While there are many valid points in this piece, we need to not get blinded by thinking the state pension is anything more than a minimum living standard, even with the triple lock.
The full state pension is 203.85 quid a week.
For those who rely on it, it’s fuck all, which is also why housing benefit, etc, exists.
Wealthy boomers are not wealthy because of the state pension. They are wealthy due to a massive wealth transfer due, almost entirely, to a massive house price boom as well as having interest only endowment mortgages.
Poor pensionsers still exist, and they still live in poverty.
The issue is the state pension was raided in the 1980’s to allow for reduced taxes and so now an increasingly large chunk of the national budget goes on state pensions.
If you factor in the majority of the NHS budget goes on geriatric care or elder social care you end up with more than 50% of the annual budget is to support the elderly.
Its not sustainable.
I think the easiest approach would be to means test the state pension by using tax thresholds. If your household income (excluding state pension) exceeds the free tax threshold (£12,500) then you don’t qualify for a state pension.
Ideally we would increase minimum wage, the tax thresholds and state pension to align with the living wage foundation recommendations.
If your household income (excluding state pension) exceeds the free tax threshold (£12,500) then you don’t qualify for a state pension.
This is laughably cruel, and barely 2k a year above the state pension. In what reality is 12k a year anything other than poverty?
If this is funded via pension savings, you need something in the region of 250-300k to either buy an annuity or have a safe withdrawal rate to have an income of 12k a year.
Assuming a 4% average rate of growth - after charges and inflation - from your 18th birthday until retirement at 67, you need to be contributing the equivalent of 167 quid in today’s money, every month, for 49 years, to get that 300k. That may not sound like a lot, but keep in mind a few things:
the vast majority - 200k - of that value comes from compounded growth, not contributions, making you extra vulnerable to underperformance
what and when people can afford to save heavily depends on their circumstances, which change throughout their lives. If you went to uni and started contributing at 23 instead of 18, you’d lose 50k just in lost compound effects. Same applies to stopping work to have kids, to support an ill relative, etc.
according to this recent times article the average pension pot is approx 37k total, so the vast majority of people are no where near close saving even this seemingly low figure. 37k gets you whopping income of ~100 quid a month.
As you say further up, the country spends considerable sums on the elderly when you include the NHS, etc. That figure is not going to decrease if even more people are in poverty. Health costs have this annoying habit of getting higher the closer to death you are, and accelerating that ain’t the best idea.
Throwing in the towel just because it’s expensive is not the answer.
Culture wars, culture wars, culture wars, culture wars, culture wars, culture wars, culture wars. Sorry, its an add on I have when Tory BS gets pushed about.
The Reason kids are poorer now is because you are not getting paid enough. This is something that has developed in the last 13 years. Mean wages were rising until the Tories got in. Join a union, and make sure you vote at the next election to get these scumbags out.
As for the NHS cost we pay less than a fair few comparable countries and get a very bad deal for what we do pay. A lot of the NHS treatment is privatised now, so ofc it is costing a lot more while getting less in return. It would be cheaper if we did the job with the people we trained up ourselves. Strangely this does not happen anymore. The Tories have placed a lot of private healthcare providers on the boards for budgets in hospitals around the country. It is like letting the fox babysit the chickens.
The issue is the state pension was raided in the 1980’s to allow for reduced taxes and so now an increasingly large chunk of the national budget goes on state pensions.
Where are you getting this from?
If you factor in the majority of the NHS budget goes on geriatric care or elder social care you end up with more than 50% of the annual budget is to support the elderly.
You need to show some proof of this BS. It simply is not true.
Health care, education and welfare are the closest things the state gets to free money. By spending on those things in particular, they increase tax receipts and reduce expenses in other areas. The only reason to discourage spending in those areas is ideological, not practical. This is well known - Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz (both Nobel prize winners for economics) have outright stated this fact:
“Education and healthcare are investments in human capital that pay off in the long run in terms of higher productivity and a healthier, more prosperous society.” - Paul Krugman
“Investing in education, healthcare, and social safety nets is not just a moral imperative; it is also an economic necessity for creating a more equitable and productive society.” - Joseph Stiglitz
This isn’t even bringing countercyclical spending into it - basically, the government is INTENTIONALLY damaging the economy to control and manipulate the working class.
