| Pensions 10:14 - May 28 with 5117 views | chicoazul |
In an idle moment I reviewed my pensions.
According to my calculations if I retire at 67 per the current rules, with my work public sector pension and my old age pension I will retire with an income of 85% of what I earn now. I’ll be retired all being well for at least 15 years. I don’t earn much now but it’s enough and I’m happy.
My point is, this is surely unsustainable. Is this country completely screwed economically forever? |  |
| |  |
| Pensions on 12:57 - May 28 with 894 views | ArnoldMoorhen |
| Pensions on 10:42 - May 28 by Radlett_blue |
Longevity in the UK has been increasing steadily for over 100 years, thanks to better healthcare & improved working conditions. The improvement is now tailing off, partly because of diminishing returns. The sugar issue will actually cause more problems as Type 2 diabetes is growing hugely & the effects of it will bring much more cost onto the NHS.
Asbestosis is a horrible disease, but it is only killing about 5,000 people a year. |
I knew somebody who died of Mesothelioma, so I didn't raise it flippantly. Micro plastic and Microfibre/Microfiber pollution is an exponentially growing problem in every environment on earth. Degradation of what we have already produced will vastly increase the proliferation of them in land and oceanic environments, even before additional production in the coming years is factored in.
Here is an article on possible links to lung disease:
https://www.fastcompany.com/90955013/you-breathe-in-a-credit-cards-worth-of-micr
This article specifically references toxic dyes used in Microfibre clothing, and the possible implications for human health of each:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10221355/
"Since inhalation is one of the primary methods through which humans are exposed to microfibers, the released microfibers that contain many additives, such as nanomaterials and other chemicals such as perfluoroalkyl derivatives and formaldehyde, pose significant risks to human health. "
So, sadly, I am anticipating an epidemic of lung cancers in coming decades, directly attributable to what has already been manufactured. By the time enough people realise the scale of the problem, due to the "slow-ticking time bomb" nature of many cancers (just like with Asbestosis and Mesothelioma) it will be too late to save a generation or more of victims. |  | | |
| Pensions on 12:58 - May 28 with 892 views | stonojnr |
| Pensions on 10:42 - May 28 by Radlett_blue |
Longevity in the UK has been increasing steadily for over 100 years, thanks to better healthcare & improved working conditions. The improvement is now tailing off, partly because of diminishing returns. The sugar issue will actually cause more problems as Type 2 diabetes is growing hugely & the effects of it will bring much more cost onto the NHS.
Asbestosis is a horrible disease, but it is only killing about 5,000 people a year. |
But actually longevity is not what you want, it simply prolongs the inevitable, as noone can live forever and leaves alot of people with very poor qualities of life in their later years as your body unfortunately wears out and your mind eventually goes as well.
If you retire at 67, you might only have 10 years max of retirement where you can enjoy it before life finds a way of making it purgatory for the remaining years
I'd urge anyone to retire as soon as they are able financially to support their lifestyle and enjoy life whilst they can. Not wait to some arbitrary age and promise of full pension. | | | |
| Pensions on 13:05 - May 28 with 870 views | Radlett_blue |
| Pensions on 12:58 - May 28 by stonojnr |
But actually longevity is not what you want, it simply prolongs the inevitable, as noone can live forever and leaves alot of people with very poor qualities of life in their later years as your body unfortunately wears out and your mind eventually goes as well.
If you retire at 67, you might only have 10 years max of retirement where you can enjoy it before life finds a way of making it purgatory for the remaining years
I'd urge anyone to retire as soon as they are able financially to support their lifestyle and enjoy life whilst they can. Not wait to some arbitrary age and promise of full pension. |
This is exactly my point - demographics are near inescapable & they, coupled with greater longevity, put huge pressure on pension costs &, even more so, the NHS.
