Magenta8
I have no desire to shoot you Cossy and I think you made a valid point but having paid full stamp all my long working life, I have mixed feelings about "everyone receiving the same rate".
At times I was very short of money and it was a struggle to make ends meet but I didn't opt for the married woman's reduced stamp because I had to build enough contributions to get the full pension.
It's not that I want to deprive anyone of a decent pension but it would make my years of scrimping and scraping seem utterly futile.
Agreed, Magenta.
A pension should be based on contributions, or be a universal benefit with the pension part of people's NI refunded to those who paid it. Where is the incentive for workers to keep paying tax and NI if those who don't bother get the same benefits? It's part of a wider picture, where the same people make compulsory payments to fund others via benefits, pensions, care homes etc, and resentment is building.
Younger people (or some of them) resent paying for our pensions as it is. I take issue with that when pensioners have contributed to the pensions of others in our turn, but I can see younger people's point when they haven't. You (generic) can't have it both ways - you either pay in when you can and take out when you retire, or pay less in the knowledge that you will take out less when the time comes.
It's not that I want to see anyone go without either, but there has to be a point in a lifetime of working and making contributions.