Winter fuel payment

No, that's the point. People on PC can be better off than those who have worked and paid NI for 35 years or more, and that is very unjust, particularly if means-testing means they then also get WFA and those on SP don't.

Doodledog

No, that's the point. People on PC can be better off than those who have worked and paid NI for 35 years or more, and that is very unjust, particularly if means-testing means they then also get WFA and those on SP don't.

Regardless of any individual circumstances our generation has had a much easier living than our children and GC are getting now, even though we didn’t think so at the time. Now we are expecting them to keep us in addition to their struggles to make ends meet.

We should either pay more or expect less.

David49
^ our generation has had a much easier living than our children^

That’s exactly the sort of thing that our children will be told by our grandchildren and our grandchildren will be told by our great grandchildren ad infinitum.
It won’t make it any truer for them than it is when you say it now.

Allira

growstuff

PoliticsNerd Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Australians pay anything like National Insurance. What you're suggesting is that higher earners pay more into the system via National Insurance, but receive less. I think there would be a backlash. People who have paid National Insurance all their lives already receive very little more than others who haven't paid into the system but receive Pension Credit and other top ups.

Australians pay more tax than the UK. Employers have to pay 11.5% of salary into an employee's pension fund.
Government Age Pensions are means-tested and graduated.
Self-employed have to pay into their own pension funds.

The 11.5% is taken from employers even for casual workers such as backpackers, who can then reclaim that money when they leave the country.

Thank you for this Allira. I'm afraid I got deflected by a recalcitrant boiler.

Yes, the biggest difference, to my mind, is the mandatory payments into pensions. In the UK the employer minimum contribution is 3% with an 8% total minimum contribution (i.e. employer and employee).

If we want every person to have a reasonable retirement we need to start now, with the young. It should not be the states job to pay everyone who has had good health, a well paid job, no caring responsibilities and nothing go majorly wrong in their lives. We should be ensuring the young are saving for that now. That then leaves the tax-payer/state to help those who haven't been in a position to acrue a pension pot that is sufficient.

This, to me, is a more middle way. It doesn't assume government payment to all but does (legally) support saving for an, at least adequate, pension and provision, by the state, for those unable to achieve that. In the case of pension provision, in what is still one of the richest countries in the world, I do not see universality as appropriate. Because of the size and diversity of the population in this instance, it is more expensive than a targeted benefit would be, and therefore less effective.

Doodledog

No, that's the point. People on PC can be better off than those who have worked and paid NI for 35 years or more, and that is very unjust, particularly if means-testing means they then also get WFA and those on SP don't.

Agreed Doodledog.

In my circle of friends, there are several who are in just that position - better off with SP+PC than those who have paid 35+ years NI contributions!

You do begin to ask yourself, why did I bother?

LizzieDrip

Doodledog

No, that's the point. People on PC can be better off than those who have worked and paid NI for 35 years or more, and that is very unjust, particularly if means-testing means they then also get WFA and those on SP don't.

Agreed Doodledog.

In my circle of friends, there are several who are in just that position - better off with SP+PC than those who have paid 35+ years NI contributions!

You do begin to ask yourself, why did I bother?

You question should be "why does the government run the system this way".

The first thing we need to know is what would the average (or most suitable mathematical calculation) be if you added in a "normal" group of add-ons that someone on PC gets automatically. Governments, of all flavours, have hidden the the true "minimum income" that they see as necessary by using these automatic add-ons. It is not pensioners abusing the system but the system abusing the whole population of retirees by covering up the real level of need. If properly calculated it would have to offer Pension Credit to many over the current cut off.

All governments have done this.

growstuff

I agree with you Silverbrooks. There are anomalies in the state pension system, but it would be political suicide to break the post WW2 welfare agreement on pensions. I'd be very hacked off if I were to be means-tested now, as I paid extra to plug some gaps in my NIC record.

No one suggesting that anyone currently receiving state pension would be forced to move onto a means- tested one. Those would, as the always do, become legacy benefits.

