The UK must cancel it's triple lock for OAP

[TorquayFan]

Good morning Avin Laff - I understand your own position completely and I am not criticising your wanting to receive your OAP to facilitate "the idea of frivolity" but it is the Govts. task to look out for the wider good is it not?

 

Therefore, IMHO, payment of the OAP should be means tested, as for some, a little more spread around would help with real unmet needs for say, food, health, rent etc.

 

As Da La posted earlier, cancelling the 'triple lock' would certainly NOT be a vote winner. Tories and Labour know this 100% but instead of being realistic and working together on the obvious need to cut back, they are flirting with the Voters.

 

On the other point, surely means testing of OAP would be digestible for many Labour voters? 

[TorquayFan]

To clarify, I'm not suggesting there should be NO increases to the OAP.

 

I think the equitable way is to link the OAP to the RPI alone.

 

I see no logic for a 2.5% minimum or increases in line with average wage increases.

[youreavinalaff]

11 hours ago, TorquayFan said:

Good morning Avin Laff - I understand your own position completely and I am not criticising your wanting to receive your OAP to facilitate "the idea of frivolity" but it is the Govts. task to look out for the wider good is it not?

 

Therefore, IMHO, payment of the OAP should be means tested, as for some, a little more spread around would help with real unmet needs for say, food, health, rent etc.

 

As Da La posted earlier, cancelling the 'triple lock' would certainly NOT be a vote winner. Tories and Labour know this 100% but instead of being realistic and working together on the obvious need to cut back, they are flirting with the Voters.

 

On the other point, surely means testing of OAP would be digestible for many Labour voters? 

That's all well and good but means test it all ways.

Those that have never been in hospital get more. 

 

Those with no kids get more, they've not used education facilities they've paid for.

 

Those that have been on 40% tax get more. They've paid in more.

 

Just a few ideas.

 

"but it is the Govts. task to look out for the wider good is it not?"

 

It's an individual's job to look out for themselves, is it not? Means test why someone has reached pensionable age with nothing . Check their working history and their spending habits. Why should someone whose been irresponsible with their money most of their working lives be rewarded?

Edited March 26 by youreavinalaff

[beautifulthailand99]

On 3/25/2024 at 2:41 AM, Rampant Rabbit said:

Why not  just execute  all pensioners, I mean they only worked 40+  years, these youngsters  all want something for nothing, how  about they pay more for a  pension plan now and stop whining.

I would draw the line at 30 like Logan's Run.

[TorquayFan]

Avin Laff ??

 

So it's OK now to means test to make sure the Govt. isn't financing frivolity when others are in penury. I agree.

 

Your ideas re. hospital and education - what the heck ?

 

BTW isn't it 'larf'. ATB

 

 

 

 

[scottiejohn]

5 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

That's all well and good but means test it all ways.

Those that have never been in hospital get more. 

 

Those with no kids get more, they've not used education facilities they've paid for.

 

Those that have been on 40% tax get more. They've paid in more.

 

Just a few ideas.

 

"but it is the Govts. task to look out for the wider good is it not?"

 

It's an individual's job to look out for themselves, is it not? Means test why someone has reached pensionable age with nothing . Check their working history and their spending habits. Why should someone whose been irresponsible with their money most of their working lives be rewarded?

Is there any chance of tomorrow, when you sober up, of re writing your above post in understandable English please!

[Rampant Rabbit]

On 3/26/2024 at 5:01 AM, TorquayFan said:

Therefore, IMHO, payment of the OAP should be means tested

nah this  just creates a  load of lazy people who know if they do nothing they will get a pension regardless. I worked like a dog  from 16 to 46 many 12  hour days Im not paying for those lazy bstards

[noobexpat]

2 hours ago, Rampant Rabbit said:

nah this  just creates a  load of lazy people who know if they do nothing they will get a pension regardless. I worked like a dog  from 16 to 46 many 12  hour days Im not paying for those lazy bstards

 

They do anyway. Its called pension credit. Has 2 components...

 

How much Pension Credit could I get?

Pension Credit comes in two parts. You might be eligible for one or both parts.

What is Guarantee Credit?

Guarantee Credit tops up your weekly income to a guaranteed minimum level. In 2023-24, this level is:

• £201.05 if you're single
• £306.85 if you're a couple.

What is Savings Credit?

Savings Credit is extra money if you've got some savings or if your income is higher than the basic State Pension. It's available to people who reached State Pension age before 6 April 2016. In 2023-24, you could get up to:

• £15.94 extra per week if you're single
• £17.84 extra per week if you're a couple.

[noobexpat]

12 hours ago, scottiejohn said:

Is there any chance of tomorrow, when you sober up, of re writing your above post in understandable English please!

 

Is there any chance of tomorrow ....? 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

19 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

 

 

"but it is the Govts. task to look out for the wider good is it not?"

 

It's an individual's job to look out for themselves, is it not? Means test why someone has reached pensionable age with nothing . Check their working history and their spending habits. Why should someone whose been irresponsible with their money most of their working lives be rewarded?

Never had you down as an advocate of ‘Brig Brother’ Government.

 

 

[TorquayFan]

Chomper, I'm guessing you are reacting to that quote in bold, which was a comment from me.

 

So if I may answer, it would of course, be difficult to organise a national scheme for OAP's without some sort of 'big' Government.

 

 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, TorquayFan said:

Chomper, I'm guessing you are reacting to that quote in bold, which was a comment from me.

 

So if I may answer, it would of course, be difficult to organise a national scheme for OAP's without some sort of 'big' Government.

