A non means tested flat rate pension for all?

[Chrysalis]

exactly my point, people see them as different yet they both state provided benefits.

---------- Post added at 14:22 ---------- Previous post was at 14:21 ----------

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Maybe it's because the pensioners actually worked all their lives to obtain that benefit rather than sitting on their fat backsides waiting for the next sprog / money machine to be dropped, with no intention of ever getting a job and contibuting to the society that they expect to bankroll them.

2 corrections.

people who have never worked get a pension.

some benefits require a work history aka NI contributions including incapacity benefit.

Actually your point was not that the pension and JSA are 'both state provided benefits' ... your point was that the pension is 'just like JSA'.

The differences between the two are profound and varied. In fact the only real similarity is that they are both paid out of taxation.

Also some of us have never had JSA or it's equivalent.. But I do hope to pick up a pension For which I have paid full NI when working(many working wives failed to do so when they had the option of full or part contribution during the 70s) and had my contributions partially covered by receiving child benefit..Even so I'm a little short which I will have to make up at some point..

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Chris

Actually your point was not that the pension and JSA are 'both state provided benefits' ... your point was that the pension is 'just like JSA'.

The differences between the two are profound and varied. In fact the only real similarity is that they are both paid out of taxation.

no my point was people generally would oppose 'any' benefit increase but this benefit increase because its pensions will likely be seen different.

It will be seen as different, because it is different.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Chris

It will be seen as different, because it is different.

again proved my point.

Sorry ... that makes about as much sense as predicting the BBC will broadcast the Queen's speech on Christmas day, then crying 'I told you so!' at 3 o'clock.

Claiming that people who disagree with you will say 'pensions are different' doesn't prove any point. Pointing and looking smug when people who disagree with you, say they disagree with you, doesn't prove a point either.

Now, is there any danger of you constructing a reasoned argument in favour of your claim that pensions are 'just like JSA', or are you simply going to keep repeating it until everyone else gets bored waiting?

[Chrysalis]

my point was to try and make it clearer, that I said many people if not most people believe pensions to be a different class of income to any other state benefit. You then said because it is different which is exactly what I said people think.

We have contribution based pensions funded by national insurance tax, only payable to those who have paid enough NI. It is a state benefit.
We have income based pensions payable to those who have a lack of income and savings, it is a state benefit.

Pensions come under the same budget as every other benefit and make the vast bulk of the DWP budget.

Someone could be claiming JSA or IB all their life and be considered layabouts by poeple, as soon as they hit pension age they suddenly more respected and more deserving why?

Likewise someone could be working all their life and then fall ill at 35, they then go on contribution based incapacity benefit (or ESA now days) and having paid 17 years worth of NI now claiming back due to ill health, they be considered **** and undeserving but likewise someone who claims contribution based pensions has earned it. Whats the difference?

There is certianly no reason why IB(ESA) should be different from the pension rate, they both there to cover living costs for people who dont have to work. They differ tho due to political reasons.

One small flaw in your otherwise reasoned argument - the premise that "they then go on contribution based incapacity benefit (or ESA now days) and having paid 17 years worth of NI now claiming back due to ill health, they be considered **** and undeserving".

Please don't believe what the red-top rags print - it's not the view (imho) of the majority of the country, the red-tops would just like to think it is (and try to make it so).

Nearly everyone I know has no issues with genuine Incapacity Benefits/ESA claimants, but it is the likes of the Mail/Sun/etc who try to tar all claimants with the same brush that leads to your feelings, I believe.

[Kymmy]

I wonder how many of those having a moan about benefits/pensions would soon change their tune if we had an american system and they suddenly found through no fault of their own that they'd lost their job and couldn't get another???

I'd rather have that back-up even if I never had to use it and for others to have the same backup equal to my own even at pension age...

You know what they say if you don't like it then go elsewhere as moaning on a forum is only gonna do one thing

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Kymmy

I wonder how many of those having a moan about benefits/pensions would soon change their tune if we had an american system and they suddenly found through no fault of their own that they'd lost their job and couldn't get another???

I'd rather have that back-up even if I never had to use it and for others to have the same backup equal to my own even at pension age...

You know what they say if you don't like it then go elsewhere as moaning on a forum is only gonna do one thing

it would be a mixed bag as shown in the us.

job takeup would probably be a 'bit' higher since a minority dont work due to lazyness. But the reality is we would have more people on the streets as they would go from having minimal support to nothing.

if we shouldnt moan on the forum then why even have this section? I find forums an excellent way of knowing what others think and why they disagree with me on stuff.

---------- Post added at 10:42 ---------- Previous post was at 10:33 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

One small flaw in your otherwise reasoned argument - the premise that "they then go on contribution based incapacity benefit (or ESA now days) and having paid 17 years worth of NI now claiming back due to ill health, they be considered **** and undeserving".

Please don't believe what the red-top rags print - it's not the view (imho) of the majority of the country, the red-tops would just like to think it is (and try to make it so).

Nearly everyone I know has no issues with genuine Incapacity Benefits/ESA claimants, but it is the likes of the Mail/Sun/etc who try to tar all claimants with the same brush that leads to your feelings, I believe.

Most people seem to believe tho the recent changes are to genuinly only kick off fraudsters and legit claimants will still be able to claim fine, not the case tho. So they are falling for what the media says. Also to mention the IB rate dropped on ESA and no media batted an eyelid.

Likewise the daily mail probably spent 100s of hours looking for one of a very few housing benefit claimants who gets silly money so they can print the story and suddenly people think its a problem thats rampant. The same paper then will print stories that they feel sorry penioners dont get enough money. I think the daily mail is the worse of them all.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

my point was to try and make it clearer, that I said many people if not most people believe pensions to be a different class of income to any other state benefit. You then said because it is different which is exactly what I said people think.

We have contribution based pensions funded by national insurance tax, only payable to those who have paid enough NI. It is a state benefit.
We have income based pensions payable to those who have a lack of income and savings, it is a state benefit.

Pensions come under the same budget as every other benefit and make the vast bulk of the DWP budget.

Someone could be claiming JSA or IB all their life and be considered layabouts by poeple, as soon as they hit pension age they suddenly more respected and more deserving why?

Likewise someone could be working all their life and then fall ill at 35, they then go on contribution based incapacity benefit (or ESA now days) and having paid 17 years worth of NI now claiming back due to ill health, they be considered **** and undeserving but likewise someone who claims contribution based pensions has earned it. Whats the difference?

There is certianly no reason why IB(ESA) should be different from the pension rate, they both there to cover living costs for people who dont have to work. They differ tho due to political reasons.

part of JS,IB(ESA)or income support is stopped at source to pay the NI contributions ,so if as in your example someone works for 17 years then falls ill and has to claim IB(ESA) they will still be paying NI contributions out of their allowance .In that respect State Pension is not a benefit it is paid for throughout the recipients working life (wether they have worked or not)

---------- Post added at 18:34 ---------- Previous post was at 17:51 ----------

what about this ,i haven't heard of this before,N.E.S.T is due to start next year with all employers joining by 2016. On the face of it ,it seems like a good scheme but i can imagine it being a bit of a burden for smaller companies

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11627135

[Chrysalis]

its simply moving the burden from government to individuals and business's ultimately employers will factor in the cost when deciding someone's salary.

And isn't that were some of the burden should be? - NI doesn't cover/fund an adequate State Pension.

Originally Posted by Hugh

And isn't that were some of the burden should be? - NI doesn't cover/fund an adequate State Pension.

Is this scheme meant as a eventual replacement for using NI contributions for pensions? ,after all as you say NI contributions don't come anyway near covering the cost of a state pension