Right Honorable Duncan Smith, MP

[Quizzical Bob]

Perhaps the sate pension should only be paid to pensioners with an income on or below the maximum benefit payment of £26,000 or whatever the new figure is
anyone with a pension equivalent to a good wage of say £35,000 and above could surrender their freebies like winter fuel, bus pass etc etc and this could be put back into the pension pot, to pay those on a lower income
those with an income of above £50,000 really can't claim poverty or the need for a pension surely??

I have never read anything so ridiculous. This would be being taxed twice over and would totally remove any incentive to save for your old age.

[Quizzical Bob]

Well we could start with any pensioner who pays tax at the higher rate. Not only should they not get the fringe benefits (winter fuel, TV licence etc) but I think it's arguable that they should receive a state funded pension at all (please no comments about their having 'paid in' - it doesn't work that way).

It does work that way. And if they are paying more tax aren't they more deserving of these extras than those that pay no tax?

[Onelife]

DK

QB... ain’t read some of my posts then?

[Dark Knight]

Quizical one
please explain, why should a pensioner with an income of more than the average wage get a state pension on top of the income? and PLEASE don't trot out coz they have contributed for xxx years, as that is not a reasoned argument
why should a pensioner with an income well above the average wage get free anything ?
so rather than just dismiss my statement out of hand you could provide a reasoned debate?

[Dark Knight]

Onelife

I am not sure he has read any of them

[towny44]

Perhaps the sate pension should only be paid to pensioners with an income on or below the maximum benefit payment of £26,000 or whatever the new figure is anyone with a pension equivalent to a good wage of say £35,000 and above could surrender their freebies like winter fuel, bus pass etc etc and this could be put back into the pension pot, to pay those on a lower income
those with an income of above £50,000 really can't claim poverty or the need for a pension surely??

I thought the whole idea of IDS's benefit reforms was to reduce dependence on them and encourage people to work, pay into a pension scheme and save for their old age. Your harebrained idea would reduce this incentive and make anyone likely to be at the lower end of the pension scale reconsider the merits of work and savings.

[oldbluefox]

There are those who have worked hard and put extra by in order to get a decent pension when they retire. In so doing they have probably sacrificed a lot, often referred to as 'deferred gratification' in order to enjoy the benefits in the autumn of their lives. It is an old fashioned ideal which is totally contrary to the 'live for today' culture. Take away the state pension and a good many, who are by no means wealthy, will just think what's the point in saving for tomorrow, spend it today because if not you will be penalised. Meanwhile those who don't know the meaning of the saving word will have everything provided for them.
Bear in mind that those who are really wealthy will be returning more in tax (unless they have a creative accountant) than they are drawing in state pension. It will be those on the borderline who will be affected most.

[sumdumbloke]

Well we could start with any pensioner who pays tax at the higher rate. Not only should they not get the fringe benefits (winter fuel, TV licence etc) but I think it's arguable that they should receive a state funded pension at all (please no comments about their having 'paid in' - it doesn't work that way).

It does work that way. And if they are paying more tax aren't they more deserving of these extras than those that pay no tax?

Tax and NI paid through a working lifetime are spent on the needs of the day. No portion of whatever tax you or anyone else paid was invested or earmarked for your retirement. What you get today is being paid for by today's taxpayers (who will have to wait many years longer before drawing their pension than today's pensioners did)

And you're making the same mistake with the second point. Paying more tax doesn't entitle someone to a greater level of benefit. What you're describing is the private system, not the state system.

[paultheeagle]

A Charlton Heston film back in the early 70's had the answer to the pensioners problem....It solved all these problems..

Remember....................Soylent Green

[Onelife]

All I can say on this matter is that we should all pay a little more attention to our health because the way the pensionable age is rising we'll need to live till 75 to qualify for it.

[Quizzical Bob]

DK

QB... ain’t read some of my posts then?

Indeed I have DK, you and I go back a long way together.

