Fallible wrote:The NHS advises people to keep their homes at at least 18 C, especially if you’re elderly or sedentary. The winters we have here are NOT mild, and each year people die.

Exactly.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... since-1976

“Last winter, there were nearly 46,000 excess winter deaths among people aged 65 and over – a shocking 92% of all excess deaths – equating to 379 older people a day. These distressing figures are now the highest we’ve seen in over 40 years.”

Not all due to the cold, but all avoidable by a government that places value in social safety nets. Even from this far afield, the effects of this government over the last decade has been horrifying.

"It is my opinion that giving people of my standing this generous payment is totally unnecessary," he said.

"I am quite aware that there are thousands of people who need such payments and are very thankful for it.

"People like myself, whilst we appreciate the sentiment and goodwill, surely feel that this is an unnecessary payment, certainly while the country is facing such financial hardships."

I know very little about the chap beyond the obvious, but this was immensely reasonable and compassionate of him.

I don't know how UK pensions work. Are they funded from general taxes, or is there a specific pension tax? We pay Social Security tax (they call it a "contribution") above and beyond income and all other taxes, so we specifically pay into our pension fund. For self employed people it's currently 15.3%, for most people that's higher than their effective income tax rate. Any attempt to reduce or remove that benefit would be met with extreme opposition. Our Dear Leaders of both parties loot the pension fund. They call it "borrowing", but there's no intention of ever paying it back. They're laying the groundwork, though, by constantly calling Social Security an "entitlement" instead of an "investment". Fucking governments, under the skin they're all alike.

Unless you are paying the security to your own account, it's not your money so to say. In a similar fashion just like paying taxes or universal health insurance, it's money destined to redistributed accordingly. If it is paid to a fund, in a system on "pay-as-you-go" basis, the fund is used to finance all pensions. Were I live we have "pay-as-you-go" and it's running a deficit because of the aging population and not enough people to pay in. It is then reasonable to review payments going out of such fund, or payments going in, else the deficit would have to be paid from taxes or borrowed in form of state bonds and short-term bills.

Everyone is automatically entitled to a state pension at 65 regardless of their work history
So it doesnt matter if you have worked all your life or have been unemployed all your life

Employers are also legally required to have a pension for all their employers
So anyone who works should therefore have two pensions when they retire

Some private pensions can be taken out at 55 but not the state pension
That only comes at 65 but that will go up to 67 by the time I get mine

Women used to get theirs at 60 but that was stopped so now they must wait till 65 like the men
Many women understandably did not like this but it was clearly a case of gender discrimination

Everyone gets the state pension at 65 even if they then carry on working past retirement age
Pensions cost the taxpayer more than unemployment does and are the biggest part of welfare

So, it's very different to what we've got. Here, if you don't work 40 full-time quarters in your life you aren't eligible for any pension. Then your pension is calculated based on how much you contributed. Mine is quite low, comparatively, because I spent a large portion of my working life overseas and didn't contribute. Medicare, which is health insurance for pensioners, is based on the same 40 quarter limit, but if you meet that criteria you get full coverage regardless of contribution levels.

Tuco, I both agree and disagree. Since the amount of social security is based on your total contributions to the fund, that implies that it is an individual account and not a general fund. However, some people take out more than they put in if they live long enough, so it's also a general fund. Others die early and their remaining contributions stay in the system for redistribution to others. So it's a bit of both.

Anything that loses the Tories more votes is good by me.

There was definitely a discrepancy during austerity with working people getting screwed but pensioners getting their income increases guaranteed at whatever was the highest rate of three measures. Obviously the solution to that wasn't necessarily to screw over pensioners equally though. But in typical Tory style, over 10 years after we're told how vital austerity is, it's still on the table, because it was never actually a response to the financial situation of the country, just the default ideological position of the Tories.

I hear you @laklak. It appears to be quite a controversial topic and as I have noted several times on this board, perhaps no country in the world has a decent solution to pension system with regards to the aging population. I guess the reason it never got much attention here is because its a complex topic requiring expert knowledge if one wants to debate it in reasonable depth.

