

[Millwallawayveteran1988]

The state pension age is currently 66 it will be 67 by 2036, and 68 by 2046.

67 by the end of 2028. I think 2036 was the original plan.

 

[halfmist]

We may be the 5th, 6th or 7th biggest economy, but per capita, it's more like 27th, which is much less impressive. It's mainly built around services too, not manufacturing.

As for wealth tax, the only one that would work would be Land Value Tax as the rich cannot take their land out of the country. But the Daily Mail would, overnight, be full of stories about little grannies having to pay tax on their gardens, and people would still fear that even if you made a point of excluding a main residence from the scope of the tax.

But a land value tax would create very little in terms of wealth distribution and the majority of the wealth is not in land and good luck with the farmers. Also land with planning permission is worth multiple times than land that hasn’t. The government policy is to build build build and land owners would just defer selling to developers to keep taxable values as low as possible until there was a change in government.

 

[BrianW]

But a land value tax would create very little in terms of wealth distribution and the majority of the wealth is not in land and good luck with the farmers. Also land with planning permission is worth multiple times than land that hasn’t. The government policy is to build build build and land owners would just defer selling to developers to keep taxable values as low as possible until there was a change in government.

Land value tax takes into account the actual value of the land. An acre in central London would pay far more than an acre of uplands in Snowdonia.

I am sure there would be issues with it, but it's the only practical wealth tax for the reasons set out above. And some sort of wealth tax is badly needed so that (among other things) taxes on income can be reduced.

It is a tax on the owner, and as a handful of families own a huge chunk of UK land it would redistribute wealth quite nicely. It would also discourage land banking which would be an advantage in itself, and almost certainly reduce land values, which would be hugely beneficial to society.

 

[Kirkstall Blue]

It’s an insurance scheme for successive government to raid the pension pot, which they do yearly withdrawing billions to pay for other state benefits which should be covered by income tax.
Never mind what people pay in, Nat Ins is specifically for the ring fenced benefits which I’ve explained once before.
If the government paid back all the billions they robbed every pensioner would be very rich indeed and the government could claim they were all dripping in riches.

Citation?

Using this search term

“how much money does the government take out of the national insurance fund”

How much does the government get from National Insurance?
According to the ONS statistics published in November 2024, in 2023/24 the government received a total of £282 billion in income taxes (PAYE and Self-Assessment) and £181 billion in National Insurance contributions. These taxes made up around 39% of the £1,098 billion total current receipts in 2023/24

The state pension cost £110 billion, £1.8 billion for the NHS, the remainder of the £69 billion goes on other contributory benefits any surplus is taken by the treasury

The Treasury answers a request for information on whether the National Insurance Fund is currently in surplus and by how much; and how much has been paid into the National Insurance Fund Investment Account during the last 10 years the information is all in the National Archives if you want to trawl through them, you will be able to find out for yourself how much government takes out of the fund since 1946?

 

[halfmist]

Land value tax takes into account the actual value of the land. An acre in central London would pay far more than an acre of uplands in Snowdonia.

I am sure there would be issues with it, but it's the only practical wealth tax for the reasons set out above. And some sort of wealth tax is badly needed so that (among other things) taxes on income can be reduced.

It is a tax on the owner, and as a handful of families own a huge chunk of UK land it would redistribute wealth quite nicely. It would also discourage land banking which would be an advantage in itself, and almost certainly reduce land values, which would be hugely beneficial to society.

I have no idea how much it would raise and who would have the liquid cash to pay if it was substantial but I would very much doubt it would raise a significant amount to allow a reduction in other people’s taxes and redistribute wealth. As it is very unlikely to happen there is no point disputing a theory.

 

[Kompany Car]

£1.8 billion for the NHS, the remainder of the £69 billion goes on other contributory benefits any surplus is taken by the treasury

It costs over £150Bn per yr to operate the NHS according to the Nuffield Trust.

https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/resource/nhs-spending-plans-and-reality-over-the-past-10-years

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Using this search term

“how much money does the government take out of the national insurance fund”

How much does the government get from National Insurance?
According to the ONS statistics published in November 2024, in 2023/24 the government received a total of £282 billion in income taxes (PAYE and Self-Assessment) and £181 billion in National Insurance contributions. These taxes made up around 39% of the £1,098 billion total current receipts in 2023/24

The state pension cost £110 billion, £1.8 billion for the NHS, the remainder of the £69 billion goes on other contributory benefits any surplus is taken by the treasury

The Treasury answers a request for information on whether the National Insurance Fund is currently in surplus and by how much; and how much has been paid into the National Insurance Fund Investment Account during the last 10 years the information is all in the National Archives if you want to trawl through them, you will be able to find out for yourself how much government takes out of the fund since 1946?

