Pension Credit and Over-80's

It's means testing, pure and simple. Means testing is an inflexible and unfair way on which to base any system of benefits, as it keeps people 'in their place' and does not allow them to benefit from anything that brings them above the level that has been deemed appropriate for them. Presumably the level of pension credit is the level that has been deemed appropriate, so anything above that is clawed back. Those who do the 'deeming' rarely, if ever, have to live on the amounts they deem fit for others, of course.

The same means testing means that if a family is receiving benefits, grandparents can't help them out with a financial gift without it being clawed back. It means that working families can often be worse off than those on benefits because even low earnings can put them out of the bracket that qualifies for things like free prescriptions or school meals. It also means that people who have saved for old age and don't get pension credit lose out on free rent and all the other things for which those on PC qualify, and they may have to use their savings to pay for care that others get free. Means testing usually benefits nobody.

I understand about means testing, but if when someone becomes 80 years old they are believed to need an extra 25p (!) then that is what they need, means testing is based on need, so taking it away from pension credit is nonsensical. This needs pointing out to your M.P. (not that that will make any difference but may bring it some publicity)

Franbern posted about this before so I hope she won’t mind me commenting again

Pension Credit brings the State Pension up to the minimum amount regardless of your contributions. If someone kept the extra 25p plus the Pension Credit top up they were receiving they would then get more money than someone who paid full contributions and didn’t get Pension Credit.

It would be hard to justify that, don’t you think?

But the benefits system including pension credit is based on need. The system has decided that someone who reaches 80 years old needs another 25p to live on.
If they need the extra then they need it, how many contributions they have paid is irrelevant

But it’s been decided that what they need is the same as a person on full pension would get at 80. Equal amounts.

How would you explain why some people are entitled to more?

Ilovecheese

But the benefits system including pension credit is based on need. The system has decided that someone who reaches 80 years old needs another 25p to live on.
If they need the extra then they need it, how many contributions they have paid is irrelevant

I don't think the benefits system is based on need at all.

Before it could be, we would need to know what is meant by 'need'. How would you define 'need' in the context of how you see the benefit system as being designed to meet it.

Sorry, that was meant to be a question.

There are set amounts for how much a person or family "needs"
You should be able to get the actual amounts from Citizens Advice or Govt websites.

The amounts are decided by the benefits service. it is a while since I knew the exact amounts but just as an example:

Say:
Single person: £10 pw
Couple: £16 pw
Eldest child £5
Subsequent children: £3 pw each (although there is now a 2 child limit)
A disabled adult: an extra £2 pw
A disabled child : an extra £1 pw

So a couple with no disabilities and one child would be allocated £21 pw.
These are obviously not the correct amounts but just as an illustration of how it works.

this is the lloyd george five shilling pension, 1908, which was claimable by those aged over 70.
although in the first few years only just over half a million were granted it.
even then it was means tested, and only went to those who could shew they had worked to their full potential, no set definition, and were not drunkards, had under £31 annual income, and had lived in the country for last 20 years.

And I bet "worked to their full potential " didn't include one of the hardest jobs of all, that of bringing up children.

I believe this 25p bonus for longevity was started in 1975? So much for inflation.

The amounts you give, Ilovecheese are, as you say, examples only, so it's hard to tell where they would fit on a subsistence scale, or how they were arrived at.

Are you suggesting that 'need' is the bare minimum someone must have to keep body and soul together? No luxuries, basic food, no entertainment? Or do the figures represent a sum that allows a certain amount of choice in one's lifestyle?

Should pensioners, even at the age of 80, subsist on a bare minimum? I'm not sure what point your figures are making in relation to your post about what people 'need'.

Doodledog
The amounts are a political decision.
Some people think they should be the bare minimum as you describe.
They seem to have become less generous (in terms of buying power) over recent years. Possible due to the "benefit scrounger" narrative that is bandied about.

Pensioners are often treated as a separate case though, we don't get accused of scrounging.
Todays pension credit amount is £177.10 is that a bare minimum?

I'm not the one to ask, though. You brought in the idea that there is an amount that covers 'need'.

I would argue that people's needs are different, and not just because of differences in health and so on. Personally, I think that when people have reached 80 they should have rather more than what someone else has decided that they need.

£177.10 may be enough to deliver that for some (eg if they have a well-maintained and unmortgaged house, or if they live with family who care for them), but for others it will not come close to providing a dignified retirement with at least some choices over what to eat and how to spend their time.

Thank you all for your comments.
My point was that as an 80-year old it has been 'deemed' that I require 25p extra each week on my state pension amount.
As someone who was unable to undertake paid employment for several years, I therefore receive less than the state pension and then the top-up Pension Credit to bring it up to that basic amount.

So, I am puzzled as to why the 25p per week is not given to me so, (given on pension deducted from Pension Credit), meaning that - in fact, I am 25p per week less than it is 'deemed' that a pensioner of 80 plus years requires.

I will be taking this up withe Dept for Pensions, etc over the next few weeks. Pointless going to my MP who, on his record, would probably consider that it is all my fault!!!!

Agree Doodledog
The amount that is deemed to cover "need" is a Government decision.