Don't like the adverts?  Click here to remove them

BBC Free tv licence

So you think its fair that someone "earning less" than a pensioner has to pay for a TV license and it's OK because they have a good pension, because they earned more than them when they where working as well?

To go further than this, I believe if your income through private means (interest, rent, private pension etc) is more than the average UK wage I don't think you should be eligible for a state pension as well.
 
So you think its fair that someone "earning less" than a pensioner has to pay for a TV license and it's OK because they have a good pension, because they earned more than them when they where working as well?

To go further than this, I believe if your income through private means (interest, rent, private pension etc) is more than the average UK wage I don't think you should be eligible for a state pension as well.
You mean that state pension that I paid into for many years? If they paid back all my contributions I would certainly forgo the state pension.
 
Well let's think about that then, I don't currently have children, I've never used a hospital, I've never claimed unemployment but you don't hear me saying give me back my money. I pay somethings because I may need them in the future and it aids society as a whole. In my view that's the same as the state pension your paying, its for those who don't have a high paying job and because of that it should be means tested.
The hard truth is, more people are living longer and because of that the monies running out, unless we make people work longer but doing something like that wouldn't get you reelected.
 
Last edited:
Well let's think about that then, I don't have children, I never used a hospital, I've never claimed unemployment once but you don't hear me saying give me back my money. I pay somethings because I may need them and it aids society as a whole. In my view that the same as the state pension your paying for those who don't have a high paying job and because of that it should be means tested.
The hard truth is more people are living longer and because of that the monies running out, unless we make people work longer but doing something like that wouldn't get you reelected.
Well I also paid into National Insurance which was to cover things like hospital expenses, family allowance even though I never had children either, the dole, which I never had to claim for, when I was out of work I got off my arse and looked for a job. Some today think it's their right to not work and get paid for it.
The contributions to the state pension scheme I paid into was to provide me with an income in my old age and that is my right, I paid for it now I'm claiming it, and you think that is wrong???
 
No because of the current rules, I believe its wrong that people think there is going to be a state pension with the amount being taken out going up constantly (people are living longer) but the amount going is flat lining (population increases + retirement age). So either we alert the rules or understand the government is going to have to make cuts.
 
Our “old” works pension which was a defined benefit /final salary scheme closed last year and was replaced with a defined contribution or money purchase scheme as they’re sometimes called. The pro’s and cons of both types are obvious. Many companies are doing the same if they have a similar scheme as they are unsustainable or so they say. My Bro in law joined the Police years ago and just scraped in to qualify for their old pension scheme before it was altered. I’m fortunate in having 40+ years in the old scheme for which I now regard myself as very fortunate when, for years, I never even gave pensions a thought as I suppose most young workers don’t. I won’t qualify for a state pension until age 66.
 
Don't like the adverts?  Click here to remove them
So you think its fair that someone "earning less" than a pensioner has to pay for a TV license and it's OK because they have a good pension, because they earned more than them when they where working as well?

To go further than this, I believe if your income through private means (interest, rent, private pension etc) is more than the average UK wage I don't think you should be eligible for a state pension as well.

If you’ve paid into both a state pension (nat insurance) and a private pension then you’re entitled to both. Why shouldn’t you be? Many people were neither bothering or interested in private pensions relying only on what they assumed they will get come state retirement age. That’s why the law was altered to make a private pension compulsory.
 
Exactly so maybe the argument should be then lets scrap the state pension but what happens to people that can't work or on a zero hours contract so they don't have a pension?

People are so hung up on "but I paid in to a state pension I'm due it", I was highlighting we also pay into other things but don't seem to need to use them e.g. health care etc etc. Maybe we should scrap the state pension and replace it with "retirement insurance" or something that is means tested. If you look at the social system most of the budget is spent on state pensions.

Although I can't see this happening, as one thing politicians know is don't annoy the pensioners, they always turnout to vote.
 
