I have to say I would be fuming if they means tested the state pension and would create an action group to challenge it legally. I am in a group that probably doesn’t need it to retire simply because I have worked hard and saved hard throughout my life. Once again though I would be subsidising those who haven’t, having already done that with the tax system throughout my working life
Despite the fact that the govt have squandered the proceeds of the NI “fund” by not setting aside the required monies as part of the contract with the worker, the moral deal is that they are obliged to pay a pension. They instead have disgracefully re-designated what should have been a fund as a benefit.
I have already been robbed of 2 years of contractual entitlement but won’t accept any further state theft without legal challenge.
You suggest that means testing of the pension should result in a reduction in your tax burden as you 'have subsidised' those less fortunate than yourself. Rather arrogant some might say. Narrow minded others might suggest. I don't have children at school but I'm happy my taxes are used for education. I'm healthy but I'm happy my taxes contribute help those who are ill. I'm prosperous but I'm happy my taxes might support those who are low paid or unable to work. It's called a society.
obviously comments went over your head - comment was not about tax system per se but contractual entitlement to a state pension. But yes I and other hard workers have subsidised those who haven’t worked as hard and it is not right it should then happen again (by not having a pension based on assets)
I'm not sure they have completely gone over my head. Again you refer to 'subsidising' others who 'haven't worked as hard'. Does it not occur to you that there are millions of people who work harder than you but don't earn as much. Does it not occur to you that working hard can still mean minimum wage, zero hours contracts, short term or temporary arrangements. If you don't want to continue 'subsidising' then perhaps you should fight for a fairer system where everyone who works full-time can expect to feed and clothe their families, have a decent roof over their heads, a pension scheme and state pension that offer some guarantees and a little left over for a meal out occasionally or even a family holiday god forbid. Final point; please don't continue imagining that you are so crucial to the economic system that you are personally responsible for subsidising people less fortunate than yourself.
once again you miss the point entirely but I have no interest in this socialist clap trap. You make your own fortunes in life by working hard and saving hard. If you haven’t done that stop holding grudges against those who have. End of discussion
If I've missed the point, you need to communicate more clearly. Nevertheless the point I haven't missed is that you keep bringing up the notion of 'subsidising' do you not? Please don't deflect your arrogance by gaslighting me with comments like 'socialist claptrap'. You said what you said. You exposed your prejudice. You have the grudge.
I do very well thank you and have retired early as a consequence.
Where you and I seem to differ is that you see others as a burden who are somehow increasing your personal tax bill in their so called laziness and ignorance. You have some significant grudges, so ingrained you don't seem to notice yourself voicing them.
I'd rather take the view that if I'm doing ok why shouldn't we make sure others are ok too. it is about living in a civilised society, being part of a community rather than behaving like the child of Thatcher that you clearly are.
What a bore you are- the discussion was on the state pension but you’ve chosen to have a rant on everything else. We need another Thatcher now to deal with the hand out culture, that is dragging the country down, so any link to her I take as a compliment. You have made your socialist views known and as clear by now I’ m not interested
You're no barrell of laughs either. You bang on bout the state pension whilst claiming it isn't necessary for your retirement whilst simultaneously using the opportunity to bash the plebs, then you don't like it when someone challenges your holier than thou attitude.
Given you don't actually know anyone getting 'handouts: I suggest you get on with your life, spend your pension that you don't need and leave everyone else to theirs. It doesn't cost anything to be nice.
Your comment is 'the reason they means test the state pension is because it works' is an interesting one. Who does it work for?
Currently the UK state pension is a universal benefit. Assuming one has accumulated the required NI contributions, every 'gets the same' pension.
Two things to consider (and I'm sure there are more):
1) The state pension is accurately sustainable in its current form despite the scaremonger and the calls from the wealthy to do away with it. There is enough money in the UK for government to do all the things the majority of the population would like it to do. However, political choices are made to allow the wealthy and large corporations to be protected from appropriate taxation whilst the lowest paid carry the largest burden proportionally when you take into account all forms of taxation. So, reform the tax system and sustain the pension scheme.
2) If there was a move to means testing. The point at which your state pension begins to reduce and ultimately disappears would need to be at a suitably high level so as not to bring hardship on pensioners or indeed to discourage workers to save or invest for their retire.
There would be much debate about where the thresholds for means testing should lie and what wealth and income would be included in such a test.
It's such a personal decision, with everyone's circumstances unique. I have enough, but enjoy working (a little). I also have a young wife and 7yo son, so I have to think about them. But the main difficulty is the inertia that you describe.