It, however, does not imply what you think it does, at least not over here, despite I've heard quite a few people arguing the same. Its common sense to you, or perhaps even just, but it's not how it works, how it was intended to work. If what you say was true, there would be no need for state fund and you could simply have an account in your name, say with a private investment fund or a bank, where you would send your security. That is obviously not so. A state fund is a tool for inter-generation solidarity, in other words, it is to ensure noone will be without money when out of productive age.

laklak wrote:I don't know how UK pensions work. Are they funded from general taxes, or is there a specific pension tax? We pay Social Security tax (they call it a "contribution") above and beyond income and all other taxes, so we specifically pay into our pension fund. For self employed people it's currently 15.3%, for most people that's higher than their effective income tax rate. Any attempt to reduce or remove that benefit would be met with extreme opposition. Our Dear Leaders of both parties loot the pension fund. They call it "borrowing", but there's no intention of ever paying it back. They're laying the groundwork, though, by constantly calling Social Security an "entitlement" instead of an "investment". Fucking governments, under the skin they're all alike.

The UK"s is based on National Insurance Contributions, and you must have paid at least 10 qualifying years.

For me, having lived out of the country for 2 decades, I am not eligible for a state pension. I'd have to make voluntary contributions probably totaling several thousand pounds by now to become eligible again, also to be eligible for NHS treatment.

Ahhh this spells it out clearer:

https://www.moneywise.co.uk/pensions/in ... towards-it

surreptitious57 wrote:Everyone is automatically entitled to a state pension at 65 regardless of their work history
So it doesnt matter if you have worked all your life or have been unemployed all your life

I don't think this has ever been true.

It's reassuring to know that my many years of contribution to the Thai social security system would, were I eligible to retire today, net me the grand figure of about B1700 a month... USD 55!

Television licence is a couple of quid a week. Even a minimal basic single state pension is £130 a week. Cough up grandad. You didn't fight in WW2 in the coming decade. A product of the swinging sixties...irresponsible old age hippie.

Spearthrower wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:Everyone is automatically entitled to a state pension at 65 regardless of their work history
So it doesnt matter if you have worked all your life or have been unemployed all your life

I don't think this has ever been true.

I think you're entitled to a basic state pension, but you only get the full state pension if you have enough qualifying years.

Yep.

I'm With Stupid wrote:

Spearthrower wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:Everyone is automatically entitled to a state pension at 65 regardless of their work history
So it doesnt matter if you have worked all your life or have been unemployed all your life

I don't think this has ever been true.

I think you're entitled to a basic state pension, but you only get the full state pension if you have enough qualifying years.

Even for the minimum basic state pension you need at least 10 qualifying years and that only gives you 48 quid a week. You need 30 qualifying years for the full basic state pension. Time spent claiming unemployment or disability benefits can add national insurance credits, however gaps between benefit claims and employment can mean a year isn't counted as a full qualifying year without making additional voluntary contributions, which need to be paid at quite a high rate and can only be paid for gaps in at most the last decade.

If you are of retirement age and have low income from pensions or work and little wealth, you can apply through the DWP for means tested pension credits, but if that's anything like any of the other benefits that can be claimed from them then it will be a minefield of recalculations and getting fucked over.

Svartalf wrote:I'm a pensioner, and nearly as poor as Job.

anybody trying to tell you that the little advantages given senior citizens are a bad thing deserves to be tarred, feathered, drawn on a hurdle around the country, and hanged drawn and quartered.

You are not even 50 yet, ya cheeky whipper snapper! Somebody cut me a switch.

fuck you, I worked for my pension, and I got broken for my pains, you try and cane me, your death will be on you.

I'm With Stupid wrote:
I think you're entitled to a basic state pension, but you only get the full state pension if you have enough qualifying years.

As I already mentioned and sourced, you have to have contributed for 10 qualifying years of NIC's. That can actually include while you're on jobseeker's allowance as well, though.

Basically, if you fall off the system, you can cease to be eligible until you make substantial payments.

aufbahrung wrote:Television licence is a couple of quid a week. Even a minimal basic single state pension is £130 a week. Cough up grandad. You didn't fight in WW2 in the coming decade. A product of the swinging sixties...irresponsible old age hippie.

Do you really need to try so hard to be edgy?