The cost of looking after the very elderly & infirm is another big issue which, unsurprisingly, has been side-stepped by successive governments, given the ballooning costs. In Asian countries, families tend to look after one another. |  |
| |
| Pensions on 13:19 - May 28 with 848 views | Churchman |
| Pensions on 12:32 - May 28 by Radlett_blue |
Yes, unlike the Scandies, Britain has gone down the inequality route & while I'm no Socialist, I think it's gone much too far. You cannot redress the situation by taking the very rich because (1) there aren't enough of them & (2) they can move offshore. So the only way to do it is to tax the middle class/upper earners more heavily & governments have been reluctant to do this as they won;t then get voted in, especially with populists like Farage promising tax cuts AND higher spending. |
Middle class (god I hate that phrase) are the section of the population that largely cannot avoid tax, unlike the rich including our dear leader, and actually are the ones that drive the economy. The rich by and large do not and on average pay 10%, thanks to tax avoidance and skilled accountants. It’s a fallacy of the tories beloved trickle down economics. I don’t blame them in the least. But to raid the middle /upper earners too much will stagnate the economy, not help it grow.
The answer? No idea. Invest. How? Don’t know. Borrow it? Attract the people from Harvard Trump is so keen to see the back of? Rejoin the EU? My mate went nuts this morning when I suggested it. He loves Reform. What has been proven over 15 years now is that cuts and austerity kill your economy and tear at the fabric of society. Yet still it continues.
Back to funding, I most certainly would either merge NI with income tax (political suicide) or get retirees to continue paying NI against their income until they fell off their perch, if it’s beyond a certain threshold. Mrs C and I fall in the ‘comfortable’ bracket couples income wise and I’d be more than happy to pay it. |  | | |
| Pensions on 13:37 - May 28 with 822 views | OldFart71 |
| Pensions on 10:27 - May 28 by Radlett_blue |
The triple lock is absolutely unaffordable, given the demographics of the UK. But no government wants to be the one which removes it. The Tory/Liberal coalition instituted it in 2010 & it was an act of complete madness, linking pension improvements to the HIGHEST of 3 different measures of inflation.
The sticking plaster solution has been to keep pushing out the qualifying age, but when you do anything like that you attract a media storm of criticism as you create short term losers e.g. the WASPI women. |
As a pensioner I would be happy with the increase on my State Pension to be linked to the RPI, not the CPI. The problem is there is no belief in what the figures that come out of the office for National Statistics.
We are all aware that inflation when taken against what we really pay is way out. Simply because it is a basket of items and many household costs aren't taken into consideration. Also each family depending on age have different priorities and costs.
I don't have high travel costs but because I am home all day heating, lighting etc will cost more.
I personally advocate that those that continue to work beyond their pensionable age should pay N.I. (currently you don't)
Free prescriptions are given at 60 years of age. Again unless a person needs medication daily this shouldn't be free until the retirement age is reached.
To soften the blow of this people of pensionable age could receive a higher personal allowance. Say £18,000. This would be in the region of what a person on the minimum wage doing a 38 hour week would receive after tax and N.I. | | | |
| Pensions on 14:15 - May 28 with 768 views | mutters |
| Pensions on 10:43 - May 28 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
It hasn’t been achievable so far with record population growth, with constant ‘black holes’. You need to be in the top 40pc of earners to be a net contributor to the state (and that doesn’t include dependents). Plus for every one million of population growth, you need more than 1 million to pay their pensions, it’s just kicking the can down the road and hardly in line with sustainability of the environment.
It won’t be a popular decision, but the state pension has to be means tested for the poorest only. Shift the burden to the private sector, and spend the money on improving healthcare (if we had a functional health system, more people could get back to work and contribute tax, and work for longer). |
One of my bugbears have been the shifting age at which you can retire. Personally I believe it should be fixed at the age you enter employment, and it doesn't change for you. The retirement date can change for those that enter at a later date, however you enter a contract with the government when you start work at say 18.