Last edited:
People are so hung up on "but I paid in to a state pension I'm due it"
and just what is wrong with that? you wouldn't go into a shop, pay for something and then leave without taking it. Night night all, I'm going to bed.
 
If you want to use that broken analogy, I wouldn't go into a shop hand the cashier a fiver and except a tenners worth of goods and a free TV license and a bus pass.
People say i paid my state pension, well not really you paid the government some money which it may or may not use for your state pension and you give them the power by electing them to spend it on what they deem fit.
 
When you are in employment, the national insurance you pay is used for a number of things, state pension and NHS healthcare being the main 2. Some people, who you could call the fortunate ones, will need very little health care and go on to claim a state pension and live well into retirement. Others may be struck down with long term illness, be in and out of hospital and never reach retirement age while others will do both and “cost” the government a small fortune wether they’ve been fully employed all their working lives or been in and out of or unable to work. The system balances itself out, or at least it’s supposed to. All this has absolutely nothing to do with any additional private income you may get when you retire, wether it be from a from a private pension, investments, rental income etc, all of which will be taxed anyway, assuming it’s declared of course.
 
Mogg, I don't think it was luck that I worked for the right people it was that they had a very good pension scheme, I did have to pay a considerable percentage of my wage (from 1976) into my pension pot which accrued interest that I benefit from now. I just wish it was anywhere near the 40k you mentioned, if it was I wouldn't mind at all paying for my TV
Final salary pensions are known to be extremely generous and are no longer available. Many companies are now facing a considerable financial burden paying these schemes because the pension comes out of their operating money, not interest. The whole point of the state pension is that it was supposed to provide for you in old age and the government has rescinded on that. Your statements do not explain why the U.K. has the worst pension provision in the developed world, is it that all other countries have sensible people and the U.K. doesn’t? Or is it because the U.K. doesn’t make adequate provision for pensioners?
You were very fortunate to be able to be part of a generous final salary pension scheme which is allowing you to now live a comfortable lifestyle. Others are not so fortunate.
 
Well let's think about that then, I don't currently have children, I've never used a hospital, I've never claimed unemployment but you don't hear me saying give me back my money. I pay somethings because I may need them in the future and it aids society as a whole. In my view that's the same as the state pension your paying, its for those who don't have a high paying job and because of that it should be means tested.
The hard truth is, more people are living longer and because of that the monies running out, unless we make people work longer but doing something like that wouldn't get you reelected.
So your suggesting that a country with amongst the poorest pensioners in the world should make them even poorer?
The state pension is not a benefit, it is something we had specific deductions from our salaries to provide for, it is an entitlement. The problem is not with the pensioners it with the way the system was set up in The first place, and that is now changing and the state pension is being reduced.
 
The system balances itself out, or at least it’s supposed to. All this has absolutely nothing to do with any additional private income you may get when you retire
The problem is the state pensions doesn't balance itself out, the age which people are living to is increasing, this is due to medical advances and also increase in standards of living. Meaning that pensioners cost the NHS more and also cost the state pension scheme more, that's just a fact.
In 1960 the average life expectancy was 71 now it's 80, meaning that on average the government has to pay out of the system for another 9 years, what happens when that rises to 90 or even a 100.
So your suggesting that a country with amongst the poorest pensioners in the world should make them even poorer?
The state pension is not a benefit, it is something we had specific deductions from our salaries to provide for, it is an entitlement
I have specific deductions in my salary for other things but I don't deem that I'm entitled the draw funds out of that system.
As I've stated multiple times, I don't want to make pensioners poorer I want to make pensioners that are earning more than the average salary poorer. So if we take the example today, if a pensioner has an income from private means of more than 29, 000 pounds they shouldn't receive a state pension. If a pensioner can't live on the average UK salary then maybe we have a larger problem in society as a whole.
If you give everyone the state pension, we are going to have a few options to the problem of the deficit, make people work longer, lower the benefits or increase the contributions.
If you look at the social care bill, 50% of its funds are dedicated to the state pension scheme. This is because the government has to subsidies the system so much. If we only gave the benefit to the people that really needed it, then maybe none of the changes above would have to be made and the government would release massive amounts of funds.
 
