Means Testing of pensions?

[teamsaint]

And me! So many different aspects come into play, What people have been used to and what they still want; whether one belongs to the 'precariat' - not fully in control of one's situation (eg renting and liable to eviction, still needing to work to support a family member and liable to lose one's job). And then as Logan Pearsall Smith wrote: "Solvency is entirely a matter of temperament and not of income." One person's 'plenty' is another's 'not enough'. Who adjudicates?

Martin Lewis could probably help out ! His website has an excellent calculator to help work out retirement “ needs”.

And, for my money, the idea of means testing the state pension is a dangerous place to go, not least because of the “ contributory” element. The country can afford it, though maintaining it and other expensive govt spending programmes will require a difficult conversation around population levels , migration, and infrastructure. Demographic turmoil is all but inevitable, but politicians aren’t prepared to go there.

[LMcD]

Would people who have became rich (however that's defined) through their own efforts be treated in the same way as those who have done little or nothing to earn their wealth (however that's defined), being or becoming rich or wealthy through inheritance, for example?

[Maclintick]

And, for my money, the idea of means testing the state pension is a dangerous place to go, not least because of the “ contributory” element. The country can afford it, though maintaining it and other expensive govt spending programmes will require a difficult conversation around population levels , migration, and infrastructure. Demographic turmoil is all but inevitable, but politicians aren’t prepared to go there.

To go down the route of means-testing the State Pension would I suspect be electoral suicide, not least because people who have paid their NI contributions throughout their working lives view it as an "entitlement" earned over many years rather than a "benefit". Proponents of such a policy are tacitly admitting that Labour have made the wrong choices in order to win the election, since it's clear IMHO that the fairest route out of our current fiscal embarrassment would be a simple income tax hike, with sensible thresholds so that the lowest paid aren't penalised, plus a wealth tax on assets over some figure or other -- £10m has been suggested. It's also vital to keep the triple lock, otherwise pensioners who are currently just managing to cope will be in danger of slipping back into poverty, as they were prior to the introduction of the lock.

[french frank]

Would people who have became rich (however that's defined) through their own efforts be treated in the same way as those who have done little or nothing to earn their wealth (however that's defined), being or becoming rich or wealthy through inheritance, for example?

No. Wealthy is wealthy and they should help the 'needy' (however that's defined), in my view. But now I think about it my view may change

[Serial_Apologist]

To go down the route of means-testing the State Pension would I suspect be electoral suicide, not least because people who have paid their NI contributions throughout their working lives view it as an "entitlement" earned over many years rather than a "benefit". Proponents of such a policy are tacitly admitting that Labour have made the wrong choices in order to win the election, since it's clear IMHO that the fairest route out of our current fiscal embarrassment would be a simple income tax hike, with sensible thresholds so that the lowest paid aren't penalised, plus a wealth tax on assets over some figure or other -- £10m has been suggested. It's also vital to keep the triple lock, otherwise pensioners who are currently just managing to cope will be in danger of slipping back into poverty, as they were prior to the introduction of the lock.

[oddoneout]

To go down the route of means-testing the State Pension would I suspect be electoral suicide, not least because people who have paid their NI contributions throughout their working lives view it as an "entitlement" earned over many years rather than a "benefit". Proponents of such a policy are tacitly admitting that Labour have made the wrong choices in order to win the election, since it's clear IMHO that the fairest route out of our current fiscal embarrassment would be a simple income tax hike, with sensible thresholds so that the lowest paid aren't penalised, plus a wealth tax on assets over some figure or other -- £10m has been suggested. It's also vital to keep the triple lock, otherwise pensioners who are currently just managing to cope will be in danger of slipping back into poverty, as they were prior to the introduction of the lock.

The triple lock isn't the simple solution that is assumed if it means that the increase takes pensioners over the personal allowance, which seems to be the case for quite a few, as the threshold hasn't increased. It would seem assumptions were made about which state pension(and thus how much money pa) most would be on that haven't actually materialised. I knew that there was a mishmash from comments older colleagues made when the new SP was proposed and wondering what effect the transition arrangements would have on their SP payments, but hadn't realised the scale of the numbers involved.

https://www.lcp.com/en/media-centre/press-releases/lcp-research-finds-nearly-25m-pensioners-will-still-pay-tax-on-their-state-pension-after-implementation-of-triple-lock-plus-policy

[Serial_Apologist]

No. Wealthy is wealthy and they should help the 'needy' (however that's defined), in my view. But now I think about it my view may change

The self-made millionaire, billionaire or whatever does invite value judgements, especially in the United States where the phenomenon is compared with inherited wealth as found in the UK, and where people are seen as deserving of their wealth through their own effort. Of course it isn't quite as black and white as that! So many inventors fail to profit in any way from their inventions, which are effectively "bought out" by large companies, sometimes with little or no recognition. But were a system in operation that championed those contributing new ideas and inventions to the social good, those same ideas and inventions might be shared out for further timely investigation rather than delayed for as long as possible, as both a personal premium and means of limiting advantage. The problem is systemic to the closed shop inbuilt system by its own design. One needs to get rid of the competitive basis of the first-to-catch-the-bird being the winner.