The national insurance fund was never meant to be a secure bank account only used for benefits. That's your view of what it should be but it isn't how it was.

The government borrows from that fund when there's a surplus but it also puts money in when there's a deficit.

There's about a £20 billion difference between NI taken in and SP payouts in the same year.

You paid for the pensioners that preceeded you, as do current workers paying NI.

But there may come a point when there aren't enough workers or the promises made e.g. triple lock are no longer affordable.

 

[denislawsbackheel]

Correct

 

[BrianW]

I have no idea how much it would raise and who would have the liquid cash to pay if it was substantial but I would very much doubt it would raise a significant amount to allow a reduction in other people’s taxes and redistribute wealth. As it is very unlikely to happen there is no point disputing a theory.

You are quite right. It is most unlikely to happen because the main parties (and Reform) would rather - much rather - screw the workers and pensioners for every last penny than take anything from the tiny minority (1-5% of the population) who own almost all the nation's wealth.

God forbid that someone should be taxed just because they own more wealth than 10,000 average Joes! Let's tax the pittance paid in wages and pensions instead! Those greedy bastards on 20k a year can well afford it.

(The richest 1% of households in the UK each have fortunes of at least £3.6m, according to new official figures that show the inequality gap was yawning even before the pandemic struck.

At the other end of the scale, the poorest 10% of households have just £15,400 or less, with almost half burdened with more debts than they had in assets, according to figures released on Friday by the Office for National Statistics (ONS).) (Source, The Guardian, based on ONS data.)

(Wealth inequality is a measure of how unequally wealth is distributed across the population. The wealthiest 10% of households held 43% of all the wealth in Great Britain in the latest period; in comparison the bottom 50% held only 9%.) Source, ONS.

 

[hilts]

I’m genuinely confused on this subject.

On the one hand, it’s a modest amount, to which us FOCs contributed for many years, and which for many is their sole income.

On the other, we have a falling birth rate and a longer living population for working people to fund. To which the solution, according to conventional wisdom is more and more immigration. But which, in turn, creates a bigger cohort of future pensioners. Rinse and repeat.

Yet we’re also being told that AI will decimate jobs. So presumably many of that bigger cohort will rely on benefits in the meantime.

How the fcuk does this all end?

Badly

 

[hilts]

No I'd go far as to say it's morally wrong.

People grafting full time. Let's face it, there isn't any real job (i.e. excluding people paying themselves nmw for tax purposes) on minimum wage or a bit above it that isn't a fucking slog nowadays.

Someone sat at home in a mortgage free property or who is able to go on holidays overseas 3-6 months of the year doesn't need that level of income and we'd bankrupt the state and every generation from X to zoomers and their successors if we ever tried to do it.

Below is a general point not directed at you.

The state pension was originally introduced in Edwardian times, for people no longer able to work due to age related illness to have a short period before a dignified death.

Fortunately Things have changed but
It's still only to support people to have a basic standard of living not for round the world cruises and holiday homes in the Costas.

Yeah coz that's what pensioners getting a bit more than the state pension do 6 month cruises and the rest of the year in holiday homes. Pmsl.

 

[Kompany Car]

(Wealth inequality is a measure of how unequally wealth is distributed across the population. The wealthiest 10% of households held 43% of all the wealth in Great Britain in the latest period; in comparison the bottom 50% held only 9%.) Source, ONS.

Its more about the top 1% who have just under 1/4 of the UKs entire wealth. The top 1% has a household net worth of at least £3.6m.

To reach the top 10% threshold your household needs a £1.2m net worth in total, thats every single item, asset, money, pension etc.

Considering the average house price in England is £309k that leaves 900k which for 2 professional people could easily have been accumulated in pensions by the time they reach their 50s (450k each).