[Quizzical Bob]

Quizical one
please explain, why should a pensioner with an income of more than the average wage get a state pension on top of the income? and PLEASE don't trot out coz they have contributed for xxx years, as that is not a reasoned argument
why should a pensioner with an income well above the average wage get free anything ?
so rather than just dismiss my statement out of hand you could provide a reasoned debate?

Certainly. We need to look at the reasons why they have a higher income. If someone has scrimped and saved and put aside some money and investments for their old age why should they be penalised? Why should someone who drank, smoked and gambled everything that they received get state handouts? And it is a reasoned argument that they have paid into the system all their lives because they did so on the explicit agreement that they would indeed receive a state pension in their dotage. The only fair and equitable arrangement is to give everybody the same basic provision and if they want to top this up then that is entirely up to them. If you take away the state pension once the personal income rises above a certain threshold then that amounts to a horrendous marginal rate of tax.

[Quizzical Bob]

Well we could start with any pensioner who pays tax at the higher rate. Not only should they not get the fringe benefits (winter fuel, TV licence etc) but I think it's arguable that they should receive a state funded pension at all (please no comments about their having 'paid in' - it doesn't work that way).

It does work that way. And if they are paying more tax aren't they more deserving of these extras than those that pay no tax?

Tax and NI paid through a working lifetime are spent on the needs of the day. No portion of whatever tax you or anyone else paid was invested or earmarked for your retirement. What you get today is being paid for by today's taxpayers (who will have to wait many years longer before drawing their pension than today's pensioners did)

And you're making the same mistake with the second point. Paying more tax doesn't entitle someone to a greater level of benefit. What you're describing is the private system, not the state system.

Please see my response above for the first point.
For the second, my question was rhetorical, but serious. Why should some people do all the giving whilst others all the taking? Social engineering should stop once you reach retirement.

[Silver_Shiney]

Perhaps the sate pension should only be paid to pensioners with an income on or below the maximum benefit payment of £26,000 or whatever the new figure is
anyone with a pension equivalent to a good wage of say £35,000 and above could surrender their freebies like winter fuel, bus pass etc etc and this could be put back into the pension pot, to pay those on a lower income
those with an income of above £50,000 really can't claim poverty or the need for a pension surely??

I have never read anything so ridiculous. This would be being taxed twice over and would totally remove any incentive to save for your old age.

QB - pensioners with an income of over £50,000 have achieved this because they have saved for their old age. As the State pension is on the verge of being phased out, what DK suggests is actually very sensible.

[paultheeagle]

Someone who has smoked, drank and gambled all their lives has contibuted to their pension as well....Think of all the tax they would have paid.....And if somebody drinks and smokes all their lives then they might not be around to enjoy a pension....So the drinker and smoker, who is more likely to be low paid is actually subsidising rich, old peoples benefits.

[Quizzical Bob]

Perhaps the sate pension should only be paid to pensioners with an income on or below the maximum benefit payment of £26,000 or whatever the new figure is
anyone with a pension equivalent to a good wage of say £35,000 and above could surrender their freebies like winter fuel, bus pass etc etc and this could be put back into the pension pot, to pay those on a lower income
those with an income of above £50,000 really can't claim poverty or the need for a pension surely??

I have never read anything so ridiculous. This would be being taxed twice over and would totally remove any incentive to save for your old age.

QB - pensioners with an income of over £50,000 have achieved this because they have saved for their old age. As the State pension is on the verge of being phased out, what DK suggests is actually very sensible.

Just as long as it is phased out for everybody, not just the thrifty.

[Silver_Shiney]

I've got no problem with that, QB - PROVIDED there's a safety net in place.

[Quizzical Bob]

Aye, there's the rub...

[Manoverboard]

Perhaps they should tax the Winter Fuel Allowance and £10 Xmas gift via the Tax Code of pensioners who pay tax. A simple cost effective measure and one that is, or seems to be, fair to all.

Simpler still to merge the two payments into the weekly pension payments.

Simple certainly but I do not happen to be convinced that we should ' all ' be getting the full untaxed Benefit, on reflection I would probably scrap the Xmas tenner altogether.

