More deprivations perhaps 😏

Something needs to be done to make things more equitable. The current system clearly isn't working.

I suspect that AI will make ideas of working for money redundant up to a point anyway, so this is probably as good a time as any to rethink.

As things stand though, my fears are that conditions are ripe for a resurgence of right wing dictatorship - maybe not in the forms we've seen in the past, but probably equally terrifying.

There may not be a constitution or written contract in the UK, but the constant 'there is no pot' mantra is insulting on a number of levels.

For one thing, we know! When people say 'I paid in', I doubt many really see it as going into a pig with their name on it. They mean that they followed the rules and sacrificed a percentage of their salary to pay the pensions of the generation before them, on the understanding that they would get the same in their turn. That is not news, however much it is so often presented as such by supporters of scrapping or means-testing pensions.

For another, those who have paid into occupational pensions have done so in order to increase their standard of living in retirement. To be told that this should lift them out of getting a return on their state pension contributions is a betrayal, and to add that instead of pensions going to those who have worked for them they should instead go to those who haven't paid (or haven't paid enough) and that those people should also get other things paid for is asking for trouble. Coupled with high housing costs, low wages and inflation, this is likely to increase votes for someone promising to listen to the disaffected. We can see this happening already.

We all know that life's not fair, but there has to be some semblance of fairness, or at least a belief that a desire for fairness underpins our society. Without that, people have no stake in being law abiding or in 'playing the game'. As regards pensions, there is no point in comparing now with when it was brought in. Society is different. More women work, and we retire later. More people don't work because of sickness. Jobs are different. Life expectancy has risen, even if it is falling again after years of Austerity.

That doesn't mean that we should prevent people from saving for older age by means-testing or scrapping pensions. It might mean looking again at how money is circulated, and finding a way that doesn't put so much of the burden on those who work, particularly as AI is going to throw a lot of current certainties in the air anyway.

Personally, I would like to see a social contract, with rights and responsibilities for everyone. There should not be a feudal-style system which forces some to work to pay for others who are capable but choose not to. If everyone knows that they have to give as well as take (and who knows what form that will take in future - I'm not suggesting communal farms or anything of that sort ) we may regain the sense of cohesiveness that has allowed democracy and law by consensus for so long.

Why would Reeves need to look at phasing out the triple lock? (FlitterMouse)

The next generation of tax payers always pays for the older generations pension. It's a Pay-As-You-Go scheme. It seems wrong that when we paid (from our taxes) more of us were paying for fewer pensioners. Now fewer taxpayers are paying for more pensions and at a rate that can be above their own earnings increase. (From my post 20-Jan-25 12:08:15.)

Because our pensions have to be "sold" to current an future generations more than the idea of them has to be sold to pensioners.

M0nica

I would be quite happy to see the pension rise tied to the rises in wages only.

I felt very uncomfortable when wages were stagnant or fslling to get bigger rises because of inflation. I fht erst of the population suffer, why shouldn't we?

Well good for you. Younger people can choose to live on Universal credit, or they can choose to work proper hours, and get paid a full time wage. The cry of "we'll lose our benenefits" is the reason most of these should be working full time. Benefit are a stop gap, they shouldn't be a lifestyle choice, by working as little hours they can.
On the other hand, many pensioners can perhaps only work a few hours. Many others can't work at all. You must be one of the richer ones.

on the understanding that they would get the same in their turn. (Doodledog)

When the state pension started there was stringent ‘means testing’ and a ‘character test’ the maximum you would get would be equivalent to £30.

State pension have always changed.

Indeed. But the people drawing it now are (largely) those who, in their turn paid towards the pensions of others, many of whom retired at 60.

They are the ones who matter, along with those who are paying in whilst waiting their turn.

Freya5

M0nica

I would be quite happy to see the pension rise tied to the rises in wages only.

I felt very uncomfortable when wages were stagnant or fslling to get bigger rises because of inflation. I fht erst of the population suffer, why shouldn't we?

Well good for you. Younger people can choose to live on Universal credit, or they can choose to work proper hours, and get paid a full time wage. The cry of "we'll lose our benenefits" is the reason most of these should be working full time. Benefit are a stop gap, they shouldn't be a lifestyle choice, by working as little hours they can.
On the other hand, many pensioners can perhaps only work a few hours. Many others can't work at all. You must be one of the richer ones.

Freya5. You should read my posts between the one you quote and here. In them I made it absolutely clear that I believed that any change in the way pensions are calculated should go with changes in pension Credit, so that no one on a small oension was disadvantaged by the change. Pension credit could be tied tothe triple lock, for examole.

But like it or not the number of people on Pension is increasing and the number of those in work paying for it is falling. Something has to give and if what gives is the state pension better off pensioners like me receive, I cannot see the problem.

Doodledog Mon 20-Jan-25 13:00:44

Excellent post Dd.

It's one of those dilemmas that I see and understand but there have no easy answer to.

People relying mostly on State Pension undoubtedly need their income to keep pace with inflation: those with substantial other resources do not. But how it's calibrated, where lines get drawn, how it's administered, costs of administration, I admit I cant get my head around!

Mrs Thatcher broke the link between pensions and wages didn't she? Which is why our pensions need to catch up a bit now. If pensions had risen in line with wages in the past they could continue to do so now. As it is they lagging so far behind wages that they need a top up to provide a decent standard.

It looks like it will be ill and disabled people who will suffer deprivation next, as this Government wants to continue the Conservatives plans to reduce the benefits bill. They have just had a bit of a knock back in the High Court but will no doubt charge ahead, reducing a number of disabled people to "abject poverty".

Doodledog

Indeed. But the people drawing it now are (largely) those who, in their turn paid towards the pensions of others, many of whom retired at 60.

They are the ones who matter, along with those who are paying in whilst waiting their turn.

That's fine if that's what your opinion is Doodledog.

Ilovecheese

It looks like it will be ill and disabled people who will suffer deprivation next, as this Government wants to continue the Conservatives plans to reduce the benefits bill. They have just had a bit of a knock back in the High Court but will no doubt charge ahead, reducing a number of disabled people to "abject poverty".

They are trying to take a bit from everyone (to fill that alleged 'black-hole').

Unfortunately, those with the deepest pockets - and the power that goes with it - aren't having any of it.

So yes, it's back to the same old same old.

And unless we change to the Nordic economic model (and that's so unlikely that it's hardly worth talking about), so it will continue.

PoliticsNerd

Doodledog

Indeed. But the people drawing it now are (largely) those who, in their turn paid towards the pensions of others, many of whom retired at 60.

They are the ones who matter, along with those who are paying in whilst waiting their turn.

That's fine if that's what your opinion is Doodledog.

Thank you for allowing me my opinion. I didn't realise it was in your gift.😂