Moving those already receiving a means-tested retirement age benefit to one paying more seems sensible to me. Some not receiving as much under the current scheme i.e., on a lower income than they would receive on the means-tested but not receiving benefits at that time could be offered the choice of moving over. These, because of the changes in inequality for women, will often be the oldest and poorest.

PoliticsNerd

Allira

growstuff

PoliticsNerd Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Australians pay anything like National Insurance. What you're suggesting is that higher earners pay more into the system via National Insurance, but receive less. I think there would be a backlash. People who have paid National Insurance all their lives already receive very little more than others who haven't paid into the system but receive Pension Credit and other top ups.

Australians pay more tax than the UK. Employers have to pay 11.5% of salary into an employee's pension fund.
Government Age Pensions are means-tested and graduated.
Self-employed have to pay into their own pension funds.

The 11.5% is taken from employers even for casual workers such as backpackers, who can then reclaim that money when they leave the country.

Thank you for this Allira. I'm afraid I got deflected by a recalcitrant boiler.

Yes, the biggest difference, to my mind, is the mandatory payments into pensions. In the UK the employer minimum contribution is 3% with an 8% total minimum contribution (i.e. employer and employee).

If we want every person to have a reasonable retirement we need to start now, with the young. It should not be the states job to pay everyone who has had good health, a well paid job, no caring responsibilities and nothing go majorly wrong in their lives. We should be ensuring the young are saving for that now. That then leaves the tax-payer/state to help those who haven't been in a position to acrue a pension pot that is sufficient.

This, to me, is a more middle way. It doesn't assume government payment to all but does (legally) support saving for an, at least adequate, pension and provision, by the state, for those unable to achieve that. In the case of pension provision, in what is still one of the richest countries in the world, I do not see universality as appropriate. Because of the size and diversity of the population in this instance, it is more expensive than a targeted benefit would be, and therefore less effective.

In addition the employee can pay into the Superannuation fund.

The State Age Pension seemed quite generous compared to ours but I only knew one an elderly relative who was in receipt of it years ago. Most people we knew did not receive it.

Yes, Lizzie. And it continues with free social care for some families and financial ruin for others.

I certainly don’t want to see PC abolished or those with no money refused care in old age, but IMO there has to be a reward for decades of work - particularly for those on low pay - or rule by consent will weaken. More and more people are disengaging with democracy as it is.

Means-testing pensions could be the last straw (if anyone were daft enough to do it). Maybe changing the system for new entrants to the scheme is in order, but 50s-born women have already had the rug pulled from under their feet, and doing so again would be catastrophic for already disrupted pension planning.

If there were to be a new scheme it would have to be much fairer than the present one, but that is difficult to achieve without cutting support for older people who have not paid in, and I hope life in the UK never gets so harsh.

David, massive generalisations about ‘our generation’ are very unhelpful. Which generation, and which groups within that generation had a ‘much easier living’ and how?). You are ignoring sex, geographical location, social class, education and more when you make sweeping statements like that. A female cleaner married to, say, a labourer and living in the north will have much the same experience as her mother and daughter, as would a lawyer married to a stockbroker living in London, but their experiences will be very different from one another.

PN
All governments have done this.

That’s no excuse.

I didn't say it was - just the opposite in fact!

Agree Doodldog, especially if you’re on the old SP.

The UK system works well as anyone who has a sufficient number of full years of contributions gets a State Pension; it is not dependent on income during their working life either. The full basic SP is the same for all.

It is just that women in particular seem to have been subject to some discrimination over the years because many were coerced into paying the Married Women's stamp years ago, those falling into a certain age group say they were not informed of changes to the State Pension and it may have been too late to make alternstive provisions too. As the traditional care-givers of children and elderly relatives years ago, women may have missed out on years of work; a stamp may have been paid but there was no opportunity to build up a savings pot and/or private pension either.

