Kay Burley on State pension

We all PAID FOR the state pension it is a Contributory so-called "benefit".
Not our fault that the State over the years has plundered what should have been ring-fenced benefit funds to pay for all sorts of benefits . Some will have deserved and needed benefits and others will have been too damn lazy to work or otherwise to pay for their own lives, lived within their means.Any "means test" would need to set the bar very high so as not to exclude people in the middle who half-killed themselves all their lives to have an acceptable, manageable retirement in reasonable comfort, lived within their means.

Doodledog

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.

I do agree, however it was one of our Australian Grannetters who told us on this thread that we are “lucky” to have a universal state pension and that we must be a “rich country”

I was pointing out we contribute directly out of earned income to both our SP and our NHS.

Harris27

The addicts get a hefty sum.

No, they don’t. As I’ve repeated ad nauseam they receive the same as many other people deemed unfit for work.

Luke others deemed unfit for work, this amount isn’t given to any of the groups deemed unfit to work, forever.

ALL of them have to regular assessment for both their PIP and Universal Credit payments AND have to show that they are seeking appropriate ways to manage and recover from their conditions.

Please stop repeating things which are not true.

It helps no one

Cossy

Doodledog

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.

I do agree, however it was one of our Australian Grannetters who told us on this thread that we are “lucky” to have a universal state pension and that we must be a “rich country”

I was pointing out we contribute directly out of earned income to both our SP and our NHS.

Yes, I was responding to that, too, and also pointing out that we have paid for our pensions.

I'm regretting taking part in this thread .

Doodledog 😂😂😂😂

Wealthy Kay Burley appeared on BBC Politics Live saying that people like her, e.g. wealthy, don’t need the State Pension. That’s probably true if you’ve been earning £500,000 a year from Sky.

She goes on to make an entirely false claim that she has no option but to receive the State Pension. That’s nonsense. She does not have to claim it in the first place. If she ignores the invitation to claim it, which is usually issued about four months before the qualifying birthday, she won’t receive it. End of. An overpaid journalist not checking facts but going on TV to spread misinformation anyway.

There is always this facile argument about who should be receiving what. It happened over the Winter Fuel Payment. It’s so unfair! people whined. Mick Jagger, Rod Stewart, Elton John, Paul McCartney [insert ageing rock star of choice] shouldn’t be getting it. They probably aren’t claiming a pension anyway - although they would be entitled to if they have paid enough NIC - but if they don’t then they won’t receive WFP either. And what if they do? If it’s spent or donated it’s going into the economy and someone will benefit from it.

We are always hearing about how many millionaire pensioners there are but, in truth, a lot of that includes property wealth. To my knowledge, you can’t yet buy a loaf of bread with a brick or a roof slate.

Around a million pensioners do now pay tax at higher rates but you need an income of over £50,270 to fall into that bracket and that will include State Pension. That leaves over 12 million pensioners with less income than that, some far less. So for advocates of means-testing where would you set the limit? And would that be single or household income?

On £50,270, you’ll pay tax of £7,540 leaving £42,730. Retirement Living Standards estimate a single pensioner will spend £32,700 on a moderate life style and £45,400 on a comfortable one. Why shouldn't someone have a comfortable life in older age?

www.retirementlivingstandards.org.uk/

I think we need to resist this repeated claim that the triple lock is unsustainable. As I explained upthread, it usually makes just pennies difference over double lock.

I think it’s futile comparing the UK to other countries as we don’t have a complete picture of those pension systems and the wider economics systems inside which they sit and have sat.

What we have now in the UK is a reasonable system that has worked for 100 years with minor tweaks along the way and a safety net of Pension Credit for those whose incomes fall short.

We have a temporary problem with baby boomers reaching pension age cancelling out the savings made by the new (since 2016) flat-rate, single-tier state pension but soon population growth is predicted to slow and then decline. Older pensioners, the recipients of large SERPS pensions, will die leaving the pension cheaper to pay per capita. SERPS pensions aren't triple locked anyway.

After 2040, still 14 years away, the National Insurance Fund will probably need topping up by Treasury but there are already long-standing contingency measures to be able to do that … and government can create whatever money it needs to fund public expenditure. Who knows where the country will be in 14 years time?

