Labour to abolish the old age pension

[srb7677]

Well OK there is normally something else to do but starting at the bottom in retail when your 55 doesnt sound like much fun .This is my gripe with the pension . Manual workers as you say go straight into a job and start earning (and paying the stamp ) at say 16 . By the time they have reached pension age (66)  they have been paying in for 50 years . Those seeking further education , university and whatever probably wont actually start work (time they have had a gap year ect) for another ten years so they only pay in for 40 years .

Would it really be that unfair to be able to say to my hod carrier that he can have his pension at 60 ?If you have people in your household working you have no chance of getting anything on the sick if your self employed ,at best statatory sick pay  which last time I looked was about £50 a week . Your right though they do pay your stamp but thats pretty meaningless if you have enough years in the pot anyway

Actually I was off sick for a week during the time of covid when the government made sick pay available from day one temporarily. It was a bit more than £50, but still only a pitiful £92 a week, which wouldnt even pay that weeks rent for most people.

Of course anything is better than nothing obviously, and £92 is far better than a kick in the gonads. But unless you are young enough to still be living at home with mummy and daddy, it is a wholly insufficient sum insofar as supporting the temporarily sick is concerned. If you are paid monthly and only have one week off sick, you might be able to earn enough in the other three by putting in more hours to compensate, as I did. But god knows how anyone could manage if they had to take an entire month off.

[Streetwalker]

What are manual labouring jobs these days — refuse collector, street sweeper, landscape gardener, cleaner, construction worker, storage-depot worker, shelf stacker, etc?

If any of these jobs become too physically demanding for the individual, aren't there other jobs needing people — eg, caretakers, drivers, retail, security, etc?

Well OK there is normally something else to do but starting at the bottom in retail when your 55 doesnt sound like much fun .

Some people want to leave education and go straight into a job and get earning. Others go into further education and/or training, and the likelihood is that they'll ultimately get better pay. Either way, both are clocking up years in the system, which will ultimately qualify them for the State Pension.

This is my gripe with the pension . Manual workers as you say go straight into a job and start earning (and paying the stamp ) at say 16 . By the time they have reached pension age (66)  they have been paying in for 50 years . Those seeking further education , university and whatever probably wont actually start work (time they have had a gap year ect) for another ten years so they only pay in for 40 years .

Would it really be that unfair to be able to say to my hod carrier that he can have his pension at 60 ?

The benefits I referred to are the credits that can be obtained during sickness (or caring for someone), which continue building up State Pension entitlement..

If you have people in your household working you have no chance of getting anything on the sick if your self employed ,at best statatory sick pay  which last time I looked was about £50 a week . Your right though they do pay your stamp but thats pretty meaningless if you have enough years in the pot anyway 

[patman post]

Sorry Posty but I don't really recognise that as a reply to what I wrote . Whos talking about benefits ?  Most manual Labourers dont earn enough to pay into a pension and often work for multiple employers . To refer to these guy's as lazy really is the pits .

What are manual labouring jobs these days — refuse collector, street sweeper, landscape gardener, cleaner, construction worker, storage-depot worker, shelf stacker, etc?

If any of these jobs become too physically demanding for the individual, aren't there other jobs needing people — eg, caretakers, drivers, retail, security, etc?

Some people want to leave education and go straight into a job and get earning. Others go into further education and/or training, and the likelihood is that they'll ultimately get better pay. Either way, both are clocking up years in the system, which will ultimately qualify them for the State Pension.

The benefits I referred to are the credits that can be obtained during sickness (or caring for someone), which continue building up State Pension entitlement...

[Borchester]

Sorry Posty but I don't really recognise that as a reply to what I wrote . Whos talking about benefits ?  Most manual Labourers dont earn enough to pay into a pension and often work for multiple employers . To refer to these guy's as lazy really is the pits .

You and Pat are coming from different directions. He is an office worker and however it appears in the movies, no one ever died of overwork flying a desk. But when you are on the tools, things are a bit different. A man can think round most problems, but it is hard to make those bricks lighter or the arthritis any easier.

[Streetwalker]

So why should those who choose to train and enter more rewarding jobs be expected to support others who move out of paying work and on to benefits?

I believe a caring society should care for it's unfortunate members, but I'm not in favour of supporting laziness or wilful ignorance. Besides all employers should offer pension schemes. Tough on workers who don't take them up...