Also a massive no to a means tested state pension unless those are the rules when you start paying tax. It would very unfair to change the rules when somebody is part way through their working life to suddenly take it away.
I am in my late 40s and even though I've been reasonably prudent in saving into a probate pension, my life planning has always been based on getting the full state pension at 67(well it was 65,then 66). To take it away now would be unfair imo. |  |
| |
| Pensions on 14:34 - May 28 with 740 views | OldFart71 |
| Pensions on 10:43 - May 28 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
It hasn’t been achievable so far with record population growth, with constant ‘black holes’. You need to be in the top 40pc of earners to be a net contributor to the state (and that doesn’t include dependents). Plus for every one million of population growth, you need more than 1 million to pay their pensions, it’s just kicking the can down the road and hardly in line with sustainability of the environment.
It won’t be a popular decision, but the state pension has to be means tested for the poorest only. Shift the burden to the private sector, and spend the money on improving healthcare (if we had a functional health system, more people could get back to work and contribute tax, and work for longer). |
You state pensions for the poorest only ? The problem is what do you class a poor and how do those that don't receive a State pension survive. I am in my mid seventies and still have a mortgage. I get a Company Pension on top of my State Pension. But it certainly wouldn't be enough for me to survive.
The biggest problem is and has been that governments insist on tinkering with things to do with pensions.
Gordon Brown started taxing the interest on shares dividends and as many Companies invested in share this had the effect of basically destroying Final Salary Pensions.
The Conservatives in their early years of being in power tried in a way to resurrect pensions through a persons Company. Unfortunately it was seriously floored as the Company could make it not worthwhile to take out and an employee could opt out anyway.
Since 1837 the records of Births, Marriages and Deaths have been recorded in this Country, along with Census conducted. But even though Governments have been privileged to this information they have not done a great deal to make sure that people do the right thing and look after their future. Yet it is constantly brought up that the Triple Lock is unsustainable whilst the UK's pensions are very low compared to other Countries. | | | |
| Pensions on 14:35 - May 28 with 727 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Pensions on 14:15 - May 28 by mutters |
One of my bugbears have been the shifting age at which you can retire. Personally I believe it should be fixed at the age you enter employment, and it doesn't change for you. The retirement date can change for those that enter at a later date, however you enter a contract with the government when you start work at say 18.
Also a massive no to a means tested state pension unless those are the rules when you start paying tax. It would very unfair to change the rules when somebody is part way through their working life to suddenly take it away.
I am in my late 40s and even though I've been reasonably prudent in saving into a probate pension, my life planning has always been based on getting the full state pension at 67(well it was 65,then 66). To take it away now would be unfair imo. |
“ Also a massive no to a means tested state pension unless those are the rules when you start paying tax. It would very unfair to change the rules when somebody is part way through their working life to suddenly take it away.”
I’m a millennial, I’m planning the assumption there is no state pension or it’s only available 70+. It’s just not sustainable with current demographics. It could of course be tapered in terms of how many years you’ve paid in. But the fundamental problem is we aren’t paying in enough anyway, which means we are trying to prop it up with current taxpayers (which is also unfair since we aren’t paying current retirees to have a better pension than we will get). Ultimately major reform is needed and some people are going to be u happy. We either raise taxes so we can cover future pensions, or move it to the private sector where returns are better anyway.
It’s politicians we should be angry with - rather than save, invest and build a pension or sovereign wealth fund for a better future, they’ve p1ssed it all away in the current human Ponzi scheme of adding new tax payers paying current rather than future pensions. It’s criminally short-termist, the callibre of politicians in my lifetime is appalling. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Pensions on 14:41 - May 28 with 716 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| Pensions on 14:34 - May 28 by OldFart71 |
You state pensions for the poorest only ? The problem is what do you class a poor and how do those that don't receive a State pension survive. I am in my mid seventies and still have a mortgage. I get a Company Pension on top of my State Pension. But it certainly wouldn't be enough for me to survive.
