What are your views on rich pensioners not getting a state pension.

[fruitpiecats]

What are your views on rich pensioners who's income is over 70,000 a year not getting a state pension that the saving from this should go to the poorer pensioners and to the NHS, is it a good idea or not?

[upthecreekyetagain]

I would agree that giving those pensioners who don't need it a state pension is not the best use of funds.

As for giving any savings to others though then I would have to disagree - any savings should be used to reduce the amount we are borrowing - we can't afford to pay back what we already owe.

There are only two ways to reduce a debt and/or limit borrowing - increase income, decrease spending - as a country we are doing neither.

We have limited capital, a reduced borrowing ability, taxpayers have been squeezed almost to the limit.  The only possible way to get back on to a sensible fiscal footing is to reduce costs but we are not even doing that!

[spawnjohnuk]

haven't all wealthy people got decent private pensions and only poor use the state pension ? 

[upthecreekyetagain]

State pensions Spawn are essentially just another non means tested benefit.

This idea that everyone who has worked has paid for one is an illusion.  There is no magical pot of money secreted away somewhere that the state pension is paid out of.

[spawnjohnuk]

but wealthy people use this benefit  do they pls.?.no idea, but yes knew it was another freebie ,hence all are provided at work now with options of buying private ones (in fact it's encouraged and rightly so) I just knew someone who didn't bother with it as his private made him feel ok.

[cee-dee]

Whether they liked it or not or needed it, people are forced to pay "in to it" sooooo, if you've paid IN, you get the benefit OUT otherwise it's "just another tax".

When some people first start "work", they've no idea that they might become "rich" and they start paying in.

On the other hand, some "rich" people go broke for one reason or another so would need the State Pension later on.

I think that many of those who think "the rich" should be denied the State Pension are simply jealous of their status and seek to clobber them (the rich) at every turn. In many cases, if it wasn't for "the rich" creating employment for the riff-raff, there'd be an awful lot of beggers on the street........

[bankhaunter]

Don't forget the state pension is taxable, if the person had an income of £70,000, 40%  would be going back to the government.

[upthecreekyetagain]

Whether they liked it or not or needed it, people are forced to pay "in to it" sooooo, if you've paid IN, you get the benefit OUT otherwise it's "just another tax"

NI payments ARE just another PAYE tax - ER's contributions are just a tax on employment.

[cee-dee]

Ah, but as distinct from "income tax", employees contributions were intended to "cover" the NH and the State Pension.

[spawnjohnuk]

rich creating employment for the riff raff ??? lol cd,I agree wealthy companies create work for others but being rich (inherited) does not entitle you to call employees riff raff nor indeed be an employer...seems to me if riff raff is the given employees name of the rich ,then its those who clobber worse off at every turn 🙂

[bankhaunter]

If a private company ran a pension scheme in the way that successive governments have the state pension, the directors would have been imprisoned.

The public see the state pension as a right earned by payments over many years, whether it actually is or not is immaterial, any government that proposes the idea that pensions can be withdrawn or reduced depending on future policy, is not going to be a government for very long.

[spawnjohnuk]

I still don't know if wealthy bother with it that much regardless of paying in when private pensions are a lot better and have no do this that and the other to get it attached hence my thinking even if stopped the savings would be minimal .Maybe...I honestly don't know , there wont be a state pension when I get there anyhow at this rate as if people the gov like keep popping their clogs we will all be potless come 2014 🙂

[cee-dee]

Ah, the riff-raff eh? Why is it that the riff-raff act like, er, the riff-raff?

Well now, many folks have never had any lengthy meetings with "The Rich" so have no idea how they speak or converse or indeed, how to interact with them.

There's a distinction between "The Rich" and the "Nouveau Riche" amongst whom you find the most objectionable in "polite society". You could say the Nouveau Riche were the riff-raff of the rich set and I wouldn't argue with that :^O

[bankhaunter]

You are probably right, it is unlikely the gains would amount to much.

There are only about 500,000 people with an income of over £70,000 and not many of those would be pensioners.

[sir_arthur_strebe-grebling]

I agree that more wealthy people shouldn't necessarily get the state pension.

Yes, they've had to pay towards it. In that it is no different from, for instance, state schools, hospitals, the BBC, etc, where everyone is forced to pay for them. But the state-provided education, healthcare, broadcasting etc is such poor quality that those who can do so will pay extra to get better elsewhere.

We need to get away from the assumption that the state is there to provide for everyone. It's OK to have a safety net to cover those who genuinely are unable to look after themselves. But those millions of people who refuse to save for their own retirement have only themselves to blame when they are poor in old age.