To put a 450k pension into perspective, for valuation purposes a final salary pension of around £22.5k per year is the equivalent (based upon the commonly used 20 times CETV).

 

[halfmist]

You are quite right. It is most unlikely to happen because the main parties (and Reform) would rather - much rather - screw the workers and pensioners for every last penny than take anything from the tiny minority (1-5% of the population) who own almost all the nation's wealth.

God forbid that someone should be taxed just because they own more wealth than 10,000 average Joes! Let's tax the pittance paid in wages and pensions instead! Those greedy bastards on 20k a year can well afford it.

(The richest 1% of households in the UK each have fortunes of at least £3.6m, according to new official figures that show the inequality gap was yawning even before the pandemic struck.

At the other end of the scale, the poorest 10% of households have just £15,400 or less, with almost half burdened with more debts than they had in assets, according to figures released on Friday by the Office for National Statistics (ONS).) (Source, The Guardian, based on ONS data.)

(Wealth inequality is a measure of how unequally wealth is distributed across the population. The wealthiest 10% of households held 43% of all the wealth in Great Britain in the latest period; in comparison the bottom 50% held only 9%.) Source, ONS.

That is a Capitalist Society for you. A few get rich purely on luck some inherit it the most however are rich because they have a unique talent, work hard and it is the reward for taking risks others in Society are not prepared to take. If you take away risk and reward there is no growth in Society and no money to fund public services.

 

[Mr Kobayashi]

Yeah coz that's what pensioners getting a bit more than the state pension do 6 month cruises and the rest of the year in holiday homes. Pmsl.

This thread was started by someone who questioned why the pension wasn't the same as NMW and thinks that the wealthiest cohort of pensioners ever are hard done by.

 

[BrianW]

Many of the uber-rich are rich because they are the senior male line of someone who came over with William the Bastard, or because they were compensated when nasty lefties took away their slaves.

There always has been and always will be a wealth gap in society. No one questions that. The issue is that at a time when a growing proportion of the population is living from hand to mouth, that wealth gap has increased, and is still increasing. The uber-rich are, relatively, much richer than they were before the 2008 crash.

If you want a revolution, by all means, allow this trend to continue. Because that will be the end of it. The most content societies are those with a more modest difference between rich and poor. And those societies still function, even under capitalism.

 

[Kompany Car]

That is a Capitalist Society for you. A few get rich purely on luck some inherit it the most however are rich because they have a unique talent, work hard and it is the reward for taking risks others in Society are not prepared to take. If you take away risk and reward there is no growth in Society and no money to fund public services.

Its interesting that everyone uses the word "risk" when it comes to people becoming wealthy. There is a fundamental problem with this, risk is a function of probability of occurrence and more importantly impact (severity).

Take someone from a comfortable household, with both parents working they can afford the bills and a few luxuries. Their son decides to set up a business in a new area (takes a risk as people put it) gets a business loan, after a few years the business fails, what's the impact of that business failing. Well the son has to close the business, maybe has some debt but can go back home to his parents house where he knows he will be looked after. So the impact is small.

Compare that to the son or daughter from a family living in rented accommodation, living pay check to pay check, they do the same, decide to set up in a business which is probably more difficult as they dont have any capital, but they take a risk and it fails, then what ?

Not all risks are created equally, thats why, even though he's a bit of a ****, I have infinitely more respect for the likes of Duncan Bannatyne than Branson with his Barrister father.

 

[hilts]

This thread was started by someone who questioned why the pension wasn't the same as NMW and thinks that the wealthiest cohort of pensioners ever are hard done by.

So in reaction to someone who claims the wealthiest pensioners are hard done by you feel that can only be proved wrong by claiming the state pension was just for the very basics for a coupe of years.
Anyone who gets any more than that are swanning around on a cruise and living in Marbella.

 

[stonerblue]

Being rent or mortgage free and only receiving state pension doesn’t not make life easy. Heating costs are huge and if they have no savings, replacing white goods or a defective boiler is beyond them.

There are outliers on both sides of our debate, but I would like to think you would agree there are millions of UK pensioners who are simply existing, not living.

What the answer is will spawn lots of ideas which we have seen on here, but ultimately what we say or think is irrelevant, it’s down to Government action to address, which imo, it hasn’t and probably won’t

You can get a fridge or a washing machine for £99 that will last ten years