The biggest problem is and has been that governments insist on tinkering with things to do with pensions.
Gordon Brown started taxing the interest on shares dividends and as many Companies invested in share this had the effect of basically destroying Final Salary Pensions.
The Conservatives in their early years of being in power tried in a way to resurrect pensions through a persons Company. Unfortunately it was seriously floored as the Company could make it not worthwhile to take out and an employee could opt out anyway.
Since 1837 the records of Births, Marriages and Deaths have been recorded in this Country, along with Census conducted. But even though Governments have been privileged to this information they have not done a great deal to make sure that people do the right thing and look after their future. Yet it is constantly brought up that the Triple Lock is unsustainable whilst the UK's pensions are very low compared to other Countries. |
“ Yet it is constantly brought up that the Triple Lock is unsustainable whilst the UK's pensions are very low compared to other Countries.”
Countries with better pensions (typically in Europe) pay more tax than us - therein lies the problem. | | | |
| Pensions on 14:42 - May 28 with 716 views | mellowblue |
| Pensions on 11:57 - May 28 by Radlett_blue |
The State pension costs over £136bn a year, over 11% of government spending & with the demographics & the triple lock, this will inevitably keep increasing. The solutions to fund them will be tax increases or cut back on expenditure elsewhere. |
yet the state receives 200 billion in N.I contributions that are supposed to underpin it in a round about way. | | | |
| Pensions on 14:42 - May 28 with 719 views | ElderGrizzly |
The state pension is unsustainable in its current form, hence why more pressure being put on private/company pensions to pick up the burden.
Public sector pensions you could say are unsustainable too. I used to have 28% put in by my employer and i'd put in 4%. Obviously those employer contributions are tax payer funded too.
Private sector is more likely between 6 and 12% contribution?
At some point, something has to give... |  | | |
| Pensions on 14:48 - May 28 with 685 views | BlueForYou |
| Pensions on 12:28 - May 28 by Churchman |
Yes, funny how the rest of Europe can sustain it and we can’t. You are right - triple lock came in to try and catch up a bit. Measurement across countries isn’t easy because the way in which pensions in different countries works varies. Maybe low state provision in the U.K. is because retirees are viewed as a drain on the economy. Parasites. Hooray for the Spartans and the cold hillside when the fogeys have stopped contributing.
Yet the old fogeys are contributing. What most of the ancients spend goes back into the economy, unlike the uber rich where it’s often salted away abroad.
Disgracefully, the gap between rich and poor is increasing and the wealthy pay what on average, 10% tax? Government response was and is to get rid of 1000s of tax inspectors. That should help close the tax gap. I’m sure that is a concern to the multi millionaire politicians - not.
Interesting table on what you need to retire. The figures are net.
https://www.retirementlivingstandards.org.uk/details
The most state pension you can get is £11973.00pa. If that’s your only income, good luck living on that. |
& if you have a private pension as well, then you pay tax on it! So those of us who have retired are actually still contributing quite a lot to the system! A lot of you forget that. |  | | |
| Pensions on 14:57 - May 28 with 674 views | Pinewoodblue |
| Pensions on 14:34 - May 28 by OldFart71 |
You state pensions for the poorest only ? The problem is what do you class a poor and how do those that don't receive a State pension survive. I am in my mid seventies and still have a mortgage. I get a Company Pension on top of my State Pension. But it certainly wouldn't be enough for me to survive.
The biggest problem is and has been that governments insist on tinkering with things to do with pensions.
Gordon Brown started taxing the interest on shares dividends and as many Companies invested in share this had the effect of basically destroying Final Salary Pensions.
The Conservatives in their early years of being in power tried in a way to resurrect pensions through a persons Company. Unfortunately it was seriously floored as the Company could make it not worthwhile to take out and an employee could opt out anyway.