[spawnjohnuk]

kinda makes sense sir art,I agree that the state in general is one.I blame thatcher who do you blame 😛

.

[joe_bloggs*]

Talking about pensioners, the government has been rejecting thousands of applications for Pauper Funerals made on behalf of ordinary UK pensioners who have died alone without money left to pay for their own burial. It seems Thatcher might be the only pensioner the UK government will support to die with dignity.

The government could have buried almost one thousand pensioners who died in poverty this year, for what it is paying to bury a millionaire former PM who died in her bed at the Ritz hotel.

[upthecreekyetagain]

People from both the left and the right claim they have paid for this that or the other and therefore have the right to whatever the benefit in question is.

The problem with that argument is that they haven't all been paid for - we've borrowed the money to pay for them and are continuing to borrow at alarming rate to continue the illusion that the government can decide what level various services and benefits can be provided.

As a country our cash flow has been negative for so long and at such a level that whilst we may not technically be bankrupt we won't be able to continue in business for much longer.

Specifically on pensions it is likely that even if all an individuals NI contributions had been put into a pension fund, it would only be the very few who have paid the maximum level of NI contributions over the whole of their working lives that would have built up a fund large enough to pay out a pension the size of the basic state one.

[upthecreekyetagain]

The government could have buried almost one thousand pensioners who died in poverty this year, for what it is paying to bury a millionaire former PM who died in her bed at the Ritz hotel.

The government aren't paying for Thatcher's funeral - they are borrowing the money to pay for it 😞

PS on that calculation you are suggesting that a pauper's funeral costs £10,000 😮

[salfordmarinade]

No objection in principle to a limit being placed or a graded reduction for those who receive over a certain amount, but I doubt whether it yields a great deal
Same with universal child benefit whose time has moved on I think.


Terminology here can be a problem. Labelling something a benefit gets some all hormonal, whereas most cash flows from government can be seen as such, which would cover various tax benefits. Such a scheme as suggested could also well be seen as an additional 'tax' . but it's not unreasonable I think that there are certain expectations to be met about previous payments.

One of the biggest problems is really the cost of the baby boomer bulge, that covers a fair number who post here.

As covered elsewhere governments in general make no special provision for pension  currently.
As for non state pensions, Doctors currently only fund about 27% of their fairly generous pensions according to recent figures the gov produced to try to change their pension  terms and conditions
Commercial pensions funds aren't neccessarily totally different.Some Final Salary schemes which are largely disappearing, may not be adequate to meet their current  obligations from past funding at any moment in time . Even an annuity may in due course be the same, depending on numerous factors, so the idea that somehow these are always appropriately 'funded' or somehow in isolation from other revenues isn't neccesarily true, just that there is a label and more of an effort to segregate and formally manage the funds. Just as governments dont have a little pot labelled 'pensions', providers dont have  little pots with everyones names on each

 I agree about the revenue pots re windfall oil, and the wasted opportunity, because really the baby boomer problem has been known for some time, but governments are short term thinkers, and the idea of saving and providing as per MG was a bit of a joke in this light.

I think sometimes people live in the past as far as tax goes. We are not really a highly taxed lot.
As for borrowing, that depends, a fair part of our borrowing is in the longer end of the market so it means less refinancing.
A sizeable chunk of our borrowing isn't really borrowing at all but used for market intervention.

As for being bankrupt lol
One of the problems with economics is you get multiple advantages on the growth upside, but their are multiple reverse hits  on the downside when cutting.
Cut back, and revenues fall, activity declines, expenditures on certain social payments increase.The effects are not new and are well known.
Debt as a proportion of GDP hit something over 250% during WWII strangely enough despite all the additional problems a global war brings we didn't go into meltdown.
During the depression years in the late 20's and 30's debt was at not dissimilar levels to war time reaching over 150% of gdp for that era.

Rates currently are some of the lowest ever, so if you have to borrow, one positive side is that
They can be a problem if for any reason access to capital markets is restricted or the ability to service the debt impaired.
Government debt is usually via fixed rate bond issues, that's really an open position. If suddenly interest rates where to move sharply up, the real market value of the debt if you were to buy it back would go down accordingly, in other words your debt gets instantly reduced. You could buy it back on further refinancing, and as such would pay less than what the issue price was...bit like having a loan of 100, and paying back 90 but of course whilst borrowing would go down proportionately more, interest on new debt would be higher than the old.
Within reason and depending on it's usage, nothing fundamentally wrong with what used to be called deficit financing, you accrue all the upside benefits too, though it depends on where and what expenditure falls on and also external markets and economic conditions at the time. Some individuals borrow % wise far more, in the form of a mortgage. Expenditure borrowing under  spending  reductions can prove the least effective of all.