I have to say I would be fuming if they means tested the state pension and would create an action group to challenge it legally. I am in a group that probably doesn’t need it to retire simply because I have worked hard and saved hard throughout my life. Once again though I would be subsidising those who haven’t, having already done that with the tax system throughout my working life
Despite the fact that the govt have squandered the proceeds of the NI “fund” by not setting aside the required monies as part of the contract with the worker, the moral deal is that they are obliged to pay a pension. They instead have disgracefully re-designated what should have been a fund as a benefit.
I have already been robbed of 2 years of contractual entitlement but won’t accept any further state theft without legal challenge.
You suggest that means testing of the pension should result in a reduction in your tax burden as you 'have subsidised' those less fortunate than yourself. Rather arrogant some might say. Narrow minded others might suggest. I don't have children at school but I'm happy my taxes are used for education. I'm healthy but I'm happy my taxes contribute help those who are ill. I'm prosperous but I'm happy my taxes might support those who are low paid or unable to work. It's called a society.
obviously comments went over your head - comment was not about tax system per se but contractual entitlement to a state pension. But yes I and other hard workers have subsidised those who haven’t worked as hard and it is not right it should then happen again (by not having a pension based on assets)
I'm not sure they have completely gone over my head. Again you refer to 'subsidising' others who 'haven't worked as hard'. Does it not occur to you that there are millions of people who work harder than you but don't earn as much. Does it not occur to you that working hard can still mean minimum wage, zero hours contracts, short term or temporary arrangements. If you don't want to continue 'subsidising' then perhaps you should fight for a fairer system where everyone who works full-time can expect to feed and clothe their families, have a decent roof over their heads, a pension scheme and state pension that offer some guarantees and a little left over for a meal out occasionally or even a family holiday god forbid. Final point; please don't continue imagining that you are so crucial to the economic system that you are personally responsible for subsidising people less fortunate than yourself.
once again you miss the point entirely but I have no interest in this socialist clap trap. You make your own fortunes in life by working hard and saving hard. If you haven’t done that stop holding grudges against those who have. End of discussion
If I've missed the point, you need to communicate more clearly. Nevertheless the point I haven't missed is that you keep bringing up the notion of 'subsidising' do you not? Please don't deflect your arrogance by gaslighting me with comments like 'socialist claptrap'. You said what you said. You exposed your prejudice. You have the grudge.
I do very well thank you and have retired early as a consequence.
Where you and I seem to differ is that you see others as a burden who are somehow increasing your personal tax bill in their so called laziness and ignorance. You have some significant grudges, so ingrained you don't seem to notice yourself voicing them.
I'd rather take the view that if I'm doing ok why shouldn't we make sure others are ok too. it is about living in a civilised society, being part of a community rather than behaving like the child of Thatcher that you clearly are.
What a bore you are- the discussion was on the state pension but you’ve chosen to have a rant on everything else. We need another Thatcher now to deal with the hand out culture, that is dragging the country down, so any link to her I take as a compliment. You have made your socialist views known and as clear by now I’ m not interested
You're no barrell of laughs either. You bang on bout the state pension whilst claiming it isn't necessary for your retirement whilst simultaneously using the opportunity to bash the plebs, then you don't like it when someone challenges your holier than thou attitude.
Given you don't actually know anyone getting 'handouts: I suggest you get on with your life, spend your pension that you don't need and leave everyone else to theirs. It doesn't cost anything to be nice.
Your comment is 'the reason they means test the state pension is because it works' is an interesting one. Who does it work for?
Currently the UK state pension is a universal benefit. Assuming one has accumulated the required NI contributions, every 'gets the same' pension.
Two things to consider (and I'm sure there are more):
1) The state pension is accurately sustainable in its current form despite the scaremonger and the calls from the wealthy to do away with it. There is enough money in the UK for government to do all the things the majority of the population would like it to do. However, political choices are made to allow the wealthy and large corporations to be protected from appropriate taxation whilst the lowest paid carry the largest burden proportionally when you take into account all forms of taxation. So, reform the tax system and sustain the pension scheme.
2) If there was a move to means testing. The point at which your state pension begins to reduce and ultimately disappears would need to be at a suitably high level so as not to bring hardship on pensioners or indeed to discourage workers to save or invest for their retire.
There would be much debate about where the thresholds for means testing should lie and what wealth and income would be included in such a test.
It's such a personal decision, with everyone's circumstances unique. I have enough, but enjoy working (a little). I also have a young wife and 7yo son, so I have to think about them. But the main difficulty is the inertia that you describe.