UK State Pension

[Citizen of Legoland]

Oops should have been 65.

Darn it! Have already completed my application to move there, all I needed was the name of the country!

;)

 

[blue b4 the moon]

Darn it! Have already completed my application to move there, all I needed was the name of the country!

;)

Hehe think I'll edit my original post.

 

[Dave Ewing's Back 'eader]

FWIW the elephant in the room regarding pensions and benefits is what happens in 20 years time. Upto now, the majority of today's pensioners own their property and so the state pension doesn't have to really take into account mortgage/rental payments. In 20 years or a bit more, there will be a cohort that will not be in that position and so will have to rely on other means to keep a roof over their head. Indirectly, this will almost certainly be in the form of a significant increase in housing benefit claims. I don't know the answer but just thought I'd put it out there to highlight what's coming down the track.

Rein in MPs expenses and give them a salary that is right in line with other public service employees and, hey presto, all the problems currently surrounding the exchequer are solved - at a stroke (phrase coined by Cap'n Heath!)

Additionally, all those MPs who have multiple jobs should be paid at a rate slightly lower than the state pension.

And just how many ex-public 'servants' are in receipt of a pension in excess of £100,000?

 

[Bill Walker]

Talk of increasing the pension age again,it’ll get to the stage were you’ll be dead before you reach retirement for the majority of people..

That's what they're hoping.

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

It should be but if it doesn't pay enough and the Government want to make it less worthwhile and harder to claim for reasons mentioned by others here then there will be a lot of anger especially amongst older people. What some people in the Labour Cabinet seem to be forgetting is that it is the older people who tend to get out and vote rather than the young, many of whom choose to vent their spleen on social media instead.

This is true but its also a morally questionable rationale for generating policy.

The UK government operates on a loss. Debts are accumulated every year that will have to be paid by future generations. Just because young people can't be arsed to vote doesn't mean that the older generations that do should take that as a pass to give themselves juicy pensions.

In my mid forties I'm going to have to wait until I'm 68 to get a state pension, probably longer and the triple lock will be long gone by then.

 

[denislawsbackheel]

The fiscal drag has hidden many issues, the triple lock will no doubt be binned sooner rather than later.

Those without a private pension will continue to suffer.

Some European countries still have a 65 year retirement target and pro rata higher state pensions than we do.

As we used to sing when Swales was the chairman....where's the money gone, where's the money gone...

And some countries like Denmark, Norway, and Iceland have a retirement age of 67 for both men and women.

 

[Kompany Car]

And some countries like Denmark, Norway, and Iceland have a retirement age of 67 for both men and women.

What I quite like about Norway's system is that you can take your state pension from 62 but at a reduced rate, this would be step in the right direction. Iceland you can take from 65 at around 87% of the full pension.

 

[manclad]

And some countries like Denmark, Norway, and Iceland have a retirement age of 67 for both men and women.

I'm sure that I read recently,that Denmark are raising their state pension age to 70 in a few years time.

 

[Blue Maverick]

FWIW the elephant in the room regarding pensions and benefits is what happens in 20 years time. Upto now, the majority of today's pensioners own their property and so the state pension doesn't have to really take into account mortgage/rental payments. In 20 years or a bit more, there will be a cohort that will not be in that position and so will have to rely on other means to keep a roof over their head. Indirectly, this will almost certainly be in the form of a significant increase in housing benefit claims. I don't know the answer but just thought I'd put it out there to highlight what's coming down the track.

Or in 20 years time all those pensioners will be dead leaving the cash to their kids who can then buy a house with it, oh wait the cunts in government will death tax them do they won’t get it all. I agree with you there will be a big crisis but who is to blame, what is the profit to a builder on a house these days? Seems the average around even a shithole like Oldham is £270k, maybe limit profits to bring prices down, don’t tell me builders won’t make them, they just won’t make as much money. Even if they built 2/3 million new homes overnight does anyone think builders will reduce their prices, not a chance unless there are more houses than buyers which will never happen because like in the USA conglomerates are buying up housing and inflating their prices.

