Kay Burley on State pension

It’s all so penny pinching when viewed per capita.

Putting numbers on things gives perspective.

The actual numbers are not available yet for what the triple lock might be for April 2027 but earnings growth looks around 4.3% compared to CPI of around 2.9%.

The absolute maximum post-tax increase difference that would make next year is 38p a day - which most pensioners even with a full NIC record won’t receive.

Shall I buy an extra apple or an orange with this munificence?

Burley can always refuse to draw her pension or donate it to someone who is in need.

These high earners have no clue how those who are just about managing live. Many pensioners may not be in dire need but, if they lost the State Pension, they could struggle.
What does she think should be the cut-off point? £1 million pa? £20,000 pa?

Btw, addicts will receive exactly the same as any other person deemed not fit for work, no more and no less.

Statistically it’s the 18-25 age group who have increased the unemployment figures.

Many of these would have been seriously impacted by COVID.

Our youngest son spent his last year of college in lockdown, including his 18th birthday. These young people spent months, possibly even years sat in their bedrooms online, online studying, online socialising and online gaming. It had a huge and detrimental effect on their mental health, ranging from anxiety about leaving the house, extremely low self confidence, deep seated depression.

Some even developed serious mental health condition, including Bi-polar disorder, and Personality Disorders.

We have serious “gaps” in this country in our mental health services, especially for those under 18, and 19-25.

Often GPs dismiss young people as “putting things on” or exaggerating” their condition or symptoms.

Unless you have personal experience of young adults experiencing serious mental health issues, having psychotic episodes, attempting suicide or being neuro-diversive, frankly you have no idea.

"Shall I buy an extra apple or an orange with this munificence?"

Just ordered two Bramley apples @ 69p each!
Our tree has failed to produce.

wonder what I shall buy this week, with the extra 25p that all the over 80yr olds got when we turned 80...

I would have no problem withe triple lock going. I think the state pension should be tied to wages and nothing else

BUT

I think Pension Credit rises should tied to the rise in prices so that those at the bottom of the income range never see the the see the the amount of goods that their pension will buy change.

M0nica

I would have no problem withe triple lock going. I think the state pension should be tied to wages and nothing else

BUT

I think Pension Credit rises should tied to the rise in prices so that those at the bottom of the income range never see the the see the the amount of goods that their pension will buy change.

I’d agree to this if our pension was set at a decent level.

I completely agree re pension credits.

pably15

wonder what I shall buy this week, with the extra 25p that all the over 80yr olds got when we turned 80...

Please, don’t spend it all at once

She is a selfish opinionated fool. Remember she went to Kenya on safari during lockdown. That’s how much sense she has.

What annoys me is the subtext that pensioners should only get what we 'need', and if we have worked and saved (into the bank or into an occupational pension) to have more than that we are somehow greedy and grasping.

A state pension is based on contributions - it was never free, (even though we know we were paying for the generation before us, before someone feels the need to point that out). Occupational pensions are not free either. The Teachers Pension costs up to 12% of earnings, for instance, and that is on top of the tax and NI paid by everyone who works. Pensioners have, on the whole, paid a lot into the system, and are not asking for handouts.

Why should the fact that people have sacrificed that money in order to have more than they 'need' in older age mean that we should all be reduced to a baseline that is lower than that set for those who didn't contribute at all?

What is it about being older that means we should live basic lives with no more than we 'need', and have any more than that means-tested away? Who decides what we 'need', anyway?

Those of us who own our homes are not, on the whole, 'lucky' to do so (unless we were gifted them or given money to pay for them, I suppose). We paid high interest rates for many years, at least in part so that when we retired we would have somewhere to live in with no rent or mortgage. We still have to maintain our homes, and update them as needed, but it is often assumed that we don't 'need' the same pension as those who pay rent on their homes (but have no maintenance or updating costs).

IMO it is a very skewed way to look at things, and I think it has been deliberately engineered that way.

Ha! All seems clear. She pays £40,000 a year into her own pension, and is happy to tell the world about her financial situation. Good for her, but I'm sure she has more than she 'needs' by most people's standards.

www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/meandmymoney/article-3391756/I-ve-bob-shares-Poundland-TV-presenter-Kay-Burley-tells-thirst-pensions-investing.html

This thread has fallen very quickly into the trap of deciding who should receive benefits and who shouldn’t. This is exactly what governments and those who shape media discussions want us to do - to blame one another.

