|
|
Post by patman post on Jul 17, 2023 18:38:35 GMT
You won’t have paid for all the age benefits that accrue to you — they’re all paid out of the current tax take. If you’ve amassed a pension pot and have health and other insurances, good for you. I’m beginning to be persuaded that winter fuel, free travel, state pension (in its present form), etc, should only be available to those who in need — those who can, should be expected to care for themselves… Well tbh Pat, you don't know how much tax of one sort or another I or anyone else has over a lifetime paid into the system, and I am yet to claim one thin penny in benefits of any sort. I'm a pensioner, but I'm not an old age pensioner, not yet. That's correct, I don't know how much tax you've paid into "the system". But whatever tax and NI you had deducted (apart from graduated pension between '61 and '75) paid for what people were claiming then.
Only what you and your employer put into your own pot, and other private arrangements, will fund your own pension. Your state pension, winter fuel allowance, NHS medical care, bus pass, etc, will all be paid for by those working and paying tax (maybe even you) at the time...
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jul 17, 2023 18:47:06 GMT
Well tbh Pat, you don't know how much tax of one sort or another I or anyone else has over a lifetime paid into the system, and I am yet to claim one thin penny in benefits of any sort. I'm a pensioner, but I'm not an old age pensioner, not yet. That's correct, I don't know how much tax you've paid into "the system". But whatever tax and NI you had deducted (apart from graduated pension between '61 and '75) paid for what people were claiming then.
Only what you and your employer put into your own pot, and other private arrangements, will fund your own pension. Your state pension, winter fuel allowance, NHS medical care, bus pass, etc, will all be paid for by those working and paying tax (maybe even you) at the time...
Pat, even though I paid in for 44 years without claiming one thin penny in benefits of any sort, you seem to be criticising me for old age benefits I may, or may not claim in the future. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jul 17, 2023 18:54:21 GMT
You missed his point - the pension is paid out of current tax take, not what you've already paid in. Pat was talking about 'me' but I'm not an old age pensioner. And incidentally, UK old age pensioners enjoy one of the lowest state pensions in Europe. |
|
|
|
Post by patman post on Jul 17, 2023 19:21:52 GMT
That's correct, I don't know how much tax you've paid into "the system". But whatever tax and NI you had deducted (apart from graduated pension between '61 and '75) paid for what people were claiming then.
Only what you and your employer put into your own pot, and other private arrangements, will fund your own pension. Your state pension, winter fuel allowance, NHS medical care, bus pass, etc, will all be paid for by those working and paying tax (maybe even you) at the time...
Pat, even though I paid in for 44 years without claiming one thin penny in benefits of any sort, you seem to be criticising me for old age benefits I may, or may not claim in the future. No personal criticism intended, just pointing out that a low tax take by the state means lower state funds (unless it had managed to create a sovereign wealth fund from North Sea Oil) to be shared out among the population for all sorts of benefits, and that anything you'd paid in previously only qualifies you for an entrance to the club — it's not gone into your own personal fund.
You have previously alluded to some military service, so you may get a something from that, but it's also from the public purse.
Apart from that, we're all in the same boat, which is why we should all make our own provision, if possible...
|
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jul 17, 2023 19:46:17 GMT
Pat, even though I paid in for 44 years without claiming one thin penny in benefits of any sort, you seem to be criticising me for old age benefits I may, or may not claim in the future. No personal criticism intended, just pointing out that a low tax take by the state means lower state funds (unless it had managed to create a sovereign wealth fund from North Sea Oil) to be shared out among the population for all sorts of benefits, and that anything you'd paid in previously only qualifies you for an entrance to the club — it's not gone into your own personal fund.
You have previously alluded to some military service, so you may get a something from that, but it's also from the public purse.
Apart from that, we're all in the same boat, which is why we should all make our own provision, if possible...
Tbh I think North Sea oil revenues may be another thread. And yes of course I get an army pension, it's not a kings ransom and not the reason I could afford to retire early. I retired early because for years I put more than I could really afford into a very good private pension because I knew it would pay off in years to come, and it did. I'm not a particularly clever chap, I didn't benefit from a university education, but I have planned for financial security in our old age. Whether in years to come we for whatever reason need to rely on benefits of some sort remains to be seen, I would have hoped not, but thus far Mrs R and I have paid in without taking anything out and that's because we planned for our future. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jul 17, 2023 21:20:17 GMT
He could still do another flip flop, you take everything he says with a pinch of salt. Judge not a man who has never been Prime Minister, instead judge him on his record if he does become Prime Minister Meanwhile, let me remind you .......... 1. Inflation 2. Growing the economy 3. National debt falling 4. Falling NHS waiting lists 5. Stop the boats How are Mr Sunaks 5 pledges going ? ( He IS the Prime Minister ) pledges made in January is that not what people are doing with Starmer?. How well do you think Starmer is getting on with delivering the promises he made in the Labour leadership election? |
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jul 18, 2023 8:46:34 GMT
"just pointing out that a low tax take by the state means lower state funds (unless it had managed to create a sovereign wealth fund from North Sea Oil)"
I recall some wag in the 80s at the height of the North Sea oil boom claiming that the Thatcher government was using oil revenues for benefits and redundancy money for redundant miners who'd be driving to the benefits office in their new Toyotas to collect them.
No sovereign wealth fund then.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dan Dare on Jul 18, 2023 10:50:41 GMT
The row about the two-child cap rumbles on inside the Labour party. According to a report in the Times. in an interview with the Daily Record yesterday, Anas Sarwar the Scottish Labour leader was full-throated in his opposition. “Scottish Labour policy has not changed. We continue to oppose the two-child limit. We continue to believe that it exacerbates poverty, and we continue to believe that it needs to change,” he said. “What we recognise is an incoming Labour government will inherit economic carnage and that means we will not be able to do everything we want, and we won’t be able to do everything as fast as we want. “But we will continue to press any incoming UK Labour government to move as fast as they can within our fiscal rules to remove this heinous policy.” Mr Sarwar is Muslim and has three children. www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sarwar-attacks-starmer-over-heinous-two-child-universal-credit-cap-lzxzrlq5j (paywall) |
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jul 18, 2023 12:30:02 GMT
Ignoring Dan's obsession with race for a moment, child benefit in the UK is a mess. Contrary to perception, there is no two child limit on basic child benefit - anyone gets £24 per week for first child and £15.90 for each subsequent child but if one family member earns over £50k complicated exemptions apply. Two child limits apply to the very poorest (often single parent) families on enhanced child related benefits (often via universal credit). It seems we have got mixed up here. Surely the point of child benefits is to ensure that the poorest children get help from the state to try to ensure they have a reasonable start to life. Yet we happily pay benefits to families earning a combined income of up to £99000 and impose limits on poorest families. Seems a little bit mixed up to me. Well you SAY ‘contrary to perception’ And yes if you read this www.gov.uk/child-benefit/what-youll-getBut i notice the comment that anything you get here for a third and subsequent child will count towards the benefits cap And over here … www.gov.uk/guidance/claiming-benefits-for-2-or-more-childrenIt is a rather different story Looks to me like whitehall speaks from arse and elbow army same time |
|