Stop spreading disinformation. Join a union. Get involved in mutual aid. Voting is not the answer.
Means-tested benefits are an extremely expensive way to be cruel solely to save the rich a few pennies on their taxes. Ordinarily-incomed people already pay a far greater proportion of their income in National Insurance, and work longer because the life expectancy of the rich has gone up, and now you want to take it away if they’re not far enough below the poverty level without it?
While there are many valid points in this piece, we need to not get blinded by thinking the state pension is anything more than a minimum living standard, even with the triple lock.
The full state pension is 203.85 quid a week.
For those who rely on it, it’s fuck all, which is also why housing benefit, etc, exists.
Wealthy boomers are not wealthy because of the state pension. They are wealthy due to a massive wealth transfer due, almost entirely, to a massive house price boom as well as having interest only endowment mortgages.
Poor pensionsers still exist, and they still live in poverty.
The issue is the state pension was raided in the 1980’s to allow for reduced taxes and so now an increasingly large chunk of the national budget goes on state pensions.
If you factor in the majority of the NHS budget goes on geriatric care or elder social care you end up with more than 50% of the annual budget is to support the elderly.
Its not sustainable.
I think the easiest approach would be to means test the state pension by using tax thresholds. If your household income (excluding state pension) exceeds the free tax threshold (£12,500) then you don’t qualify for a state pension.
Ideally we would increase minimum wage, the tax thresholds and state pension to align with the living wage foundation recommendations.
This is laughably cruel, and barely 2k a year above the state pension. In what reality is 12k a year anything other than poverty?
If this is funded via pension savings, you need something in the region of 250-300k to either buy an annuity or have a safe withdrawal rate to have an income of 12k a year.
Assuming a 4% average rate of growth - after charges and inflation - from your 18th birthday until retirement at 67, you need to be contributing the equivalent of 167 quid in today’s money, every month, for 49 years, to get that 300k. That may not sound like a lot, but keep in mind a few things:
As you say further up, the country spends considerable sums on the elderly when you include the NHS, etc. That figure is not going to decrease if even more people are in poverty. Health costs have this annoying habit of getting higher the closer to death you are, and accelerating that ain’t the best idea.
Throwing in the towel just because it’s expensive is not the answer.
Culture wars, culture wars, culture wars, culture wars, culture wars, culture wars, culture wars. Sorry, its an add on I have when Tory BS gets pushed about.
The Reason kids are poorer now is because you are not getting paid enough. This is something that has developed in the last 13 years. Mean wages were rising until the Tories got in. Join a union, and make sure you vote at the next election to get these scumbags out.
As for the NHS cost we pay less than a fair few comparable countries and get a very bad deal for what we do pay. A lot of the NHS treatment is privatised now, so ofc it is costing a lot more while getting less in return. It would be cheaper if we did the job with the people we trained up ourselves. Strangely this does not happen anymore. The Tories have placed a lot of private healthcare providers on the boards for budgets in hospitals around the country. It is like letting the fox babysit the chickens.
Where are you getting this from?
You need to show some proof of this BS. It simply is not true.
Health care, education and welfare are the closest things the state gets to free money. By spending on those things in particular, they increase tax receipts and reduce expenses in other areas. The only reason to discourage spending in those areas is ideological, not practical. This is well known - Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz (both Nobel prize winners for economics) have outright stated this fact:
“Education and healthcare are investments in human capital that pay off in the long run in terms of higher productivity and a healthier, more prosperous society.” - Paul Krugman
“Investing in education, healthcare, and social safety nets is not just a moral imperative; it is also an economic necessity for creating a more equitable and productive society.” - Joseph Stiglitz
This isn’t even bringing countercyclical spending into it - basically, the government is INTENTIONALLY damaging the economy to control and manipulate the working class.
Stop spreading disinformation. Join a union. Get involved in mutual aid. Voting is not the answer.
Means-tested benefits are an extremely expensive way to be cruel solely to save the rich a few pennies on their taxes. Ordinarily-incomed people already pay a far greater proportion of their income in National Insurance, and work longer because the life expectancy of the rich has gone up, and now you want to take it away if they’re not far enough below the poverty level without it?
You have not thought this through.