Since 1837 the records of Births, Marriages and Deaths have been recorded in this Country, along with Census conducted. But even though Governments have been privileged to this information they have not done a great deal to make sure that people do the right thing and look after their future. Yet it is constantly brought up that the Triple Lock is unsustainable whilst the UK's pensions are very low compared to other Countries. |
I would question the wisdom of still paying a mortgage in your 70’s, presumably a lifestyle choice. |  |
| |
| Pensions on 14:59 - May 28 with 671 views | mellowblue |
| Pensions on 12:57 - May 28 by ArnoldMoorhen |
I knew somebody who died of Mesothelioma, so I didn't raise it flippantly. Micro plastic and Microfibre/Microfiber pollution is an exponentially growing problem in every environment on earth. Degradation of what we have already produced will vastly increase the proliferation of them in land and oceanic environments, even before additional production in the coming years is factored in.
Here is an article on possible links to lung disease:
https://www.fastcompany.com/90955013/you-breathe-in-a-credit-cards-worth-of-micr
This article specifically references toxic dyes used in Microfibre clothing, and the possible implications for human health of each:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10221355/
"Since inhalation is one of the primary methods through which humans are exposed to microfibers, the released microfibers that contain many additives, such as nanomaterials and other chemicals such as perfluoroalkyl derivatives and formaldehyde, pose significant risks to human health. "
So, sadly, I am anticipating an epidemic of lung cancers in coming decades, directly attributable to what has already been manufactured. By the time enough people realise the scale of the problem, due to the "slow-ticking time bomb" nature of many cancers (just like with Asbestosis and Mesothelioma) it will be too late to save a generation or more of victims. |
and probably too late to sue someone too. | | | |
| Pensions on 15:02 - May 28 with 664 views | ronnyd |
| Pensions on 12:28 - May 28 by Churchman |
Yes, funny how the rest of Europe can sustain it and we can’t. You are right - triple lock came in to try and catch up a bit. Measurement across countries isn’t easy because the way in which pensions in different countries works varies. Maybe low state provision in the U.K. is because retirees are viewed as a drain on the economy. Parasites. Hooray for the Spartans and the cold hillside when the fogeys have stopped contributing.
Yet the old fogeys are contributing. What most of the ancients spend goes back into the economy, unlike the uber rich where it’s often salted away abroad.
Disgracefully, the gap between rich and poor is increasing and the wealthy pay what on average, 10% tax? Government response was and is to get rid of 1000s of tax inspectors. That should help close the tax gap. I’m sure that is a concern to the multi millionaire politicians - not.
Interesting table on what you need to retire. The figures are net.
https://www.retirementlivingstandards.org.uk/details
The most state pension you can get is £11973.00pa. If that’s your only income, good luck living on that. |
Glad i stayed in SERPS when my company went over to a 'money purchase' scheme when they ditched the final salary one. | | | |
| Pensions on 15:04 - May 28 with 660 views | DanTheMan |
| Pensions on 14:42 - May 28 by mellowblue |
yet the state receives 200 billion in N.I contributions that are supposed to underpin it in a round about way. |
I hate the fact our tax system has a bunch of labels for things even though it all just goes into a big pot. |  |
| |
| Pensions on 15:07 - May 28 with 656 views | mellowblue |
| Pensions on 13:19 - May 28 by Churchman |
Middle class (god I hate that phrase) are the section of the population that largely cannot avoid tax, unlike the rich including our dear leader, and actually are the ones that drive the economy. The rich by and large do not and on average pay 10%, thanks to tax avoidance and skilled accountants. It’s a fallacy of the tories beloved trickle down economics. I don’t blame them in the least. But to raid the middle /upper earners too much will stagnate the economy, not help it grow.
The answer? No idea. Invest. How? Don’t know. Borrow it? Attract the people from Harvard Trump is so keen to see the back of? Rejoin the EU? My mate went nuts this morning when I suggested it. He loves Reform. What has been proven over 15 years now is that cuts and austerity kill your economy and tear at the fabric of society. Yet still it continues.