The problem is the state pensions doesn't balance itself out, the age which people are living to is increasing, this is due to medical advances and also increase in standards of living. Meaning that pensioners cost the NHS more and also cost the state pension scheme more, that's just a fact.
In 1960 the average life expectancy was 71 now it's 80, meaning that on average the government has to pay out of the system for another 9 years, what happens when that rises to 90 or even a 100.

I have specific deductions in my salary for other things but I don't deem that I'm entitled the draw funds out of that system.
As I've stated multiple times, I don't want to make pensioners poorer I want to make pensioners that are earning more than the average salary poorer. So if we take the example today, if a pensioner has an income from private means of more than 29, 000 pounds they shouldn't receive a state pension. If a pensioner can't live on the average UK salary then maybe we have a larger problem in society as a whole.
If you give everyone the state pension, we are going to have a few options to the problem of the deficit, make people work longer, lower the benefits or increase the contributions.
If you look at the social care bill, 50% of its funds are dedicated to the state pension scheme. This is because the government has to subsidies the system so much. If we only gave the benefit to the people that really needed it, then maybe none of the changes above would have to be made and the government would release massive amounts of funds.
So maybe we should means test health care then?
I would suggest very few pensioners are on £29000+ a year. Pension poverty is a real and widespread thing. As I’ve said above the average U.K. pension is just 29% of average salary.
As I also said, the state pension is not a benefit.
 
Maybe we do, I pay for a private plan and use that as much as possible because I can afford to pay for private healthcare.
 
Maybe we do, I pay for a private plan and use that as much as possible because I can afford to pay for private healthcare.
Your private healthcare plan will have significant limits to it. You will still rely on the nhs for large parts of your healthcare
 
The problem is the state pensions doesn't balance itself out, the age which people are living to is increasing, this is due to medical advances and also increase in standards of living. Meaning that pensioners cost the NHS more and also cost the state pension scheme more, that's just a fact.
In 1960 the average life expectancy was 71 now it's 80, meaning that on average the government has to pay out of the system for another 9 years, what happens when that rises to 90 or even a 100.

I have specific deductions in my salary for other things but I don't deem that I'm entitled the draw funds out of that system.
As I've stated multiple times, I don't want to make pensioners poorer I want to make pensioners that are earning more than the average salary poorer. So if we take the example today, if a pensioner has an income from private means of more than 29, 000 pounds they shouldn't receive a state pension. If a pensioner can't live on the average UK salary then maybe we have a larger problem in society as a whole.
If you give everyone the state pension, we are going to have a few options to the problem of the deficit, make people work longer, lower the benefits or increase the contributions.
If you look at the social care bill, 50% of its funds are dedicated to the state pension scheme. This is because the government has to subsidies the system so much. If we only gave the benefit to the people that really needed it, then maybe none of the changes above would have to be made and the government would release massive amounts of funds.
I can’t see that you’ve stated anywhere, let alone multiple times, that you don’t want to make pensioners poorer. The pensions issue is being addressed by people being made to now pay into private pensions. That will reduce the pensions bill over time but it takes years for that to work through the system, in the meantime it is entirely unreasonable to remove the pension someone paid into expecting to be able to draw on from a particular age.
 
I wouldn't go into a shop hand the cashier a fiver and except a tenners worth of goods and a free TV license and a bus pass.
Now you are being ridiculous, I wouldn't either, that would just be greedy.
I do expect to get some sort of return on money I paid in from hard earned wages to give me some comfort in my old age, I don't think that is unreasonable and I don't think most fair minded people would either.
 
Last edited:
No one "pays in" to a state pension in the UK. Your NI contributions pay for people drawing their pension at the time you are working. It isn't money that's invested or managed like a private pension. All your contributions do for you is entitle you to other people's NI when you are old enough to claim it. If there aren't enough people working when you're old, tough.
 
Back
Top