Sorry Posty but I don't really recognise that as a reply to what I wrote . Whos talking about benefits ?  Most manual Labourers dont earn enough to pay into a pension and often work for multiple employers . To refer to these guy's as lazy really is the pits .

[patman post]

What they have never taken into account is that manual workers are fecked by the time they are in their mid 50's , some push on into their 60's () but don't really do themselves any favours in the long term . Raising the pension any further wouldnt make manual work ,usually lower paid without private pensions very attractive to anyone .

So why should those who choose to train and enter more rewarding jobs be expected to support others who move out of paying work and on to benefits? 

I believe a caring society should care for it's unfortunate members, but I'm not in favour of supporting laziness or wilful ignorance. Besides all employers should offer pension schemes. Tough on workers who don't take them up...

[Streetwalker]

When the pressure was growing to equalize the pension age for men and women, in the 1980s, we were told this would be achieved by lowering mens' pension age to 60.

Then there was a change of heart. Compulsory retirement at 65 was suddenly seen as ageist and we were now told that 80 is the new 65 and older people should take up pole-vaulting, Iron Man challenges, or both. This change of direction was backed up by some 'expert' declaring that 'a quarter of all babies born today will live to see their 100th birthday**'.  Because of a misquote by a journalist, that quarter became a third, and the new statistic stuck. It's a good few years since that claim, since which there's been the pandemic.

** Currently, under 1% of people reach 100. 'Babies born today' refers to over 10 years ago. So in 90 years time, it's highly unlikely that one third of those 'ex-babies' will still be alive.

What they have never taken into account is that manual workers are fecked by the time they are in their mid 50's , some push on into their 60's () but don't really do themselves any favours in the long term . Raising the pension any further wouldnt make manual work ,usually lower paid without private pensions very attractive to anyone . 

[HDQQ]

When the pressure was growing to equalize the pension age for men and women, in the 1980s, we were told this would be achieved by lowering mens' pension age to 60.

Then there was a change of heart. Compulsory retirement at 65 was suddenly seen as ageist and we were now told that 80 is the new 65 and older people should take up pole-vaulting, Iron Man challenges, or both. This change of direction was backed up by some 'expert' declaring that 'a quarter of all babies born today will live to see their 100th birthday**'.  Because of a misquote by a journalist, that quarter became a third, and the new statistic stuck. It's a good few years since that claim, since which there's been the pandemic.

** Currently, under 1% of people reach 100. 'Babies born today' refers to over 10 years ago. So in 90 years time, it's highly unlikely that one third of those 'ex-babies' will still be alive.

[Borchester]

Of course it does. If current taxpayers are funding current pensions then they are obviously not pre-paid. The money you think you pre paid was actually spent by the government as soon as you paid it, to fund existing pensions or other government expenditure. Current state pensions are funded by current taxpayers and always have been.

So all to the good. No one here still carries the first bloom of youth, so we can let the kids worry about funding our pensions

[srb7677]

The source of the funds is irrelevant, the fact that today's tax payers are funding the retired doesn't detract from the fact that is a pre-paid system.

Of course it does. If current taxpayers are funding current pensions then they are obviously not pre-paid. The money you think you pre paid was actually spent by the government as soon as you paid it, to fund existing pensions or other government expenditure. Current state pensions are funded by current taxpayers and always have been.

[Nick]

That is something of a misnomer. The NI pensioners paid in the past was treated as a tax by the governments they and everyone else voted for at the time. The state pension has never been funded out of past contributions but by current taxpayers. It always was, still is, and quite possibly always will be. My own taxes are helping to fund the state pension for current pensioners. When I hit retirement age, my own pension will be paid for by the taxpayers of the day. It was ever thus.

All governments have explicitly linked NI payments to pension entitlements. If you don't pay enough NI contributions you don't get a full state pension. But the notion that your NI payments are paying for your future pension is a dishonest illusion. They are treated as tax revenue like all other taxes and future pensions are going to be paid for not by past contributions but by future tax payers.

However, although NI does not fund future pensions, the promise of a future pension based upon making such payments has been an explicit one. So if universal pensions were to be removed and replaced by means tested ones, it would have to be done very gradually by explicitly breaking the link between NI contributions and pensions for all future payments, but still counting the contributions made to date. Doing this however would take decades to start making major savings and is fraught with risk in the sense of it possibly disincentivising saving for private pensions at all at the lower end of pay scales.