[Dark Knight]

As a non pensioner, why do people get a state pension anyway?
why is it up to the state to pay for old people? should they not be paying for themselves?

as a 2 income family with no kids, we get absolutley F all from anybody, so tell me, who exactly is being penalised here?
I find it quite two faced that pensioners on a cruise web site, who can afford such things, are moaning and griping about a bus pass and a tenner at xmas, if you can afford to cruise etc, you do not need state hand outs that should be going to more deserving people.
And Please don't respond with we have paid in all our lives etc, as that is a load of all old tosh.
Pensioners cost this country £85 billion a year, far more than any other benefit and is is high time it was propoerly means tested, so anyone with an income of over 25-30,000 recieves a smaller pension, if at all and anyone ovewr 35,000 gets nothing.
so before you all jump up and down , think on this, you survived perfectly well when working and bringing up a family on this type of income, so why if you still enjoy this , do you need a state handout? when it should go to people who really need it, not people witha nice income
Anyone making a case for keeping the state handouts on top of a decent income should be ashamed of themselves

[Dancing Queen]

But who are the more "deserving people" DK, if you are talking pensioners who never paid into a private pension, have little or no savings and exist on the basic state pension then I would wholeheartedly agree with you but would any savings made from those who "don't need it" be channeled towards those that do need it, the ones that can't afford to heat their homes in winter, can't afford to buy decent food ... I somehow doubt it !!

We too were DINKY'S, did I feel penalised, in a word NO what I do begrudge though are all the single mothers who just don't know when to stop having kids, but that's ok because the state will provide housing and benefits which far exceed the weekly amount that any of our more deserving pensioners get and don't even get me started on people who come to this Country purely and simply for the "handouts"

A long way to go before I would ever think there is anyone more deserving than our pensioners whatever their income, you may not agree but at the end of the day they HAVE paid all their lives for the right to a state pension.

[Quizzical Bob]

Perhaps they should tax the Winter Fuel Allowance and £10 Xmas gift via the Tax Code of pensioners who pay tax. A simple cost effective measure and one that is, or seems to be, fair to all.

Simpler still to merge the two payments into the weekly pension payments.

Simple certainly but I do not happen to be convinced that we should ' all ' be getting the full untaxed Benefit, on reflection I would probably scrap the Xmas tenner altogether.

If it were merged in the annual pension then it would be handled by the tax system and would be taxed if the total sum were to rise above the tax-free threshold. I don't understand the Xmas tender either.

[Quizzical Bob]

DK and others, the taxes that were paid may not have been invested into a separate pension fund but the deal at the time was that there would be a small but useful state pension at the end of you working life. Most public sector pensions are also not fully funded by investments.

To get a pension of £35,000 you would need a fund of at least £700k. Why would anybody put aside that amount if they lost the state pension because they had been prudent?

[Dark Knight]

DQ
all taxes are paid to finance the country on a day to day basis, not for pensions, though this is a common misconception
Why are people automatically granted a state pension? when their income is above the current average salary for workers.
Pensioners with higher than average incomes should be properly means tested to see if they NEED a pension , rather than just automatically being given a pension
People whinning about a 10 quid bonus and a bus pass on an income of 25, 30 , 35,000 and over is frankly disgraceful, it smacks of real selfishness.
As with any benefit, it should be tested before it is given to anyone and only the really needy should have the "right" to a pension, not people on above average incomes
the sooner they regulate this properly the better as 85 billion is a criminal amount of money to pay as a pension, when it is obvious many people don't need it and use it to buy luxuries, not necessaties.

[Andrea S]

Mr DK, Your posts are usually quite constructive but I am a bit lost on this one. I started work in 1954 and have worked full time all my life. 6 years into our marriage and after the birth of my 2 children my Husband was diagnosed with a terminal illness. My income supported us and we never claimed any benefits. After his death I received a widowed mothers benefit until the children left school. At 60 I received the state pension, I can't remember how much it was but presently it is £107 a week.

If I didn't have savings there are a lot of things I wouldn't be able to do, but I think it is very wrong that someone who has sat on their backside all their lives, no job, no savings but receive the same pension then get the perks of their rent and council tax being paid.