Retirement age

[DraytonBoy]

I'll use a personal example regarding the wealthy, benefits and means testing.

I spent 20+ years working for a man (and friend of the current King) who's family are always in the Sunday Times rich list, his only income was dividends from the profits generated by the various family businesses. The guy has four kids so was eligible for child benefit, now that he has reached retirement age he can receive the Winter Fuel Payment, the state pension and a free bus pass all free of means testing.

Clearly with a personal wealth in the tens of millions and with an annual income of £10 million on average he doesn't need any of the benefits he's entitled to so means testing would seem appropriate. However, if you did it for him you'd have to do it for the whole population and that would cost the taxpayer a huge amount of money every year for very little gain. 

[DaveLister]

1 hour ago, DraytonBoy said:

However, if you did it for him you'd have to do it for the whole population and that would cost the taxpayer a huge amount of money every year for very little gain. 

Not if the default was no pension. As I said I would replace the 'state pension' with a workers contributory pension. That would leave you with essentially three groups of people, your friend who can afford to finance himself, those who are two ill to work or have family commitments for which the state would provide, and the workshy for which the state would also provide but you could argue they do that already with universal credit.

Looking at it from another perspective, why should those people with good jobs pay higher national insurance contributions when they don't get a better pension for it? Also, as far as I'm aware, you don't stop paying national insurance contributions once you've paid 35 years worth.

[DraytonBoy]

57 minutes ago, DaveLister said:

Not if the default was no pension. As I said I would replace the 'state pension' with a workers contributory pension. That would leave you with essentially three groups of people, your friend who can afford to finance himself, those who are two ill to work or have family commitments for which the state would provide, and the workshy for which the state would also provide but you could argue they do that already with universal credit.

Looking at it from another perspective, why should those people with good jobs pay higher national insurance contributions when they don't get a better pension for it? Also, as far as I'm aware, you don't stop paying national insurance contributions once you've paid 35 years worth.

And the other benefits?

[DaveLister]

I'm sorry, if that's addressed to me I don't understand the question.

[DraytonBoy]

1 hour ago, DaveLister said:

I'm sorry, if that's addressed to me I don't understand the question.

As I mentioned above my multi millionaire former employer (not friend) is also entitled to many other benefits so my question is would you like to see these means tested as well as doing away with the State Pension in it's current form?

[DaveLister]

The two benefits you mentioned are entirely dependent on age, not number of years of employment. Someone who has never worked in their life can still get a bus pass, even if they never paid National Insurance. Same with the winter fuel allowance. If you're asking whether or not I think all age related benefits should be means tested, well no. I know there have been campaigns in the past to means test the winter fuel allowance, lead by pensioners themselves but, as you have pointed out ,the administration costs would probably outweigh the benefits. Same with the bus pass which has the double benefit ( excuse the pun ) of helping to keep those too doddery to drive off the roads😉

[Lehaut]

Anyone can elect not to take their pension by deferring it, so hopefully your friend has "done the right thing".