Kay Burley on State pension

Well said Cossy. I look forward to more apprenticeships for young people.
And the triple lock should stay.

Plevey08

Well said Cossy. I look forward to more apprenticeships for young people.
And the triple lock should stay.

Let’s hope on both counts.

Especially for our young people, they deserve so much more.

It is means tested here. No one we know gets it. The bad thing is that some medical stuff is,too. I think that should be accessible to everyone. I agree that the aged pension should be means tested, though. I don’t know how the country affords a universal pension, richer place than here obviously .

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.

Extremely well put and I agree with every word.

Not to mention that many of us didn’t live “rich” lives, working whilst bringing up a family and all the “sacrifices” that entails, which we all chose to do and gladly.

During this time many of us helped care for both elderly parents and/or our own children or grandchildren.

Then when retired people have the audacity to suggest we should basically live as frugally as possible and not rely on “hands outs”, which neither SP nor occupational pensions are.

It’s frankly a bloody cheek!

nanna8

It is means tested here. No one we know gets it. The bad thing is that some medical stuff is,too. I think that should be accessible to everyone. I agree that the aged pension should be means tested, though. I don’t know how the country affords a universal pension, richer place than here obviously .

Because we have all (most of us), contributed to the payment of it ALL our working lives, 40+ years for most of us.

National Insurance payments, taken on top of income tax, pay for our NHS and State Pension.

According to AI

Australia

“Australia takes progressive income tax and a Medicare levy from earned individual income.

Australia uses a sliding scale where different parts of your income are taxed at different rates.

$0 – $18,200: Nil (0%)$18,201
$45,000: 19% for each $1 over $18,200

$45,001 – $120,000 $5,092 plus 32.5% for each $1 over $45,00

$120,001 – $180,000: $29,467 plus 37% for each $1 over $120,000

$180,001 and over: $51,667 plus 45% for each $1 over $180,000.”

We need to realise that we live under a combination of a plutocracy and a kleptocracy - hence why Burley feels entitled to make such statements 👍☘️

I can only applaud your post and your humanity Cossey.

We moved to sytems based help for those who need it specifically because the people who decided who "deserved" help - often well-meaning - could not be left to provide, based on moral gatekeeping.

A version of the Australian Pension system would be a good idea; compound interest usually is. Australia started the shift to compulsory superannuation in 1992. However, we need to recognise that Australia handled the transition quite differently from countries that suddenly replaced an old defined-benefit pension with a new system. They did not take the old pension away from people who were already retired, nor did they expect older workers to suddenly build up a full superannuation balance before retiring. Australia introduced the Superannuation Guarantee on 1 July 1992. Employers were required to contribute a percentage of employees' wages into superannuation. It started at only 3% (4% for some large employers) and gradually increased.

But the government kept the existing Age Pension. The resulting system became what is often called the three-pillar system:

Government Age Pension — means-tested
Compulsory superannuation — employer contributions
Voluntary savings/superannuation

So there wasn't a hard cutover from "old pension" to "new pension."

If people (Kay Burley?) are comparing Australia with the UK State Pension moving from an unfunded PAYG system to a funded pension, it's interesting to note that Australia's transition mechanism avoided leaving a "generation" of people paying for both systems.

So my view (for what it's worth) is "idea good but not thought through adequately.

I never understand why every time this topic comes up we are compared to Australia - this is the UK. We could just as fruitfully compare ourselves to Scandinavian countries, or Timbuktu for that matter.

How other states manage their affairs is not relevant to here, unless we are planning to use them as a model for change, in which case there are countless other variables to take into account - not least the fact that the UK charges compulsory NI to anyone earning over £12500 or so, which they pay for decades in order to qualify.

It would be difficult, if not impossible, to switch to a different model without repaying the money people have paid in on the understanding that they were paying for the generations above, but would, in turn, get a pension paid by the generations below.

Cross-posted, DAR.

