Your state pension may be at risk

Anybody coming up to retirement paid for their pension over the last 50 years.

Some will depend on it.
Woe betide any government who would dare to stop it.

there are some though, that have rarely worked.
Some wouldn’t have work when there was work.
We all know somebody of that ilk.

these people should be the ones taken out if that pension equation.
They should then be given means tested benefits accordingly.

A hard working person should not have to fear going into retirement.
 
Eziozi’s Ghost said:
Anybody coming up to retirement paid for their pension over the last 50 years.

Some will depend on it.
Woe betide any government who would dare to stop it.

there are some though, that have rarely worked.
Some wouldn’t have work when there was work.
We all know somebody of that ilk.

these people should be the ones taken out if that pension equation.
They should then be given means tested benefits accordingly.

A hard working person should not have to fear going into retirement.
Click to expand...

Surely someone who hasn’t worked all their life is more dependent on the state come retirement?

You could argue a hard working person as had the opportunity to save into a retirement fund for many years but they may have chose to spunk it instead
 
Paid in for my state pension for lots of years. Latest figure is far better than the minimum although still not great. Private pension is small so Boris get stuffed thinking about any changes ! You’ve had my contributions for many a year!!
 
The first replies here show how successive governments get away with consistently robbing ordinary people. They mention bringing in some awful measure and instead of standing up, saying "No way!" en masse and meaning it, we instead say "Not me guv, I'm one of the worthwhile, good people. You need to pick on my neighbour instead."

It's why the super rich are fine to live in our country, without paying taxes
 
National Insurance was always meant to be for social security - NHS, pensions etc. Successive governments have just used it for whatever they feel like. I don't see why the old should pay for the profligacy of the government.
 
I’ve argued previously on here that scrapping the triple lock on pensions would have a much greater impact on the young than it would on current pensioners or those close to retirement. However, removing the national insurance exemption for pensioners would be a good idea. It would mean that wealthy pensioners make a fair contribution whilst protecting those on lower incomes.
 
All the millions that will be made redundant because of Covid and the lockdown can’t exactly pay for it can they?

I’ve accepted there won’t be a state pension by the time I retire anyway. I plan to live off dividends.
 
GazC_MFC said:
Surely someone who hasn’t worked all their life is more dependent on the state come retirement?

You could argue a hard working person as had the opportunity to save into a retirement fund for many years but they may have chose to spunk it instead
Click to expand...

Of course those people that have not worked and therefore not paid through taxes for a government pension should get benefits that befit their means.

I am just concerned that the state pension should be scrapoed or means tested for people that have already paid for it over their lifetime of work.

non workers can still claim benefits course, as they have done for all their lives.
 
The biggest welfare benefit is state pensions hence it is target. Removing the triple lock seems necessary to help pay for some of the costs of lock down. People haven't worked 40 years for a triple lock pension, the triple lock was given as a vote catcher/bribe.

Pension relief is very expensive, some higher earners are been given £16,000 a year by the HMRC in tax relief. Seems exceedingly generous in a world where some low income families are paying taxes but relying on food banks. Why not reduce the amount that be claimed as tax relief on Pension contributions say from £40,000 to £20,000 a year. To put £20,000 a year or more into a private pension, you really have to be a wealthy person.

I would also freeze all state pension on people living outside the UK including their so called winter fuel payments. The less people currently contribute to the UK economy the less they should get. They may have paid taxes in the UK in the 1960s & 70s, but that is not as relevant to me as the people who pay taxes now. I do say freeze not stop.
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't it be sensible to incentivise retirement for the older population. This would allow them to isolate from the virus and create more employment for the younger age groups. No idea of the cost to the state, but it would appear to be some sort of a solution.
 
Eziozi’s Ghost said:
Of course those people that have not worked and therefore not paid through taxes for a government pension should get benefits that befit their means.

I am just concerned that the state pension should be scrapoed or means tested for people that have already paid for it over their lifetime of work.

non workers can still claim benefits course, as they have done for all their lives.
Click to expand...

The state pension will not be scrapped or means tested - the triple lock only affects how much it rises by - millionaires get the state pension and always will (in forseeable future) as long as they paid enough NI contributions. The state pension is taxable for UK tax residents. Most pensioners nowadays pay some income tax (its payable on incomes above £12,500).

Non workers sometimes are not entitled to state benefits, say if they are a partner of someone who has an income, or if they have savings above £8k. Tens of millions of married women used to be in this group.
 
Redwurzel, I thought the state pension was frozen if you move abroad? Or is that only if you move to a country without a tax reciprocal agreement? Anyhow, the next few years are going to be a nightmare for a lot of people.
 
Some countries it is and some it is not. All EU countries it rises with inflation. Giving people winter fuel allowance who live n the Canaries Islands is a complete waste of public funds. They never get frosts there. I suppose the Brits that live there say its their entitlement, but sometimes you have to say we need the money more for people who are struggling to feed themselves in the UK or for the NHS or for social care of the very elderly in the UK.
 
This is incredibly irritating. People who worked hard all their lives, getting shat on at the last minute because of government borrowing for a crisis. I mean, sure, lets hit pensioners, but lets not do anything about all the tax loopholes allowing corporations and people who can afford tax accountants to skip paying into the public purse. Lets leave the EU to avoid the new EU offshore tax rules applying here, hurting those with the most wealth.

I'm all for fair distribution from all corners, but hitting pensioners seems horribly unfair. Explain to me how being able to enjoy your retirement after working for 40/50 odd years and paying into the system all that time is now ripe for a kicking?
 
Redwurzel said:
Pension relief is very expensive, some higher earners are been given £16,000 a year by the HMRC in tax relief. Seems exceedingly generous in a world where some low income families are paying taxes but relying on food banks. Why not reduce the amount that be claimed as tax relief on Pension contributions say from £40,000 to £20,000 a year. To put £20,000 a year or more into a private pension, you really have to be a wealthy person.
Click to expand...

It’s not simply paying £40,000 into your pension each year. That’s the amount, in real terms, that your pension pot is allowed to grow by each year, so if your pension investments grow by more than inflation (which is the general idea), that counts towards the £40,000 limit.

You are right that giving relatively affluent people 40% tax relief on their pension contributions is difficult to justify in the present situation. Rather than cutting the annual allowanance, they should only give basic tax relief (20%) on all pension contributions.

That would still incentivise people to save into their pensions, would leave basic rate taxpayers unchanged, but would limit the cost to the taxpayer for more affluent people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top