What would you like to see in the budget.

Spot on Varian. Couldn’t have put it better.

georgia101

I'd like to see all OAPs get the same pension rate, regardless of the year they were born. We have the same expenses to pay after all.

But the people on the new pension had to work extra years. How would that be fair?

I want to see much higher tax rates for those on very high salaries, with especially high tax on bonuses.
I don't mind paying more tax myself, so long as everybody who can afford to do this is unable to evade paying it.

Also make people “visiting” this country pay for any medical costs whilst here,including child birth.

Forgot, I would like to see Public Schools lose their charity status and pay VAT

DaisyAnne

georgia101

I'd like to see all OAPs get the same pension rate, regardless of the year they were born. We have the same expenses to pay after all.

But the people on the new pension had to work extra years. How would that be fair?

Life is not fair.

Why not draw a line under current rates, start with same rate (not age determined) for everyone? Life is not improved if others have less.

I'm happy when others can be helped by new policy.

Growstuff. I have given this some thought myself. I'm a retired NHS worker and I agree it's annoying that people can get very drunk and either have an accident or get into a fight. The problem is, who is going to assess the level of drunkenness. Some people are clearly very intoxicated. But a woman has two drinks whilst out and trips due to high heels. Two people in a fight. One could be completely innocent, merely having a few quiet drinks and is victim of an unprovoked attack. It would be a difficult thing to police at point of A&E. And then there's the admin involved. And what if someone refuses to pay? Sadly I think it would just cause too many practical problems to make it a viable option.

Scottiebear Which post of mine are you addressing?

Norah

DaisyAnne

georgia101

I'd like to see all OAPs get the same pension rate, regardless of the year they were born. We have the same expenses to pay after all.

But the people on the new pension had to work extra years. How would that be fair?

Life is not fair.

Why not draw a line under current rates, start with same rate (not age determined) for everyone? Life is not improved if others have less.

I'm happy when others can be helped by new policy.

The same argument (Life is not fair) could be used against the people who drew their state pension at age 60 and paid fewer NICs.

growstuff

Norah

DaisyAnne

georgia101

I'd like to see all OAPs get the same pension rate, regardless of the year they were born. We have the same expenses to pay after all.

But the people on the new pension had to work extra years. How would that be fair?

Life is not fair.

Why not draw a line under current rates, start with same rate (not age determined) for everyone? Life is not improved if others have less.

I'm happy when others can be helped by new policy.

The same argument (Life is not fair) could be used against the people who drew their state pension at age 60 and paid fewer NICs.

Of course.

As a point of interest, what is downside to putting all OAP at the same rate regardless their year of birth?

I've never been employed or worked outside our home, this doesn't apply to me, I can see positives for others.

It's not as if money isn't spent on other "unfairness"

Barmeyoldbat

Forgot, I would like to see Public Schools lose their charity status and pay VAT

Taxing private schools: the truth behind the bluster by David James Tes
27/9/2021
It’s suggested that independent schools educate 600,000 children and save the state £3.5 billion a year.
Introducing VAT is covered in the article. An interesting read.

Because Norah most people on the lower rate didn't pay the same contributions (I know there are some who were caught between the two systems).

The bean counters worked out that people living to the age of 82 will have received the same amount. Those who live beyond 82 and receive the new state pension will receive more in total. However, they almost certainly won't be eligible for Pension Credit and won't have benefited from the benefits for people over 60 and below state pension age. People on the new SP have also lost SERPs entitlement. There have been winners and losers for both groups.

I don’t know your situation, Norah, but aren’t ’old’ pensions claimed as couples, so nobody gets them in their own right if they are married? They are a hangover from the days when more households were financed by the man, and were unfair to women who worked.

Many women who never worked do claim a ‘new’ pension, however, often with additional pension credit, covering rent, council tax and other costs.

Nobody wants to see anyone do without, but it is galling for those of us who have paid in, had our pensions delayed and now live with the threat of having them means-tested because there are too many pensioners living longer, when at least some of this money is going to pay non-contributors who are not ‘in need’.

I think that those who have not worked should get household pensions based on household incomes (ie those who could afford not to work can afford to live on one pension), so they are paid on the principle of being a payment made to retired workers rather than a benefit paid simply for getting older, which is used as a reason for cutting payments to contributors. People who have not worked and who find themselves with no pension should be entitled to benefits with no requirement to seek work after SPA.

If you've never worked, I assume you don't receive any state pension.

Sounds great Doodledog. I worked and contributed for a total of 49 years. Can I have extra, please?

And, yes, I find it very galling.

I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think the old state pension was claimed as couples, apart from those who opted to pay the married woman's stamp, which was phased out years ago,

growstuff

Because Norah most people on the lower rate didn't pay the same contributions (I know there are some who were caught between the two systems).