Honestly? I think all we are hearing at the moment is an inter-generational culture war that politicians and commentators like to stoke. Young people can’t afford to pay for old people. That isn’t how it works. People don’t suddenly reach 66 and stop stop paying tax or contributing to society. Even if someone no longer has enough income to pay income tax or makes no capital gains, they will still be paying a whole host of other taxes: VAT, fuel tax, energy tax, insurance tax, alcohol duty, tobacco duty, airport duties, stamp duty, council tax etc.

If you subscribe to the notion that tax pays for public spending (I don’t but most do) where is my income tax going? Am I paying for a NEET until they become part of the workplace? Am I paying for someone age 50+ who can no longer work when I worked to 66? I don’t object to this so long as I am not being castigated for claiming my State Pension.

I am really tired of being told I’m a liability for no other reason than that I am now older. It’s a couple of hundred pounds a week in pension after 50 years of work. I pay 20% of it back to the Treasury anyway … and spent the rest of it in the economy which supports businesses, jobs and generates more tax revenue.

Well spare a thought for me doodledog, I got in the middle of it and regretted it immediately

Galaxy

Well spare a thought for me doodledog, I got in the middle of it and regretted it immediately

"An overpaid journalist not checking facts but going on TV to spread misinformation anyway."

👏👏👏

Graphite

Wealthy Kay Burley appeared on BBC Politics Live saying that people like her, e.g. wealthy, don’t need the State Pension. That’s probably true if you’ve been earning £500,000 a year from Sky.

She goes on to make an entirely false claim that she has no option but to receive the State Pension. That’s nonsense. She does not have to claim it in the first place. If she ignores the invitation to claim it, which is usually issued about four months before the qualifying birthday, she won’t receive it. End of. An overpaid journalist not checking facts but going on TV to spread misinformation anyway.

There is always this facile argument about who should be receiving what. It happened over the Winter Fuel Payment. It’s so unfair! people whined. Mick Jagger, Rod Stewart, Elton John, Paul McCartney [insert ageing rock star of choice] shouldn’t be getting it. They probably aren’t claiming a pension anyway - although they would be entitled to if they have paid enough NIC - but if they don’t then they won’t receive WFP either. And what if they do? If it’s spent or donated it’s going into the economy and someone will benefit from it.

We are always hearing about how many millionaire pensioners there are but, in truth, a lot of that includes property wealth. To my knowledge, you can’t yet buy a loaf of bread with a brick or a roof slate.

Around a million pensioners do now pay tax at higher rates but you need an income of over £50,270 to fall into that bracket and that will include State Pension. That leaves over 12 million pensioners with less income than that, some far less. So for advocates of means-testing where would you set the limit? And would that be single or household income?

On £50,270, you’ll pay tax of £7,540 leaving £42,730. Retirement Living Standards estimate a single pensioner will spend £32,700 on a moderate life style and £45,400 on a comfortable one. Why shouldn't someone have a comfortable life in older age?

www.retirementlivingstandards.org.uk/

I think we need to resist this repeated claim that the triple lock is unsustainable. As I explained upthread, it usually makes just pennies difference over double lock.

I think it’s futile comparing the UK to other countries as we don’t have a complete picture of those pension systems and the wider economics systems inside which they sit and have sat.

What we have now in the UK is a reasonable system that has worked for 100 years with minor tweaks along the way and a safety net of Pension Credit for those whose incomes fall short.

We have a temporary problem with baby boomers reaching pension age cancelling out the savings made by the new (since 2016) flat-rate, single-tier state pension but soon population growth is predicted to slow and then decline. Older pensioners, the recipients of large SERPS pensions, will die leaving the pension cheaper to pay per capita. SERPS pensions aren't triple locked anyway.

After 2040, still 14 years away, the National Insurance Fund will probably need topping up by Treasury but there are already long-standing contingency measures to be able to do that … and government can create whatever money it needs to fund public expenditure. Who knows where the country will be in 14 years time?

Honestly? I think all we are hearing at the moment is an inter-generational culture war that politicians and commentators like to stoke. Young people can’t afford to pay for old people. That isn’t how it works. People don’t suddenly reach 66 and stop stop paying tax or contributing to society. Even if someone no longer has enough income to pay income tax or makes no capital gains, they will still be paying a whole host of other taxes: VAT, fuel tax, energy tax, insurance tax, alcohol duty, tobacco duty, airport duties, stamp duty, council tax etc.

If you subscribe to the notion that tax pays for public spending (I don’t but most do) where is my income tax going? Am I paying for a NEET until they become part of the workplace? Am I paying for someone age 50+ who can no longer work when I worked to 66? I don’t object to this so long as I am not being castigated for claiming my State Pension.