 

[Blue Maverick]

I'm sure that I read recently,that Denmark are raising their state pension age to 70 in a few years time.

Let me guess a person behind a desk came up with it, not someone who tarmacs roads for a living

 

[manclad]

Let me guess a person behind a desk came up with it, not someone who tarmacs roads for a living

Legislators ??
Or MPs if they have a parliament.

 

[mosssideblue]

Bumped as I read on another thread as this being a benefit. If you’d paid full stamp for the required number of years, I see it as an entitlement.

I’m sure many will both agree and disagree

 

[flook]

Bumped as I read on another thread as this being a benefit. If you’d paid full stamp for the required number of years, I see it as an entitlement.

I’m sure many will both agree and disagree

Paid in for 40 years on the understanding I'd get a state pension. They've already cheated me by moving retirement age 2 years farther than our original "contract", albeit compulsory contract. There's no way it's a benefit it's an entitlement

 

[mosssideblue]

Paid in for 40 years on the understanding I'd get a state pension. They've already cheated me by moving retirement age 2 years farther than our original "contract", albeit compulsory contract. There's no way it's a benefit it's an entitlement

Totally agree for you

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

Bumped as I read on another thread as this being a benefit. If you’d paid full stamp for the required number of years, I see it as an entitlement.

I’m sure many will both agree and disagree

If I'm honest I see these as labels designed to further specific agendas and create division. Both of them really are unhelpful and ignore the nuanced realities of the situation.

Those who have paid NICs for 40 years will obviously feel that they have met their end of the bargain and so are entitled to a state pension - and rightfully so. That was what they signed up to.

On the other hand, it is an entirely fair argument to point out that the vast majority of pensioners get out in pension far more than they paid in via NICs - so in that respect, they are net beneficiaries of the system.

To compound this, the actual mechanism at play here is that for any given generation, the working members of the community pay directly for pensions. There is no "pot" that is put aside for decades accruing money, the pensions of the 1970s were paid by the workers of the 1970s, and the pensions of the 2020s are paid by the workers of the 2020s.

Of course, the problem with this mechanism as it exists today is that demographics are shifting rapidly which means higher taxes from a shrinking pool of working people to offset an ever-increasing volume of pensions entitlements.

The truest possible statement you could make, is that yes you are entitled to a pension, so it is an entitlement. But you are also very likely benefiting from the pension, so it is also a benefit. These aren't necessarily mutually exclusive terms.

It is a classic case of divide and conquer - the young feel they will never retire or own a home to give them comfort in retirement and they are funding a pension they will never get because it is unsustainable. Meanwhile, the old feel they have done their part and that's really all there is to it, and why wouldn't they feel this way? Neither of these groups of people are "wrong", they're just communicating at cross-purposes by using language like benefit/entitlement. The language used isn't furthering the topic or helping us find solutions to what is an extremely difficult socioeconomic problem.

This is an excellent and balanced video on the topic which I think is very informative and broadly echoes my views on it:

 

[Prestwich_Blue]

Paid in for 40 years on the understanding I'd get a state pension. They've already cheated me by moving retirement age 2 years farther than our original "contract", albeit compulsory contract. There's no way it's a benefit it's an entitlement

I worked for DWP and we always used the term 'entitlement' rather than 'benefit', for anything.

 

[mosssideblue]

If I'm honest I see these as labels designed to further specific agendas and create division. Both of them really are unhelpful and ignore the nuanced realities of the situation.

Those who have paid NICs for 40 years will obviously feel that they have met their end of the bargain and so are entitled to a state pension - and rightfully so. That was what they signed up to.

On the other hand, it is an entirely fair argument to point out that the vast majority of pensioners get out in pension far more than they paid in via NICs - so in that respect, they are net beneficiaries of the system.

To compound this, the actual mechanism at play here is that for any given generation, the working members of the community pay directly for pensions. There is no "pot" that is put aside for decades accruing money, the pensions of the 1970s were paid by the workers of the 1970s, and the pensions of the 2020s are paid by the workers of the 2020s.