Back to funding, I most certainly would either merge NI with income tax (political suicide) or get retirees to continue paying NI against their income until they fell off their perch, if it’s beyond a certain threshold. Mrs C and I fall in the ‘comfortable’ bracket couples income wise and I’d be more than happy to pay it. |
As a proportion of income received, the middle classes always contribute the most and are always the target for tax.
To be fair to high earners, the top 1% of earners, (roughly those over 200k p.a), pay 30% of income tax, so do make a strong contribution to the state. The picture often painted that high earners are all tax-evasive is not true by any means | | | |
| Pensions on 15:18 - May 28 with 643 views | mutters |
| Pensions on 14:35 - May 28 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
“ Also a massive no to a means tested state pension unless those are the rules when you start paying tax. It would very unfair to change the rules when somebody is part way through their working life to suddenly take it away.”
I’m a millennial, I’m planning the assumption there is no state pension or it’s only available 70+. It’s just not sustainable with current demographics. It could of course be tapered in terms of how many years you’ve paid in. But the fundamental problem is we aren’t paying in enough anyway, which means we are trying to prop it up with current taxpayers (which is also unfair since we aren’t paying current retirees to have a better pension than we will get). Ultimately major reform is needed and some people are going to be u happy. We either raise taxes so we can cover future pensions, or move it to the private sector where returns are better anyway.
It’s politicians we should be angry with - rather than save, invest and build a pension or sovereign wealth fund for a better future, they’ve p1ssed it all away in the current human Ponzi scheme of adding new tax payers paying current rather than future pensions. It’s criminally short-termist, the callibre of politicians in my lifetime is appalling. |
I can understand the argument about removing the state pension, it costs a lot to keep it going. However the people who it is funding are those who have paid into the system over the years on the basis that this would be there for them when they reached a certain age.
If everybody knew the rules when they started then they could make better or different provisions. If a government removed 12k a year from my projected retirement then that is a huge amount to lose, especially when I would only have less than 20 years to mitigate it. If I had known at 18 that it wouldn't have been there then the onus would have been on me to provide for myself in retirement, and with the timescale of 50+ years to do so, then that's different.
The idea of a private pension replacing the state one is definitely a possibility. Maybe the government will give each person a payoff and then let them manage their own? You can see the start of it by auto enrollment, making people more accountable for their retirement.
To be fair most politicians are pretty short term, only having a cycle of 5 years to plan and implement is not enough of a timeframe to make decent long term plans as the next government comes along and changes course! | |
| |
| Pensions on 15:31 - May 28 with 623 views | springfield |
| Pensions on 10:26 - May 28 by usm |
The state pension is unsustainable, the NHS is unsustainable, the benefit system is unsustainable, defined benefit pension schemes (Final Salary) are unsustainable. They all
have been for years and its been known for years.
So YES is the answer to your question. |
the NHS pension runs a surplus that isn't redistributed to it's members but reabsorbed by the treasury.
at last check the state receives £4.5 billion more from pension contributions than it pays out in pensions..... |  | | |
| Pensions on 15:43 - May 28 with 588 views | J2BLUE |
I think the retirement age will be 75 by the time I get there, if the state pension exists at all.
I think we could have a much better future for all with UBI if robotics and AI benefits are shared but I think there is little chance of that. The likes of Musk and Bezos will be trillionaires and the plebs will have to fend for themselves. |  |
| |
| Pensions on 15:44 - May 28 with 587 views | Radlett_blue |
| Pensions on 15:31 - May 28 by springfield |
the NHS pension runs a surplus that isn't redistributed to it's members but reabsorbed by the treasury.
at last check the state receives £4.5 billion more from pension contributions than it pays out in pensions..... |
The NHS pension scheme is unfunded i.e. there is no pot of assets. Pension payouts are largely funded by the government (i.e. the taxpayer) and it costs over £33bn a year, over 20% of the NHS budget. | |
| |
| Pensions on 16:12 - May 28 with 547 views | chicoazul |
| Pensions on 15:31 - May 28 by springfield |
the NHS pension runs a surplus that isn't redistributed to it's members but reabsorbed by the treasury.
