Food Banks and Poverty- was Nye right?

No. We're all entitled to our opinions and its a different topic.?
I'm just making the point that the statements on two separate posts can't both be true.

It's a funny old world. I will have a pension which will just about pay for essentials when I reach state pension age. I also have an occupational pension. I worked full-time for 47 years and paid contributions for it. I will have to pay rent because I lost my house (and mortgage). Maybe I'm being a bit dim here, but I'm sure the work I did and still do (including being a single parent) was more difficult than collecting rent and organising maintenance of a second property.

I wish I'd have thought of doing it when I was younger.

On the positive side, I don't and never have lived in a bubble. I really do appreciate finding out about other people's experiences - from the very rich to the very poor. I think if I'd had such a limited view of the world, I would have had the decency to refrain from commenting on people who have to claim benefits. I would be modest enough to realise that I didn't have a clue what struggling is really like.

I certainly don't want to start landlord-bashing. I'm lucky enough to have a wonderful one, but I don't think he would ever claim that he's struggled for very much.

The more people are prudent inkycog the more there is for those not as fortunate. Of course not everyone can afford to buy even one property, let alone two, but don’t allow envy to colour your opinion of Mr Bevan’s eminently sensible suggestion.

A philosophical question perhaps: If someone didn't work, but their partner did, does that non-working partner have the righ to feel that he/she had contributed to their pension/society in their own right?

I don't think that was the point Pantglas. It was about the hypocritical comments previously made about other people's lifestyles by somebody who obviously hasn't "struggled" in a way most would mean.

Perhaps if the non working partner took care of all the domestic issues, leaving the working partner free to succeed and become wealthy enough to pay plenty of tax, then yes, the non working partner has contributed.

growstuff, I own a flat that I rent out for a VERY low rent, because I'm more interested in the quality of tenant than I am making the biggest profit.

I left school with no qualifications and gradually educated myself through evening classes I worked 2 1/2 days a week while I did my degree and worked THREE jobs (one a night job stacking shelves in a supermarket) while I was doing my MA.

I've been a teacher now for getting on 20 years, but don't have a teachers pension, because for most of my teaching, I was a single parent and couldn't afford the pension contribution. I do have a house with a mortgage, mainly because I live in the NE and they are much cheaper here . I saved the money for the flat I own (also in the cheap NE) while I was working overseas.

My flat is kept in good condition. I painted the living room myself this summer while my tenant was away on holiday. I'll paint the hall the same way next summer.

The income from the Let flat will be part of the income I use to survive on from 60 onwards because it would be impossible to be a teacher past 60 IF you were lucky enough to find a UK school to employ you.

Not everyone with a 2nd property is like JE or your landlord, although to be honest, I think most are. I know the man who owns the flat downstairs from mine is AND he takes much less care of his rental property than I do mine.

But has the non-working partner earned a state pension in his/her own right? Legally, in the UK, there are a number of reasons people can earn pension credits, including bringing up children and being a carer.

In other countries, the person would also have to pay for his/her own healthcare because no contribution has been made.

Nowadays, National Insurance Contributions can be almost as high as income tax, so it's an efficient way of escaping taxation.

GagaJo I don't have a problem with people owning property and renting it out. I do have a problem with people lecturing others about claiming benefits, when they haven't worked for years and earn money from rental income.

Yes, I agree. Plus, possibly, people who draw a pension despite not having paid much in, while some of us have paid for years and won't actually get a pension.

… or benefits, when they need a helping hand. :-(

Ilovecheese
Perhaps if the non working partner took care of all the domestic issues, leaving the working partner free to succeed and become wealthy enough to pay plenty of tax, then yes, the non working partner has contributed.

I don't disagree with you.

But what if the non-working partner doesn't take care of many domestic issues, with paid help (paid for by the working partner, obviously) taking responsibility for those things?
I have known a couple of very judgemental people who have lived this way, yet if you examine their lives, it seems that they have lived off their partner's earnings and not contributed one penny themselves to either society or our economy, while condemning others for taking more than they (on the face of it) deserve.

growstuff you don't "earn" a state pension though, do you? It's not like an occupational or personal pension where what you put in is commensurate with what you get out (although many on here seem to think that's the case).

And for those who haven't put much in/made sufficient contributions to qualify for the full SP, many will qualify for Pension Credit to top it up to the SP rate anyway.