A wiser long term policy might just be to freeze the state pension whilst triple locking the minimum income guarantee for pensioners. So poorer pensioners are protected but the state pension for better off ones gradually becomes worth less in real terms with the passage of time. Savings would begin immediately and gradually increase with time. This too is not without risk. Current better off pensioners might not take too kindly to it and might express their discontent at the ballot box, and in any case any gradual real terms decrease in the real value of the state pension also increases the risk of disincentivising lower earners from making private pension contributions.

Pensioners do however represent a growing burden on taxpayers, costing more than all other welfare put together. This will not be financially sustainable in the long term so something has to give. And if we are going to avoid the return of pensioner poverty, this can only be achieved by giving less to better off pensioners, or perhaps also raising the retirement age.

Insofar as the latter goes I am all in favour of a much more flexible retirement age based upon health and physical fitness rather than solely on age. I think anyone aged 60 or over who is unfit to work should be able to retire on health grounds, but the default retirement age for anyone fit enough to work should be nearer 70. And those choosing to work beyond 70 should be able to defer claiming a pension in return for a moderately larger one later.

The source of the funds is irrelevant, the fact that today's tax payers are funding the retired doesn't detract from the fact that is a pre-paid system.

[Borchester]

Insofar as the latter goes I am all in favour of a much more flexible retirement age based upon health and physical fitness rather than solely on age. I think anyone aged 60 or over who is unfit to work should be able to retire on health grounds, but the default retirement age for anyone fit enough to work should be nearer 70. And those choosing to work beyond 70 should be able to defer claiming a pension in return for a moderately larger one later.

You can actually. My wife has never claimed her State Pension and has left it silting up at a very favourable rate. Buggered if I know what it is and I can not be arsed to find out, but she is well pleased and no slouch when it comes to the spondoolies, so it must be a decent sum

[srb7677]

We agree 🥳.
How can you possibly means test something that you have actually paid for?

That is something of a misnomer. The NI pensioners paid in the past was treated as a tax by the governments they and everyone else voted for at the time. The state pension has never been funded out of past contributions but by current taxpayers. It always was, still is, and quite possibly always will be. My own taxes are helping to fund the state pension for current pensioners. When I hit retirement age, my own pension will be paid for by the taxpayers of the day. It was ever thus. 

All governments have explicitly linked NI payments to pension entitlements. If you don't pay enough NI contributions you don't get a full state pension. But the notion that your NI payments are paying for your future pension is a dishonest illusion. They are treated as tax revenue like all other taxes and future pensions are going to be paid for not by past contributions but by future tax payers.

However, although NI does not fund future pensions, the promise of a future pension based upon making such payments has been an explicit one. So if universal pensions were to be removed and replaced by means tested ones, it would have to be done very gradually by explicitly breaking the link between NI contributions and pensions for all future payments, but still counting the contributions made to date. Doing this however would take decades to start making major savings and is fraught with risk in the sense of it possibly disincentivising saving for private pensions at all at the lower end of pay scales.

A wiser long term policy might just be to freeze the state pension whilst triple locking the minimum income guarantee for pensioners. So poorer pensioners are protected but the state pension for better off ones gradually becomes worth less in real terms with the passage of time. Savings would begin immediately and gradually increase with time. This too is not without risk. Current better off pensioners might not take too kindly to it and might express their discontent at the ballot box, and in any case any gradual real terms decrease in the real value of the state pension also increases the risk of disincentivising lower earners from making private pension contributions.

Pensioners do however represent a growing burden on taxpayers, costing more than all other welfare put together. This will not be financially sustainable in the long term so something has to give. And if we are going to avoid the return of pensioner poverty, this can only be achieved by giving less to better off pensioners, or perhaps also raising the retirement age.

Insofar as the latter goes I am all in favour of a much more flexible retirement age based upon health and physical fitness rather than solely on age. I think anyone aged 60 or over who is unfit to work should be able to retire on health grounds, but the default retirement age for anyone fit enough to work should be nearer 70. And those choosing to work beyond 70 should be able to defer claiming a pension in return for a moderately larger one later.

[Nick]

I don't think the state pension itself should be means tested but all the other pensioner benefits should be.

We agree 🥳. 
How can you possibly means test something that you have actually paid for?

[srb7677]

I don't think the state pension itself should be means tested but all the other pensioner benefits should be.