truman Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 I am in agreement with IDS. If you have a nice little nest egg or getting a handsome pension from your employer, you should not be allowed a state pension or any of the other OAP freebies. Most people with a company pension will have put plenty of their own money into it...why shouldn't they also have a state pension to which they have also contributed..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Orange Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 Most people with a company pension will have put plenty of their own money into it...why shouldn't they also have a state pension to which they have also contributed..? Why would they want a state pension, if they can live comfortably off their company pension, unless it's down to selfish greed. If people want and expect a state pension, they won't object to a large increase in taxation to pay for it, will they Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 Why would they want a state pension, if they can live comfortably off their company pension, unless it's down to selfish greed. If people want and expect a state pension, they won't object to a large increase in taxation to pay for it, will they OK put it the other way..If people don't get a state pension then should they get a reduction in tax /NI? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Orange Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 OK put it the other way..If people don't get a state pension then should they get a reduction in tax /NI? No, they should not, is the simple answer. The state pension should be reserved for those who genuinely need it, not those who use it to top up their private pension and savings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 No, they should not, is the simple answer. The state pension should be reserved for those who genuinely need it, not those who use it to top up their private pension and savings. So would any sized private pension mean that you couldn't have a state one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supertramp Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 Just that. Sounds crap, paying for travel for work out of your own pocket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agent Orange Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 So would any sized private pension mean that you couldn't have a state one? That's the million dollar question, isn't it. It would all depend on the size of the income received via the private pens, if it's deemed enough to live off then a state pension should not be claimed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
natjack Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 That's the million dollar question, isn't it. It would all depend on the size of the income received via the private pens, if it's deemed enough to live off then a state pension should not be claimed.People who have other income, like a private pension or other nest egg, that takes them over the tax threshold have to pay tax on it, so won't be much better off than someone's who wasted their money on high living, who has to be given extra to make up for not saving anything for their old age. I think that people who've made the effort to save a bit, shouldn't be expected to be at the same level as people who've never bothered or gone without. They should expect to be better off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 Don't you think it strange that all of a sudden the state pension is being called a benefit. It used to be an entitlement. Now the OAPs are being lumped in with scrounging benefit cheats. Clever eh??? And you've fallen for it. Tory boys decided to include pensions in with benefits as part of their propoganda campaign to make the benefits bill / welfare state seem enormous, and to therefore turn everyone against 'welfare scroungers' (when actually I believe unemployment benefit only accounts for 3% of the total.) So there you have it, now pensioners are seen as scroungers too. Lovely. And judging by the responses of some on SF, it won't be long before compulsory euthanasia will be seen as the way forward... ---------- Post added 29-04-2013 at 15:42 ---------- No, they should not, is the simple answer. The state pension should be reserved for those who genuinely need it, not those who use it to top up their private pension and savings. In that case why would anyone choose to pay into a private pension on top of their National Insurance payment? Incidently a £100,000 pension pot will only buy you an annuity (private pension) of about £4,800 per annum - not a lot to live on. You'd better get saving kids... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted April 29, 2013 Share Posted April 29, 2013 Tory boys decided to include pensions in with benefits as part of their propoganda campaign to make the benefits bill / welfare state seem enormous, and to therefore turn everyone against 'welfare scroungers' (when actually I believe unemployment benefit only accounts for 3% of the total.) So there you have it, now pensioners are seen as scroungers too. Lovely. And judging by the responses of some on SF, it won't be long before compulsory euthanasia will be seen as the way forward... Not so sure. From what I'm seeing on this thread: working man with decades of paying taxes falls on hard times equals scrounger Wealthy pensioner with no need for additional income feels sense of entitlement go income from state and is happy to call the working man a scrounger Yet pension costs are over 10 times more than out of work benefits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.