The bean counters worked out that people living to the age of 82 will have received the same amount. Those who live beyond 82 and receive the new state pension will receive more in total. However, they almost certainly won't be eligible for Pension Credit and won't have benefited from the benefits for people over 60 and below state pension age. People on the new SP have also lost SERPs entitlement. There have been winners and losers for both groups.

I read often about those caught between the 2 systems. Quite unfair. If paying the same rate makes more "winners" and less overall "unfairness" I'm at a loss as to why using one rate is unacceptable.

growstuff

If you've never worked, I assume you don't receive any state pension.

Correct.

growstuff yes i find it galling too..I've worked 50 yrs and contributed and find at 66, still have to work as retirement seems out of the question..

Norah

growstuff

Because Norah most people on the lower rate didn't pay the same contributions (I know there are some who were caught between the two systems).

The bean counters worked out that people living to the age of 82 will have received the same amount. Those who live beyond 82 and receive the new state pension will receive more in total. However, they almost certainly won't be eligible for Pension Credit and won't have benefited from the benefits for people over 60 and below state pension age. People on the new SP have also lost SERPs entitlement. There have been winners and losers for both groups.

I read often about those caught between the 2 systems. Quite unfair. If paying the same rate makes more "winners" and less overall "unfairness" I'm at a loss as to why using one rate is unacceptable.

Because those on the old state pension have in almost cases fewer years of National Insurance Contributions and paid a much lower rate. It's not rocket science.

Means tested benefits are available for those with inadequate income.

Bea65

growstuff yes i find it galling too..I've worked 50 yrs and contributed and find at 66, still have to work as retirement seems out of the question..

I'm 67 and would still be working if ill health hadn't put a stop to that :-(.

I try and tell myself that life is too short to worry about anything other than making the best of things.

Doodledog, Nobody wants to see anyone do without

Excellent point!

I think that those who have not worked should get household pensions based on household incomes (ie those who could afford not to work can afford to live on one pension), so they are paid on the principle of being a payment made to retired workers rather than a benefit paid simply for getting older

Agreed. Precisely what I think.

Norah

growstuff

Norah

DaisyAnne

georgia101

I'd like to see all OAPs get the same pension rate, regardless of the year they were born. We have the same expenses to pay after all.

But the people on the new pension had to work extra years. How would that be fair?

Life is not fair.

Why not draw a line under current rates, start with same rate (not age determined) for everyone? Life is not improved if others have less.

I'm happy when others can be helped by new policy.

The same argument (Life is not fair) could be used against the people who drew their state pension at age 60 and paid fewer NICs.

Of course.

As a point of interest, what is downside to putting all OAP at the same rate regardless their year of birth?

I've never been employed or worked outside our home, this doesn't apply to me, I can see positives for others.

It's not as if money isn't spent on other "unfairness"

As a point of interest, what is downside to putting all OAP at the same rate regardless their year of birth?

The cost and the appearance of "fairness" that does matter to many.

You are suggesting a Basic Income after State Pension Age. Why not one all though life?

Norah

growstuff

Because Norah most people on the lower rate didn't pay the same contributions (I know there are some who were caught between the two systems).

The bean counters worked out that people living to the age of 82 will have received the same amount. Those who live beyond 82 and receive the new state pension will receive more in total. However, they almost certainly won't be eligible for Pension Credit and won't have benefited from the benefits for people over 60 and below state pension age. People on the new SP have also lost SERPs entitlement. There have been winners and losers for both groups.

I read often about those caught between the 2 systems. Quite unfair. If paying the same rate makes more "winners" and less overall "unfairness" I'm at a loss as to why using one rate is unacceptable.

In what way are people caught between the two systems Norah? You are either in one or the other.

growstuff

Norah

growstuff

Because Norah most people on the lower rate didn't pay the same contributions (I know there are some who were caught between the two systems).

The bean counters worked out that people living to the age of 82 will have received the same amount. Those who live beyond 82 and receive the new state pension will receive more in total. However, they almost certainly won't be eligible for Pension Credit and won't have benefited from the benefits for people over 60 and below state pension age. People on the new SP have also lost SERPs entitlement. There have been winners and losers for both groups.

I read often about those caught between the 2 systems. Quite unfair. If paying the same rate makes more "winners" and less overall "unfairness" I'm at a loss as to why using one rate is unacceptable.

Because those on the old state pension have in almost cases fewer years of National Insurance Contributions and paid a much lower rate. It's not rocket science.

Means tested benefits are available for those with inadequate income.

No, not rocket science.

Given the question, partial answer - I'd like to see all OAPs get the same pension rate, regardless of the year they were born.

Simple answer really, it's one thing I'd like. The arguments against don't resonate with me during austere times.