Even if there was no inflation, the total annual cost of the state pension would still rise simply because baby boomers are now reaching pension age. More people are reaching state pension age each year than are dying - around 750,000 new pensioners a year compared to around 600,000 dying.

The height of the baby boom was the mid 1960s. The peak year was 1964 when 875,972 babies were born. They reach pension age in 2031.

Governments have had over 60 years to plan for what is happening now. They saved a chunk of money by equalising state pension age as directed by the EU. They could have found a mid point, perhaps reduce the pension age to say 63 to free up jobs for younger people … but no. They saved more by increasing state pension age even further, Osborne accelerated the implementation then bragged about it being the easiest saving he had ever made. They reduced the future cost by getting rid of SERPS/SSP (which isn’t triple locked) although the full effects of that won’t be felt until everyone receiving it has died.

At the moment, the overall cost of the pension is being met from the National Insurance Fund but only just and is relying on the surplus that has build up over earlier years. Much of that surplus comes from the women who had to wait much longer for the pension they had expected at 60. That surplus is predicted to be exhausted by 2040 (not helped by Jeremy Hunt’s 4% reduction in NICs as a pre-election bribe) at which point Treasury will have to top up the fund. There has been legalisation allowing for that since 1993 so it’s long-standing contingency.

Treasury currently earns over £4 billion a year investing that surplus. So when I hear suggestions about triple-lock penny-pinching which may amount, at most, to the cost of an apple a day next year per pensioner, I get a wee bit prickly.

When will politicians and commentators get their tiny brains around the fact that public spending puts more money into people pockets - which they spend in the economy - which creates jobs and tax revenue.

Doodledog

What annoys me is the subtext that pensioners should only get what we 'need', and if we have worked and saved (into the bank or into an occupational pension) to have more than that we are somehow greedy and grasping.

A state pension is based on contributions - it was never free, (even though we know we were paying for the generation before us, before someone feels the need to point that out). Occupational pensions are not free either. The Teachers Pension costs up to 12% of earnings, for instance, and that is on top of the tax and NI paid by everyone who works. Pensioners have, on the whole, paid a lot into the system, and are not asking for handouts.

Why should the fact that people have sacrificed that money in order to have more than they 'need' in older age mean that we should all be reduced to a baseline that is lower than that set for those who didn't contribute at all?

What is it about being older that means we should live basic lives with no more than we 'need', and have any more than that means-tested away? Who decides what we 'need', anyway?

Those of us who own our homes are not, on the whole, 'lucky' to do so (unless we were gifted them or given money to pay for them, I suppose). We paid high interest rates for many years, at least in part so that when we retired we would have somewhere to live in with no rent or mortgage. We still have to maintain our homes, and update them as needed, but it is often assumed that we don't 'need' the same pension as those who pay rent on their homes (but have no maintenance or updating costs).

IMO it is a very skewed way to look at things, and I think it has been deliberately engineered that way.

Doodledog, well said, I totally agree

Lucky her I say! I could not do without my SP. I have two tiny private pensions as well, one quite a bit less after Rachel Reeves taxed it more so giving me less.

I’ve worked since I was 16, I’m still working part time at 73 because I can’t afford not to as a single pensioner. I bet she’s never had to budget very carefully like I, and many others do

pably15

wonder what I shall buy this week, with the extra 25p that all the over 80yr olds got when we turned 80...

My mum bought an onion in M & S with her 25p increase 😳
It’s an insult to say the least.

When it was introduced in 1971, that 25p was equivalent to 4% of the then standard weekly pension.

Just like the Winter Fuel Payment which was £200 in 2000 and is still £200 now (for under 80s) the value has been diminished. The cost of an average energy bill in 2000 was £283 so it was a huge help then. Now the cap i.e. what an average household might spend is £1,723.

Pension rights are gradually being eroded. If the triple lock goes it’ll be another chip away.