^David, massive generalisations about ‘our generation’ are very unhelpful. Which generation, and which groups within that generation had a ‘much easier living’ and how?). You are ignoring sex, geographical location, social class, education and more when you make sweeping statements like that. A female cleaner married to, say, a labourer and living in the north will have much the same experience as her mother and daughter, as would a lawyer married to a stockbroker living in London,
but their experiences will be very different from one another.^

Absolutely! I was wondering which generation too as, even on this site aimed at older people, there could be two or even three generations all with different experiences and views.

I know people who have scrounged all of their lives and they will no doubt get the winter fuel payments. It makes my blood boil because I have worked since I was 15 and worked until I was 65! You can bet I don’t get the winter fuel payments reinstated for me. Arghghghghghghg!!!!!!!

Yes, Lizzie. And it continues with free social care for some families and financial ruin for others

Absolutely Doodledog. My late FIL didn’t save a penny, lived in a council house, worked on & off when he could be bothered and spent any money he had in the local pub.

His choice, you may say. Fine!

However, when he needed to go into a care home, because he had nothing, his care home fees were paid by the council.

Talking to the families of some others in the same care home, they had been forced to sell their parent’s house, take out massive bank loans and/or spend all their parent’s life savings to pay the fees.

Such inequity!

Can we afford it? We know it's a catch-up scheme with each generation paying for the last generations pension.

After World War II the UK experienced economic growth and reconstruction. Living standards improved across the population, with rising incomes, better housing, expanded social services, and increased access to education. This was right for those times. Many born during this period benefited from these improvements, making it seem like each generation was better off than the last. This was actually a very short period in history.

The expansion of the welfare state, including the National Health Service (NHS) established in 1948, contributed to improved health and social security, enhancing overall living standards for subsequent generations. From this period up to the early 20000s, average incomes and access to education continued to rise. For many, especially in the middle classes, living standards improved relative to previous generations but this trend has slowed, stopped and reversed for many.

From the late 20th century onward we have faced eonomic challenges we had not and have not prepared for. For some, especially younger generations, relative income and wealth has stagnated or declined, particularly after the 2008 financial crisis.

Rising house prices have made homeownership more difficult for younger generations, affecting their long-term wealth accumulation. Factors such as the gig economy, insecure employment, and wage stagnation have impacted living standards for some, with the youngest cohort never knowning anything else and reasonably believing we must do things differently.

We, as a generation, would be remiss if we assume we should have what future generation will not be able to enjoy. They, as a generation, will outvote us if we do not consider their future as well our own and I for one wouldn't blame them.

LizzieDrip

^Yes, Lizzie. And it continues with free social care for some families and financial ruin for others^

Absolutely Doodledog. My late FIL didn’t save a penny, lived in a council house, worked on & off when he could be bothered and spent any money he had in the local pub.

His choice, you may say. Fine!

However, when he needed to go into a care home, because he had nothing, his care home fees were paid by the council.

Talking to the families of some others in the same care home, they had been forced to sell their parent’s house, take out massive bank loans and/or spend all their parent’s life savings to pay the fees.

Such inequity!

This and agreement with Doodledog’s post about the unfairness in eg paying for social care or earning the minimum wage, working hard yet having less disposable income than neighbours who’ve never worked.
I’ve seen this too often to pretend it doesn’t happen.
I’ve also had personal experience when my dad needed respite care and he was self funding because of his police pension. He paid £480 a week, social services paid £320 for the residents they funded
Dad was 81, frail but still 6’ - mum 83, registered partially sighted and 5’1”. Respite one week in 4 gave her the chance to restore and rest.

We all accepted dad’s pension covered his stay 17 years ago. It would be a much greater proportion now.

Trying to establish fairness isn’t easy. My dad was a royal marine in ww2. He gave 34 years to the police and raised a family of public servants.

LizzieDrip

^Yes, Lizzie. And it continues with free social care for some families and financial ruin for others^

Absolutely Doodledog. My late FIL didn’t save a penny, lived in a council house, worked on & off when he could be bothered and spent any money he had in the local pub.

His choice, you may say. Fine!

However, when he needed to go into a care home, because he had nothing, his care home fees were paid by the council.