Of course, the problem with this mechanism as it exists today is that demographics are shifting rapidly which means higher taxes from a shrinking pool of working people to offset an ever-increasing volume of pensions entitlements.

The truest possible statement you could make, is that yes you are entitled to a pension, so it is an entitlement. But you are also very likely benefiting from the pension, so it is also a benefit. These aren't necessarily mutually exclusive terms.

It is a classic case of divide and conquer - the young feel they will never retire or own a home to give them comfort in retirement and they are funding a pension they will never get because it is unsustainable. Meanwhile, the old feel they have done their part and that's really all there is to it, and why wouldn't they feel this way? Neither of these groups of people are "wrong", they're just communicating at cross-purposes by using language like benefit/entitlement. The language used isn't furthering the topic or helping us find solutions to what is an extremely difficult socioeconomic problem.

This is an excellent and balanced video on the topic which I think is very informative and broadly echoes my views on it:

For me, it’s a benefit for those who haven’t paid their contribution

 

[Kompany Car]

Bumped as I read on another thread as this being a benefit. If you’d paid full stamp for the required number of years, I see it as an entitlement.

I’m sure many will both agree and disagree

By definition it is a benefit, but its also a social contract which people plan around for years before they are entitled to receive it. Any decision to break that social contract would not only be political suicide, regardless of the reasons but also wholly wrong from a moral point of view.

Trying to compare it with the Australian system is a fools errand as the requirements for employers to pay in much higher percentages has been in place for decades before means testing was ever considered.

 

[hampshireblue]

If I'm honest I see these as labels designed to further specific agendas and create division. Both of them really are unhelpful and ignore the nuanced realities of the situation.

Those who have paid NICs for 40 years will obviously feel that they have met their end of the bargain and so are entitled to a state pension - and rightfully so. That was what they signed up to.

On the other hand, it is an entirely fair argument to point out that the vast majority of pensioners get out in pension far more than they paid in via NICs - so in that respect, they are net beneficiaries of the system.

To compound this, the actual mechanism at play here is that for any given generation, the working members of the community pay directly for pensions. There is no "pot" that is put aside for decades accruing money, the pensions of the 1970s were paid by the workers of the 1970s, and the pensions of the 2020s are paid by the workers of the 2020s.

Of course, the problem with this mechanism as it exists today is that demographics are shifting rapidly which means higher taxes from a shrinking pool of working people to offset an ever-increasing volume of pensions entitlements.

The truest possible statement you could make, is that yes you are entitled to a pension, so it is an entitlement. But you are also very likely benefiting from the pension, so it is also a benefit. These aren't necessarily mutually exclusive terms.

It is a classic case of divide and conquer - the young feel they will never retire or own a home to give them comfort in retirement and they are funding a pension they will never get because it is unsustainable. Meanwhile, the old feel they have done their part and that's really all there is to it, and why wouldn't they feel this way? Neither of these groups of people are "wrong", they're just communicating at cross-purposes by using language like benefit/entitlement. The language used isn't furthering the topic or helping us find solutions to what is an extremely difficult socioeconomic problem.

This is an excellent and balanced video on the topic which I think is very informative and broadly echoes my views on it:

An excellent balanced viewpoint. Thanks.

Of course the media and to a degree the politicians like to quote a high benefits figure as it helps them to build a false narrative. Benefits are, as we know, contentious. But there is never any real attempt to categorise them to come out with the category that people genunily have a problem with. It could be pensions, in-work benefits, out of work benefits, those benefits paid to those on £99999.99

Many will have a "target" where they should be reduced or abolished, usually a category where they themselves are not affected.

 

[mosssideblue]

By definition it is a benefit, but its also a social contract which people plan around for years before they are entitled to receive it. Any decision to break that social contract would not only be political suicide, regardless of the reasons but also wholly wrong from a moral point of view.

Trying to compare it with the Australian system is a fools errand as the requirements for employers to pay in much higher percentages has been in place for decades before means testing was ever considered.

I wasn’t comparing it with anything