Argentina

[noahrab]

I am afraid Noah that you are spot on. No money has been saved onto a fund for the payment of state pensions. Every state pension is paid out of the current taxes raised each month.
Think there is no need to give highly paid people advantages when it comes to tax relief on pensions but there was pandemonium when they put a low limit on how much NHS consultants could pay into their pension pots. They had to pay so much more tax because they could not stuff their pension fund full of cash they did not need, or could not spend.

Pension should be means tested.

Don?t need it, don?t get it.

[BCram]

Pension should be means tested.

Don?t need it, don?t get it.

Can't think how this would work. Remember poll tax counted households and worked out amount of council tax. Do you count household income?
Do you add up all benefits, like housing benefit and all the others to find out how much each household earns?
Maybe families staying together, could be used as a way to encourage parents to look after their family?

[Dodbroon]

Pension should be means tested.

Don?t need it, don?t get it.

How do you define "don't need it"? ?10k gross private pension, ?100k gross private pension or maybe any private pension and other income.

It's a tad harsh to conclude that current pensioners should be means tested because their pensions are paid out of current tax collections if their tax collections during their working life were used partly to pay the pensions of previous generations.

National Insurance contributions were set up originally to provide a state pension along with other benefits. This was a key aspect of the Beveridge report of 1942 on social security. Individuals paid in money (agreed this was used to fund pensions and benefits of others at the time) to enable them to get a state pension on their own retirement together with other benefits if required. It would be the same way that folk who have built up savings and bought their own house have to pay for care later in life are fleeced compared to others who get the same free. I'm not talking here about a person who has had little income throughout his/her life and who has had no possibility of building up any savings. I'm comparing a person who has had modest to good income even very good income and who has lived lavishly and blown the lot with the person on the same income who has lived more frugally and saved for retirement. Means testing is morally wrong and stems from envy of those on the left against those who have done well for themselves in addition to the super rich who live off inherited wealth.

It is all irrelevant anyway. Even this incompetent, morally bankrupt Labour government or their (Barnet Formula dependent) Scottish SNP useless administration would hesitate to tamper with the state pension. They may allow it to fall further into taxability due to the fiscal drag of not increasing allowances, but means test or restricting the pension; no!! Perhaps the only way they are not stupid is in realising what will stop them being re-elected. This is that, political suicide!

[Returnofrros]

How do you define "don't need it"? ?10k gross private pension, ?100k gross private pension or maybe any private pension and other income.

It's a tad harsh to conclude that current pensioners should be means tested because their pensions are paid out of current tax collections if their tax collections during their working life were used partly to pay the pensions of previous generations.

National Insurance contributions were set up originally to provide a state pension along with other benefits. This was a key aspect of the Beveridge report of 1942 on social security. Individuals paid in money (agreed this was used to fund pensions and benefits of others at the time) to enable them to get a state pension on their own retirement together with other benefits if required. It would be the same way that folk who have built up savings and bought their own house have to pay for care later in life are fleeced compared to others who get the same free. I'm not talking here about a person who has had little income throughout his/her life and who has had no possibility of building up any savings. I'm comparing a person who has had modest to good income even very good income and who has lived lavishly and blown the lot with the person on the same income who has lived more frugally and saved for retirement. Means testing is morally wrong and stems from envy of those on the left against those who have done well for themselves in addition to the super rich who live off inherited wealth.

It is all irrelevant anyway. Even this incompetent, morally bankrupt Labour government or their (Barnet Formula dependent) Scottish SNP useless administration would hesitate to tamper with the state pension. They may allow it to fall further into taxability due to the fiscal drag of not increasing allowances, but means test or restricting the pension; no!! Perhaps the only way they are not stupid is in realising what will stop them being re-elected. This is that, political suicide!

I agree but do not think govts wouldn't do this.

They have already stolen near 40k off of me......what's another 200k between friends.

State pension is defo on the agenda.

But those who agree with means testing......careful what you wish for.

[Returnofrros]

Every financial planner worth his salt has included state pension in retirement planning for the last 30 years.

Are we now saying the govt has misled the people .....shock horror.

State pension forecast dept based in Newcastle......what was the point in that.

Do away with triple lock.

[BCram]

Every financial planner worth his salt has included state pension in retirement planning for the last 30 years.

Are we now saying the govt has misled the people .....shock horror.

State pension forecast dept based in Newcastle......what was the point in that.

Do away with triple lock.

Agree, keep the link to earnings. I would also publish the percentage of pension payments made by individuals and employers. Create a database of the last 5 years and make sure there is no substitution of additional employer payments in lieu of pay rises.