Talking to the families of some others in the same care home, they had been forced to sell their parent’s house, take out massive bank loans and/or spend all their parent’s life savings to pay the fees.

Such inequity!

Some residents have their fees hiked up too, to help pay for the differential!

LizzieDrip

^”Well, Gosh. I never saw that coming.
Nothing to do with the disastrous election results for Starmer, obviously”^

eazybee isn’t it weird that folk criticise KS for ‘not listening to the people’ and, when he does listen to the people, they criticise him with … ‘he’s only doing this because he’s listened to the people’.

I feel like I’m living in a parallel universe🙈

this

Allira

LizzieDrip

Yes, Lizzie. And it continues with free social care for some families and financial ruin for others

Absolutely Doodledog. My late FIL didn’t save a penny, lived in a council house, worked on & off when he could be bothered and spent any money he had in the local pub.

His choice, you may say. Fine!

However, when he needed to go into a care home, because he had nothing, his care home fees were paid by the council.

Talking to the families of some others in the same care home, they had been forced to sell their parent’s house, take out massive bank loans and/or spend all their parent’s life savings to pay the fees.

Such inequity!

Some residents have their fees hiked up too, to help pay for the differential!

When you rely on Social Care funding you do not have a choice of care home and other services most of the time. At least if you have savings and is self funding, you have a choice about everything. I firmly believe that my savings are for my care and not to be left as inheritance for my family, I worked hard to have a pot to pay for my care. If I am lucky enough not to need it, my family will benefit but only then.

Iam64

LizzieDrip

Yes, Lizzie. And it continues with free social care for some families and financial ruin for others

Absolutely Doodledog. My late FIL didn’t save a penny, lived in a council house, worked on & off when he could be bothered and spent any money he had in the local pub.

His choice, you may say. Fine!

However, when he needed to go into a care home, because he had nothing, his care home fees were paid by the council.

Talking to the families of some others in the same care home, they had been forced to sell their parent’s house, take out massive bank loans and/or spend all their parent’s life savings to pay the fees.

Such inequity!

This and agreement with Doodledog’s post about the unfairness in eg paying for social care or earning the minimum wage, working hard yet having less disposable income than neighbours who’ve never worked.
I’ve seen this too often to pretend it doesn’t happen.
I’ve also had personal experience when my dad needed respite care and he was self funding because of his police pension. He paid £480 a week, social services paid £320 for the residents they funded
Dad was 81, frail but still 6’ - mum 83, registered partially sighted and 5’1”. Respite one week in 4 gave her the chance to restore and rest.

We all accepted dad’s pension covered his stay 17 years ago. It would be a much greater proportion now.

Trying to establish fairness isn’t easy. My dad was a royal marine in ww2. He gave 34 years to the police and raised a family of public servants.

We do need to afford really good social care in order to take pressure off the NHS. If we can reshape the State Pension putting the savings towards social care would make sense.

People do not face "financial ruin", that is ridiculous. They do, currently have to give up most of their savings which would otherwise be passed on. That is very different. Hyperbole doesn't help reasoned discussion.

Some residents have their fees hiked up too, to help pay for the differential!

Which means the system is wrong. However, wealth distribution in the UK is skewed towards older age groups, with older people holding a substantial share of the country's total wealth so they need to bare some of the additional costs in some way.

they need to bare some of the additional costs in some way.
Indeed some of them feel they have been stripped naked by the system.

It’s important not to over egg the pudding here I think. Only a small percentage of older people are care home residents. According to ONS
There were 278,946 people aged 65 years and over living in a care home in England and Wales, accounting for 82.1% of all care home residents.
The proportion of the usual resident population aged 65 years and over living in a care home decreased from 3.2% in 2011 to 2.5% in 2021.
Within the 65 years and over care home population, 56.4% of residents were aged 85 years and over; this is a decrease from 2011, where 59.2% of residents were aged 85 years and over.

No system is ever going to be perceived as fair to everybody, and that is the reality every government has to face, whatever the thresholds are there will be a disaffected group.