"I never understand why every time this topic comes up we are compared to Australia - this is the UK. ..."
"How other states manage their affairs is not relevant to here ..." (*Doodledog*)

This is the UK but why can't we look at other countries? Do you really consider us to be that superior? As I understand it governments look at all other appropriate systems. Australia is considered by many to have transitioned well.

Where did I say we are superior? I don't know how you arrived at that conclusion.

As I actually said - we could look at other countries for purpose of model-changing, but if we do that we need to take into account the starting point. I think I said pretty much what you did, really, so I don't understand the hostile response.

The addicts get a hefty sum.

Always difficult to read tone. It was this "How other states manage their affairs is not relevant to here" and this "I never understand why every time this topic comes up we are compared to Australia - this is the UK."

Yes, that's what I wrote, but you are omitting the bit where I said 'unless we are planning to use them as a model for change,', which changes the meaning entirely.

Dylis

I get heartily sick of the amount of press coverage which seems to blame the countries financial woes on the title lock pension. It seems pensioners are a soft target and we are all living the high life on our wonderfully huge pensions.

I have literally (and I mean literally, several times) heard people - in the same sentence - say there shouldn't be a triple lock and that state pensions are far too low...

I think it is important to learn from other countries but I am afraid many of the 'lessons' just aren't applicable. I think this every time we have a discussion about crime/prison and Norway is brought into the equation without looking at the clear differences between the two societies.

The problem is always going to be one of transition.

Just look at how many times the argument over Old v New State Pension comes up.

We are currently in transition to a per capita less expensive system that will eventually only pay a smaller flat rate pension. Hover the number of new pensioners each year, due to the 1950s and 1960s baby boom, is cancelling out the savings.

Dave Fishwick (Bank of Dave) thinks he has come up with a plan - to do with investing NICs for long term growth. It was immediately shot down by Dan Neidle and others for completely overlooking the facts the current contributions (£150 billion) are needed to pay for current pensions and that many people receive a pension by dint of credits not physical contributions. A fairly important factor when we have record numbers of working age people not working.

Galaxy

I think it is important to learn from other countries but I am afraid many of the 'lessons' just aren't applicable. I think this every time we have a discussion about crime/prison and Norway is brought into the equation without looking at the clear differences between the two societies.

That's exactly what I was getting at. We can look at different ways, but they won't necessarily map onto how we do things, because of historical differences in the systems.

Doodledog

Yes, that's what I wrote, but you are omitting the bit where I said 'unless we are planning to use them as a model for change,', which changes the meaning entirely.

You're right, I didn't. I think if something is written quite strongly, you naturally take that as the main point, even if that wasn’t what was intended. That’s one of the tricky things with text; you don’t get the tone or emphasis you would in a conversation.

Doodledog

Galaxy

I think it is important to learn from other countries but I am afraid many of the 'lessons' just aren't applicable. I think this every time we have a discussion about crime/prison and Norway is brought into the equation without looking at the clear differences between the two societies.

That's exactly what I was getting at. We can look at different ways, but they won't necessarily map onto how we do things, because of historical differences in the systems.

Do you really think the economics (general, not specific) are so different from country to country. I would have thought maths was maths.

Maths are maths, but we aren't talking about maths - we are talking about systems of government/taxation/welfare which vary from country to country.

I give up. Even if my post wasn't clear (which I don't believe to be true) there was no suggestion that I thought the UK was 'superior' to other countries, and it is that accusation I am objecting to. It was a hostile response to what at worst may nave been a difference of opinion (although as I say, I thought we were saying the same thing, which is why I pointed out that we'd cross-posted). Never mind.

I'm sorry we can't discuss taxation/welfare Doodledog, but the statements I quoted seem to reject international comparisons as relevant evidence, as did your 04-Sept-26 12:54:19 post. Difficult to say more if that's out if the equation.

Eh? It seems to me that you are just looking for ways to disagree with me now. I am saying that we would have to look at taxation/welfare if we want to compare UK pensions with others, not that we can't do so.

I can't say anything right, so will bow out and let others see who posted what.

I definitely want my pension. I’d like a face lift like Kay Burleys 😂