I am really tired of being told I’m a liability for no other reason than that I am now older. It’s a couple of hundred pounds a week in pension after 50 years of work. I pay 20% of it back to the Treasury anyway … and spent the rest of it in the economy which supports businesses, jobs and generates more tax revenue.

Brilliantly and eloquently put!

Galaxy

Well spare a thought for me doodledog, I got in the middle of it and regretted it immediately

😂😂😂

Yes, well said, Graphite.

Graphite an excellent post.
An overpaid journalist not checking facts but going on TV to spread misinformation anyway.
How pertinent is this! So many will (naturally) assume this to be correct because why would a journalist risk their reputation by spreading falsehoods? She should be ashamed at her failure to check the very basics!!

DaisyAnneReturns

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 -quite often humour and irony are lost because we can’t see each other’s body language, good point. I find my brand of humour is quite often a bit different having lived for most of my life outside the UK. Same with America, very different humour there,too. Sometimes people take offence where none is intended. I love the good old British humour,though - very,very clever (mostly) 😀

I wasn’t being ironic, or attempting humour though . I genuinely don’t see how comparisons with countries that have very different systems is going to add anything helpful, unless we are talking about dismantling ours, which would take generations to do and involve a lot more than pensions.

That does not mean that I think the UK system is superior - just that it is the one we have in place, and we can’t simply switch to a different one without a root and branch upheaval of the welfare state.

Ignoring half of a post is not misreading tone, either.

Bravely stepping in again .
I dont think it is even just about systems, you have to take all sorts of things into consideration, the culture of the country, the nature of its people, traditions, I could go on.

And this is relevant to all subjects not just pensions/ financial issues.
Countries are different, they have distinct cultures, this is not a bad thing, it is just reality.

Well said, Doodledog. Changing state-run systems that have been running for years is an immense task, not least selling and managing the process of transition. The same applies to the NHS, of course.

Nanna8 The State Pension is not a free hand out!
We paid National Insurance Contributions all our working lives.
Why shouldn't we receive the State Pension? We've earned it in the same way that a private pension is earned....by paying into a scheme whilst working.

I genuinely don’t see how comparisons with countries that have very different systems is going to add anything helpful, unless we are talking about dismantling ours, which would take generations to do and involve a lot more than pensions.

That's a very honest post. There is reason to compare but nobody's given you a reasonable explanation - that's on the rest of us. So ... I'll try and give you a slightly more nuanced view.

I think it’s important to acknowledge that the UK’s current state pension system does have problems. It faces long-term financial pressures as the population ages, the ratio of working-age people to pensioners changes, and the cost of the state pension continues to grow. There are also legitimate questions about whether the current arrangements are fair between different generations and whether the balance between the state pension and private provision is sustainable in the long term.

That doesn’t mean we should simply copy Australia, or pretend that the two countries have comparable systems. But that is exactly why comparisons can be useful. We can look at how other countries have approached similar problems, what has worked, what hasn’t, and what lessons might be applicable to the UK. If you look back at the detail I gave re the Australian system you will see that it has been brought in in stages. All those of pensionable age, for instance, stayed on that pension. That is perhaps a useful line we could draw if we chose to make changes.

The question therefore isn’t “should the UK become Australia?” It’s “given that our current system has problems, are there lessons from elsewhere that could help us design something more sustainable and fair over the long term?” I don’t think differences between the systems make that comparison irrelevant.

grumppa

Well said, Doodledog. Changing state-run systems that have been running for years is an immense task, not least selling and managing the process of transition. The same applies to the NHS, of course.

And never without dissent from those adversely affected.

JenniRen

grumppa

Well said, Doodledog. Changing state-run systems that have been running for years is an immense task, not least selling and managing the process of transition. The same applies to the NHS, of course.

And never without dissent from those adversely affected.

Yes, and those who perceive they have been adversely affected. There will always be winners and losers when systems change, but in the case of something as massive as welfare, there would be huge disruption for everyone.

Galaxy, I said way upthread that culture and tradition were important, too. We are used to the NHS and free education up to secondary level, for instance, and to funding a lot of services through taxation of various sorts. Taking any of that away will be seen (rightly, IMO) as taking what we have paid for, so any changes would have to be extremely gradual.

ETA - which means I agree with you

Just another wealthy hypocrite.