[noahrab]

How do you define "don't need it"? ?10k gross private pension, ?100k gross private pension or maybe any private pension and other income.

It's a tad harsh to conclude that current pensioners should be means tested because their pensions are paid out of current tax collections if their tax collections during their working life were used partly to pay the pensions of previous generations.

National Insurance contributions were set up originally to provide a state pension along with other benefits. This was a key aspect of the Beveridge report of 1942 on social security. Individuals paid in money (agreed this was used to fund pensions and benefits of others at the time) to enable them to get a state pension on their own retirement together with other benefits if required. It would be the same way that folk who have built up savings and bought their own house have to pay for care later in life are fleeced compared to others who get the same free. I'm not talking here about a person who has had little income throughout his/her life and who has had no possibility of building up any savings. I'm comparing a person who has had modest to good income even very good income and who has lived lavishly and blown the lot with the person on the same income who has lived more frugally and saved for retirement. Means testing is morally wrong and stems from envy of those on the left against those who have done well for themselves in addition to the super rich who live off inherited wealth.

It is all irrelevant anyway. Even this incompetent, morally bankrupt Labour government or their (Barnet Formula dependent) Scottish SNP useless administration would hesitate to tamper with the state pension. They may allow it to fall further into taxability due to the fiscal drag of not increasing allowances, but means test or restricting the pension; no!! Perhaps the only way they are not stupid is in realising what will stop them being re-elected. This is that, political suicide!

It’s a benefit so should be means tested in line with all benefits.

[Returnofrros]

It’s a benefit so should be means tested in line with all benefits.

But all benefits are NOT means tested.

[The AuldYin]

Today?s taxpayers pay for today?s pensions.

Away back to Dingwall ya daft *******, money is deducted and your pension is calculated on what you've paid over the years not on how much NI you paid today.

[Returnofrros]

Off top of head

Attendance allowance
Pip
Carers allowance
Scottish adult disability
Bereavement allowance
Industrial injuries allowance
State pension
Tax relief on pensions

All non means tested

[Returnofrros]

Away back to Dingwall ya daft *******, money is deducted and your pension is calculated on what you've paid over the years not on how much NI you paid today.

Nothing to do with how much you have paid it's calculated on how many years you have paid.....what you pay is irrelevant

[Returnofrros]

Nothing to do with how much you have paid it's calculated on how many years you have paid.....what you pay is irrelevant

Or how many years the govt pay for you.

If on ESA or carers allowance, stamp is paid for you.

[The AuldYin]

Nothing to do with how much you have paid it's calculated on how many years you have paid.....what you pay is irrelevant

Not at all, you can pay voluntary NI contributions to increase your state pension, that's always been the case as long as I've been self employed which is at least 40 years.

[Dodbroon]

It’s a benefit so should be means tested in line with all benefits.

Not all benefits are means tested, maybe they should be but at what level would the trigger point be. Also it surely couldn't be a precipice point where one extra pound loses you the whole 'benefit'. It would have to be a sliding scale. I really wouldn't be against it if it was to affect only the 'very rich' because quite frankly they likely couldn't care less. The way taxation works in the UK puts the vast majority of the load on the middle classes (means testing the state pension would make this worse). The much better off can employ tax accountants to avoid tax which, whilst arguably immoral, is perfectly legal. Furthermore if you squeeze the very rich too much they just move themselves and their money offshore. At the other end of the scale, those who pay no tax I have no problem with channelling funds their way if the need is genuine i.e. low income families or those who CANNOT work. Those who simply won't work, and openly boast that they are better off on benefits need sorting out but it seems that the tail wags the dog in the Labour party and the backbenchers won't countenance this. To be clear the previous Tory shambolic government failed also in this regard.

So how can you justify means testing which will almost wholly affect the middle classes, the working classes, those who contribute most imo to society. I repeat my previous post. Why should a person lose this 'benefit' if they have worked hard, saved for their retirement and not been profligate with their money over a lifetime in work. As I said before another party could have blown the lot on fast cars, fast women, luxurious holidays, smoking, drinking etc. etc. despite over the same lifetime earning and spending perhaps double the case of the first party, squandering the lot. If the latter party was to get the state pension 'benefit' and the former not then it would make a mockery of the system of means testing. This is the main reason that means testing is immoral, unjust and unlikely, hopefully, to be implemented.

[Returnofrros]

Not at all, you can pay voluntary NI contributions to increase your state pension, that's always been the case as long as I've been self employed which is at least 40 years.

You can pay years ....it's based on years

Someone 40 years on carers allowance will get exactly the same pension as someone who has worked 40 years and paid tens of thousands in NI contributions