I don’t see the state pension as a benefit. It’s something I paid into for over 45 years. I’m lucky to have a work pension but again I saved in that for 38 years. Thanks Doodledog who expresses similar views to mine and others

I don’t want to set a hate running but in my experience, people addicted to substances or alcohol do get enhanced benefits. They claim for depression, anxiety, kidney disease caused by drug misuse etc . I stress I’m not suggesting benefits should be denied to those with addictions . We need a safety net as ill health or bad luck can hit anyone. I think it was Gordon Brown who introduced disability benefits. I recall the belief that the extra cash would help people go to mh , drug, alcohol services and so get back into work. Getting free of and remaining free of drugs/ alcohol is a tough road. I wonder about the incentive to get dry or clean especially as we now have third even fourth generation of families where no one works

Sueinkent

She is a selfish opinionated fool. Remember she went to Kenya on safari during lockdown. That’s how much sense she has.

I don’t remember that but I do remember she got suspended for quite some time from her job for throwing a birthday party during Covid for all her mates. Beth Rigby, that other up herself reporter was also reprimanded and suspended for attending.

Horrible woman.

I remember her comments on the poor little girl who died in Wales a few years ago.

JenniferEccles

No! It’s been muted before but I am not in favour of it at all.
Cut back on the welfare budget certainly, but target the layabouts who refuse to work, claiming something dubious excuse like ‘depression’ or ‘anxiety’
Heaven knows there are enough of them milking the welfare state for all it’s worth.
Then of course there are the billions wasted on the illegal immigrants arriving here daily on bigger and bigger boats.

As pensioners we are perfectly capable of distributing any surplus funds to help family members, maybe by paying into an ISA to help a grandchild get on the housing ladder.

I don’t trust the government to spend any money saved wisely.

Leave the triple lock alone!

👏👏👏👏

👏👏👏👏

MT62

👏👏👏👏

Primrose

Iam64

I don’t see the state pension as a benefit. It’s something I paid into for over 45 years. I’m lucky to have a work pension but again I saved in that for 38 years. Thanks Doodledog who expresses similar views to mine and others

I don’t want to set a hate running but in my experience, people addicted to substances or alcohol do get enhanced benefits. They claim for depression, anxiety, kidney disease caused by drug misuse etc . I stress I’m not suggesting benefits should be denied to those with addictions . We need a safety net as ill health or bad luck can hit anyone. I think it was Gordon Brown who introduced disability benefits. I recall the belief that the extra cash would help people go to mh , drug, alcohol services and so get back into work. Getting free of and remaining free of drugs/ alcohol is a tough road. I wonder about the incentive to get dry or clean especially as we now have third even fourth generation of families where no one works

They get extra £10 I think, might be a bit more

All these people who say they don't need it , I assume they're taking it ? I'd like to know which charity they're making a monthly donation too .
It doesn't matter if they need it or not , they've worked , paid they're NI etc etc . Means testing it will end up with people with a small private pension being worse off . Give it away to charity or to a relative struggling on the measly state pension . Makes my blood boil !!!

Cossy

Btw, addicts will receive exactly the same as any other person deemed not fit for work, no more and no less.

Statistically it’s the 18-25 age group who have increased the unemployment figures.

Many of these would have been seriously impacted by COVID.

Our youngest son spent his last year of college in lockdown, including his 18th birthday. These young people spent months, possibly even years sat in their bedrooms online, online studying, online socialising and online gaming. It had a huge and detrimental effect on their mental health, ranging from anxiety about leaving the house, extremely low self confidence, deep seated depression.

Some even developed serious mental health condition, including Bi-polar disorder, and Personality Disorders.

We have serious “gaps” in this country in our mental health services, especially for those under 18, and 19-25.

Often GPs dismiss young people as “putting things on” or exaggerating” their condition or symptoms.

Unless you have personal experience of young adults experiencing serious mental health issues, having psychotic episodes, attempting suicide or being neuro-diversive, frankly you have no idea.

Cossy Many thanks of bringing some reality to this discussion.
Far too many people have totally unsupported ideas as to the reasons behind the non-employment of young people. Also some very strange ideas as to how much money and help is available for people on benefits. And, I will not even get started on what they imagine those that are called illegals actually receive.

So easy to have the idea that it is the benefits bill that is keeping the country poor Whereas it is actually far more to do with those large companies who have ways of not paying any tax.

Re. The Triple Lock, I have mixed feelings about this. Surely if it applies to pensioner payments, then it should also be applied to ALL benefit payments.

I would also strong advocate that Back Bench MP salaries should be tied to the amount of the National Income. And, no MP should be permitted from having any other job whilst they are MPs.