No fun being old under Andy Burnham .

Well, obviously somebody doesn’t like Andy Burnham, but putting their opinion 3 times on Gransnet is a bit over the top. I myself think that Andy Burnham is a welcome antidote to the lacklustre rather doubtful politics that we have had to put up with over the years.

Browncow1

Sorry Casdon. I misunderstood what you were trying to say in your post, and assumed that you were on the old state pension and having a moan at the higher rate of the NSP for newer retirees.
Yes, some older pensioners can get much higher amounts on the old state pension as Doodledog has stated in her posts.
Thanks to both of you 😀

No worries, Browncowl

Give it a few weeks and there'll be another thread moaning about the discrepancies, though.

I do understand that it must be hard to get by on only the OSP, but very few people do, as PC kicks in to uplift it if that is all someone gets. If the husband who supposedly 'paid their contributions' is around, then he should pay for their retirement as a couple. If he is not, then he should have provided for it, if the couple had decided to risk his being the sole contributor.

I suspect that it is women who get a lower rate because they had lower numbers of working years, or because they made lower payments when they worked, and now regret it who object the most. I get it. I regret financial decisions, but the difference is that I don't expect others to finance my regrets.

If their household income is above the threshold they won't get PC, but that is because of exactly the same argument that said it was ok to base payments on a household (so a man could pay tax and NI for two, and a woman could pay less NI because her husband's contributions covered hers). If that is the case, I have little sympathy - you pay your money (or not) and make your choice. If you choose to pay in less, how can you expect to take out more?

I understand people resenting the fact that people who never worked get PC, as that is very unfair, but some seem to want it both ways. If pensions are not benefits, as many of us agree, then they are based on contributions. Why should those making lower contributions get more than others? You pay in, you get out. You choose to pay less, you get less out. It's not complicated.

Whitewavemark2

MaizieD

Whitewavemark2

eazybee

I'm beginning to go right off him! ??

I have been off him since he forced his way into being Prime Minister.
His aims are deliberately divisive: North against South, old against young, working against middle class, feckless against responsible.
A true Marxist.

😄😄😄

It’s comedy gold on N & P this morning.

An H & M thread in full swing and a Marxist PM!

We just need a thread about those “immigrants” and we will have a hat trick.

😂 I'm sure we can find more than that, surely?

As regards what is a marxist, the understanding of Marxism is somewhat totally out here. shall I do the routine again?

Marxism means that there is no private ownership whatsoever, no one can own a business or own a house, or a farm, the state controls all, including pensions, health care, nursery care. It was a theoretical idea of the end of capitalism from 1867 when Karl Marx wrote Das Capital and has actually never really been put into practice.

The workers would all rise up and overthrow capitalism and.....what we have is a more active state involvement towards a more equal society,

but really given early announcements it's all about sorting the care system out and measure to ensure more houses are built, whereas the Right (broadly) favours low involvement by the state in the belief that allowing earning riches benefits all and magically the poor will benefit......

personally, I think the state of ones health as we age has the greatest impact of them all as well as having 'enough".

..and the health of ones loved ones and whether we have found a degree of learning to live with what is, not what might be "ideal'.