at last check the state receives £4.5 billion more from pension contributions than it pays out in pensions..... |
I mean no offence but is this true? Do you have a link? I’d be very interested to know more. | |
| |
| Pensions on 16:17 - May 28 with 528 views | Churchman |
| Pensions on 14:48 - May 28 by BlueForYou |
& if you have a private pension as well, then you pay tax on it! So those of us who have retired are actually still contributing quite a lot to the system! A lot of you forget that. |
I don’t get a state pension yet, but if I do I will be paying 20% back in tax. Final salary pension schemes - 20%. Private pensions - small but 20%. Probably 40% in the future on some of it. Obviously over the £12570 personal allowance. So essentially, I might be a leech on the ‘hardworking taxpayer’, but this leech pays more into the system than some.
I’d add that if, as some suggest is a good idea, state pension is means tested, I’m ok with that providing all my pension contributions (adjusted upwards for inflation) are returned to me. It seems fundamentally unfair that I should pay in all these years to get a poke in the eye back.
As it is there’s no guarantee I will live beyond retirement age and many people die before getting there, I may get zilch back anyway. The government gets a pretty good deal from some to weigh against the costs of those who live a long time.
How about drawing a line now. Anyone entering work doesn’t have to pay towards state pension and will get nothing but the address of the nearest food bank when they retire? It would solve the ‘we can’t afford it’ mantra over time.
Or even more savings by saying no more NI taken for pensions from the hard working taxpayer and your state pensions will be calculated on your contributions up to the red line. After that, over to you. It’s actually more fair than telling those who’ve paid in for decades to do one because they’ve been stupid enough to save for their old age.
I am being very facetious with stupid idea, so apologies. The reality is we can ‘afford’ just about anything we wish to. | | | |
| Pensions on 17:54 - May 28 with 443 views | OldFart71 |
| Pensions on 14:41 - May 28 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
“ Yet it is constantly brought up that the Triple Lock is unsustainable whilst the UK's pensions are very low compared to other Countries.”
Countries with better pensions (typically in Europe) pay more tax than us - therein lies the problem. |
But maybe if we didn't support/allow so many capable of work to just doss around we would have enough people paying tax to pay for pensions.
I agree that maybe we are taxed less. Against that many things such as energy costs more.
But at the same time as people saying pensions are unsustainable the money can be found to pay MP's £90,000 plus and various other perks. The money can be found to pay each outgoing PM an allowance of £115,000. Even Liz Truss got that for her two months in office.
Councillors on over a quarter of a million per annum.
Someone needs to lead a major task force looking at pensions and how they can be sustained or replaced. But as others have said "The can is always kicked down the road" leaving it to the next lot in power. Too much in this Country is shortermism. The Country should be governed by a party looking at everything that is and will be required for the future. That means not selling everything to the highest buyer allowing vital parts of this Country to be sold to foreign interests. | | | |
| Pensions on 17:55 - May 28 with 433 views | Radlett_blue |
| Pensions on 15:31 - May 28 by springfield |
the NHS pension runs a surplus that isn't redistributed to it's members but reabsorbed by the treasury.
at last check the state receives £4.5 billion more from pension contributions than it pays out in pensions..... |
You are playing with numbers. Most of the income of the NHS Pension Fund is in the form of Employers' Contributions - which comes from the government. If the Employers' and Employees' contributions are more than the payouts to pensioners , then there is an accounting surplus, which is returned to the Treasury. But this doesn't mean that there is a real surplus as the Government has contributed all the employer#s contributions. The scheme is defined benefit and unfunded, which means there is not a huge pot of invested assets to fund future liabilities. The government has simply underwritten the liabilities, which stand at over £800bn. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
