Ian Duncan Smith Says Wealthy should not claim pensions

[BIGDINNERS]

Why would somebody earn £50k a year and spend it all before retirement so they can subsist on a meagre state benefit, perhaps for 30 years or more, when they retired? I guess I can think of a few answers:

 

1. They're idiots

2. They have no financial planning skills

3. Money runs through their fingers like water. Why put a few bob aside for the future when you can have a new hot tub today.

 

The reality is that anybody with a decent income and anything between their ears will be saving something for their future.

You could say the same for some one on 20k a year,

 

I very well dont think that someone on 50k a year could be classed as an idiot,obviously you havn't twigged that someone on 50k a year doesn't see anywhere near that amount,BECAUSE THEY PAY A HIGHER RATE OF TAX!!!!

 

---------- Post added 28-04-2013 at 10:39 ----------

 

Would you seriously forgo a £50K a year pension so you'd ensure that you'd get your state pension? Wow!

I run my own small business,I wont get a 50k a year pension when I retire,I dont know anyone who will either:loopy::loopy:,

What I will get is my home taken away and all my savings squandered on the bone idle an lazy, if I need any sort of care funded by the state

[JFKvsNixon]

I run my own small business,I wont get a 50k a year pension when I retire,I dont know anyone who will either:loopy::loopy:

 

You do realise I was asking a hypothetical question?

[BIGDINNERS]

You do realise I was asking a hypothetical question?

 

pretty obvious you wont be getting a 50k a year pension either.

now who's built a straw man(dog)!!!

[El Cid]

I run my own small business,I wont get a 50k a year pension when I retire,I dont know anyone who will either:loopy::loopy:,

 

I work in local Government, with one of those big fat pensions; and I wont get anywhere near £50K either!!

[I1L2T3]

You could say the same for some one on 20k a year,

 

I very well dont think that someone on 50k a year could be classed as an idiot,obviously you havn't twigged that someone on 50k a year doesn't see anywhere near that amount,BECAUSE THEY PAY A HIGHER RATE OF TAX!!!!

 

No you couldn't say the same for somebody on 20k a year because the opportunities to save, after meeting living costs, are likely to be much lower.

 

If somebody earns 50k a year and they don't have anything left come retirement age then they are very likely an idiot with only themselves to blame.

 

I know how the tax system works thanks. Anybody who complains they don't take home their full gross pay because they have to pay tax is not understanding the system.

[JFKvsNixon]

pretty obvious you wont be getting a 50k a year pension either.

now who's built a straw man(dog)!!!

 

Am I really creating a straw man argument, to ask if someone should get a state pension if they are already receiving a £50k a year pension on a thread about the wealthy claiming state pensions?

 

Isn't it the subject of the thread?

[BIGDINNERS]

No you couldn't say the same for somebody on 20k a year because the opportunities to save, after meeting living costs, are likely to be much lower.

 

If somebody earns 50k a year and they don't have anything left come retirement age then they are very likely an idiot with only themselves to blame.

 

I know how the tax system works thanks. Anybody who complains they don't take home their full gross pay because they have to pay tax is not understanding the system.

 

What trash,you dont know other people situations,you dont know how many kids someone's got,or if someone gives to charities or funds private care for an elderly relative.you just call em an idiot for not having enough money:rant:

you don't know how much someone's house has cost in interest rates.

I keep repeating myself,on 50k you pay 40% tax,the outcome of someone earning 50k and 30k are not that much different,apart from one has payed twice as much in taxes.

So why should that person be denied a similar state pension at the end of it.

Where's the incentive:huh:

 

---------- Post added 28-04-2013 at 10:59 ----------

 

At what level are pensioners wealthy? If you have contributed throughout your working life why not take what you are entitled to?

 

The thread isn't about having a 50k a year pension,its about the wealthy not being entitled to the same state pensions as the rest of us:loopy:

[I1L2T3]

As you know your contributions paid the pensions of those claiming, as well as all the costs of running the country. If you're wealthy enough to live comfortably without state help, why should you get it?

 

The thing is even when people think they aren't relying on the state they always are.

 

If they have legal issues the state will provide a framework for resolution

 

If they need to be rescued from a car crash the state will pay for it

 

If they need emergency care the state will pay for it, as it will for most routine care

 

If they want their kids to be educated the state will pay for it

 

If they want to drive their car on a road the state will pay for a road

 

If they live in a village in the back end of nowhere the state will help facilitate the provision of utilities

 

If they want to fly on a plane the state pays to keep the airspace safe

 

 

The list is practically endless. Everybody relies on the state.

[Rupert_Baehr]

As you know your contributions paid the pensions of those claiming, as well as all the costs of running the country. If you're wealthy enough to live comfortably without state help, why should you get it?

 

i agree.

 

So your saying get rid of the state pension for everyone,if someone who's worked all their lives cant have it,why should someone who's sat on their arse doing nothing get it,after receiving free handouts all their lives from the person who's gone to work and payed taxes:huh:

 

Because that's the way the system works.

 

A state pension is normally based on contributions made but everyone over pensionable age is entitled but the people of pensionable age now will have worked at some point during their lives and the ones that haven't wouldn't be as many as you think - I have worked with very little breaks since I left school in 1966 but I need to carry on working because I have a lifestyle I want to preserve ie keeping car on road and caravan on site both of which would have to go if I only had my pension. The up and coming generation have lost the work ethic - it saddens me to see this

 

And that's sad. the system is far from perfect.

 

If you claimed benefits you were eligible for you would get them so why are you moaning when you have chosen not to claim them. Nice little straw man you created for yourself there.

 

Not at all!- Do you understand what a straw man is ? - Or is this just a phrase you use to try to make your posts look less stupid?

 

I was denied child benefit ( or family allowance, or whatever it was called back then) on a technicality.

 

I was really upset - Not because we were going to starve if I didn't get it, but because some little CA [look up Clerical Service Ranks] who probably didn't know her arse from her elbow had decided I was 'unworthy'.

 

I

 

Am I really creating a straw man argument, to ask if someone should get a state pension if they are already receiving a £50k a year pension on a thread about the wealthy claiming state pensions?

 

Isn't it the subject of the thread?

[jfish1936]

In Australia, there is a means test on old age pensions.

In the glory days before the Global Financial Crisis, our self-funded pension scheme paid us too much to qualify. Since the value of our pension fund has gone down, we now get a small pension from the government.

The problem with this is that we also get benefits on services, such as public transport, hair cuts, admission to places. I haven't totalled these over a year to see what they amount to.

But I have known people in receipt of small State pensions who have earned (say) $200 a monthe extra and lost their $100 pension. That's a 50% tax on lower-middle income, more % than the top bracket.

When you lose $50 pm in concessions as well, that's a 75% tax!

 

A friend employed a receptionist; she had a child but no husband (I didn't ask why).

She was having difficultymanaging. One aspect was having to pay family rate medical/hospital insurance -- her income was just too high to qualify for free services as thiswas before our Medicare scheme. Also, costs of child care, and the need for clothes and hair care tp present herself well. He took her to his accountant, who pointed out that she was doing her best to manage. There were two alternatives: one was a big pay rise (which the business could not afford) or to be dismissed (resigning makes you ineligible!) and go on the Supporting Mother's Benefit.

So she could stay home with her child, get pensioners' cheap haircuts on Tuesday afternoons, free public transport.

If she or her child attended public hospital, there would be free treatment. If I were one of the attending doctors, I would be paid nothing, but I had the right to treat private patirnts at the hospital and charge them fees (which their insurance would pay)

As far as personal disposable income went, she was better off

This is what I call the "Tax Trap" when pensions are means tested.