So I suppose it's fair enough to wonder - why bother?

We had two mortgages because for a time, the rent didn’t completely cover it as interest rates rose to 15 and then I think, 17% . It seems impossible to believe now doesn’t it? Ours would be horrified if theirs went up to 5% let alone 15!

It didn’t seem fair to raise the rent especially as we had good tenants who looked after the house, so we had to pay it ourselves.

We didn’t mind as we knew we were in it for the long term.

That seems sensible enough, Jennifer.

Hard to believe now that rates went up to 17% (very briefly).

Can you imagine what the younguns would say about that?

Perhaps if the non working partner took care of all the domestic issues, leaving the working partner free to succeed and become wealthy enough to pay plenty of tax, then yes, the non working partner has contributed.

The non-working partner has contributed to the household, but not to society as a whole, and certainly not to the NI fund, which is what pays pensions.

oldgimmer No, the state pension isn't "earned" in the same way as a private or occupational pension, although there is a very imperfect correlation with the number of NIC contributions and the eventual payment. I currently pay voluntary Class 2 contributions because I will get an extra £4 a week for each extra year of contributions. I can never get a full state pension because I paid into occupational pensions and I'm pretty miffed that the rules changed when it was too late for me to do anything about it.

I also feel miffed that I have paid thousands into the NIC pot, but was made to feel like a scrounger, when I needed help. It's especially galling when I know some people have paid in virtually nothing, will receive proportionally more and still have the nerve to complain about people claiming benefits.

I agree with you that the state pension isn't earned, which is why I don't agree with the WASPI claims, which keep on about paying their money and being owed a payout.

The state pension is actually a mess and I think there should be a cross-party discussion about it. Maybe we should go to a contributory system with a safety net for those who would face destitution. I honestly don't know.

Actually, I think those buying a property now would be happy to pay high interest rates if they were able to buy properties at the same price as they were in the 60s or 70s.

If they enable the working partner to pay more tax, they have contributed to society though, just not directly paid NI

The non-working partner could have contributed to society with voluntary work from running play groups without pay (there were not many nurseries years ago) to PTA and other voluntary organisations, raising money for charity, caring for elderly parents etc etc.

Mind you, it doesn't mean that the working partner could ever become that wealthy however hard they worked.

I think that the 'WASPI' case is also that the rules changed when it was too late for millions of women to do anything about it. This is also true of the various other groups who are fighting for restitution - WASPI is just one of them.

I feel that the state pension should be 'earned', in the sense that people would get a pension if they paid NI. I think that there should be no difference made between those who paid in a lot of NI and those who earned less and consequently paid in less - it should be the same payment for all, dependent only on the number (as opposed to the monetary value) of contributions made.

I also think that those who did not pay NI because they were ill, or unable to get work (millions in the 1970s and 80s) should get credited contributions, but not people who 'chose' not to work but could have. If people were willing to live on their partner's salary when they could have been paying in, they should live on their partner's pension - it's only fair.

However. Whatever the rights and wrongs as I see them, I think that it is grossly unfair to tell older people now that what they expected to happen, and the basis on which they made plans for retirement, no longer exist, and that they will now be significantly worse off than they were led to believe would be the case. If the system needs an overhaul, it should happen much more gradually, so that everyone has a chance to plan accordingly, and this should apply across the board.

Nice thought to be able to buy properties at those prices but the property market doesn't work like that, sadly.

Low interest rates = high prices; high interest rates = lower prices.

Perhaps we need more regulation, but I can't see that happening any time soon. Not with Boris in charge, at least. So we're stuck for at least 5 years.

Not really oldgimmer. I bought a property when the interest rate was 16% with a 100% mortgage. I paid three times my salary as a newly qualified teacher. It was tough for the first couple of years, but it was doable. That flat is now worth about ten times the salary of a newly qualified teacher and I wouldn't be able to afford it.

Doodledog The rules changed in 1995. I did know about them, but couldn't do anything about them. I just accepted that I would have to work until I was 65. The only change I really object to, because it really was too late, was the one in 2011(?), which affected both men and women and added an extra year at less than 10 years' notice. If the WASPI women hadn't been so greedy, they might have got somewhere and the people over 60 who are really in hardship might have received something. The people who would have benefitted most from Labour's promise would have been women who aren't already in the position of having to claim benefits.