 

 

 

 

No I was responding to the ludicrous suggestion that the Government should examine how individuals have spent their money during their working lives.

 

UK State Pensions an entitlement paid for by individuals’ NI contributions.

 

Along with NHS care they are one of the very entitlements that the vast majority of people receive.

 

There is also the direct relationship between NI contributions and entitlement to the State Pension.

 

This is not simply the calculation of entitlement based on contributions that is available from the DWP but also a recognition amongst people paying NI that they will receive and expect to receive something for the contributions they make throughout their adult lives.

 

Which perhaps explains why the Tories wish to get rid of NI. Undermining the funding of the State Pension and NHS at precisely the time both are in need of more funding.

 

After all, it just not right that ordinary working people should expect to receive anything at all for the taxes they pay.

 

The question is not should the triple lock remain, but why are the Tories proposing to abolish National Insurance,

 

 

 

Edited March 27 by Chomper Higgot

[TorquayFan]

OK Chomper, I get it and thanks for the reply. I agree, 'ludicrous' is a good word for those suggestion from Avin Laff.

 

But I don't think you are right here - "UK State Pensions an entitlement paid for by individuals’ NI contributions". Rather, 'UK State Pensions an entitlement PARTLY paid for by individuals’ NI contributions'.

 

Whilst the period and amount an individual contributes is used to calibrate the entitlement at Pensionable Age, I'm afraid it's a fact that the payments to Pensioners each year, come out of the current national tax take from all sources.

 

The Tories (JH and RS) have reduced the rate of EMPLOYEE's NI, (long regarded as an extra slice of income tax), as this is a way of encouraging those in work as distinct from those on benefits. I think that's a laudable aim and I hope that the Govt succeed in reducing EMPLOYEE's NI to 0%. Makes perfect sense, leaving the EMPLOYER's NI as a sort of payroll tax.

 

If the Govts' intention is to cut Employer's NI too in due course, then I think that's a good idea too BUT of course, the revenue will have to be raised elsewhere, say VAT, Fuel duty etc.

 

With a change of Govt likely next year, who knows where this ends up? ATB

[youreavinalaff]

17 hours ago, scottiejohn said:

Is there any chance of tomorrow, when you sober up, of re writing your above post in understandable English please!

I'll wait until you grasp the basic concepts of English. Then you'll understand.

[youreavinalaff]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

No I was responding to the ludicrous suggestion that the Government should examine how individuals have spent their money during their working lives.

 

UK State Pensions an entitlement paid for by individuals’ NI contributions.

 

Along with NHS care they are one of the very entitlements that the vast majority of people receive.

 

There is also the direct relationship between NI contributions and entitlement to the State Pension.

 

This is not simply the calculation of entitlement based on contributions that is available from the DWP but also a recognition amongst people paying NI that they will receive and expect to receive something for the contributions they make throughout their adult lives.

 

Which perhaps explains why the Tories wish to get rid of NI. Undermining the funding of the State Pension and NHS at precisely the time both are in need of more funding.

 

After all, it just not right that ordinary working people should expect to receive anything at all for the taxes they pay.

 

The question is not should the triple lock remain, but why are the Tories proposing to abolish National Insurance,

 

 

 

No. That is not the question.

 

The question is, why have you not kept up with the thread before another, failed attempt at trolling.

 

You've let yourself down, again.

[noobexpat]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

No I was responding to the ludicrous suggestion that the Government should examine how individuals have spent their money during their working lives.

 

UK State Pensions an entitlement paid for by individuals’ NI contributions.

 

Along with NHS care they are one of the very entitlements that the vast majority of people receive.

 

There is also the direct relationship between NI contributions and entitlement to the State Pension.

 

This is not simply the calculation of entitlement based on contributions that is available from the DWP but also a recognition amongst people paying NI that they will receive and expect to receive something for the contributions they make throughout their adult lives.

 

Which perhaps explains why the Tories wish to get rid of NI. Undermining the funding of the State Pension and NHS at precisely the time both are in need of more funding.

 

After all, it just not right that ordinary working people should expect to receive anything at all for the taxes they pay.

 

The question is not should the triple lock remain, but why are the Tories proposing to abolish National Insurance,

 

 

NI contributions and benefits have a complicated history. Much of which you will have no idea...

 

Graduated, serps, S2P, flat rate, contracted out rebates, GMP. 

[youreavinalaff]

17 hours ago, TorquayFan said:

Avin Laff ??

 

So it's OK now to means test to make sure the Govt. isn't financing frivolity when others are in penury. I agree.

 

Your ideas re. hospital and education - what the heck ?

 

BTW isn't it 'larf'. ATB

 

 

 

 

Why not? You want to means test to cut pensions. I'm just saying it's only fair to means test how to raise them too.

 

Equality and all.

 

"laff" is a regional accent.

Edited March 27 by youreavinalaff

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, noobexpat said:

 

NI contributions and benefits have a complicated history. Much of which you will have no idea...

 

Graduated, serps, S2P, flat rate, contracted out rebates, GMP. 

I’m sure you have a grasp of your own understanding of the ‘complicated history of NI contributions’.

 

How on earth you determine I might have no idea of the same is one of those leaps of the imagination that characterize so many baseless assumptions on this forum.

[Chomper Higgot]

1 hour ago, youreavinalaff said:

No. That is not the question.

 

The question is, why have you not kept up with the thread before another, failed attempt at trolling.

 

You've let yourself down, again.

Sorry for pointing out the crass nonsense of your suggestion that the Government should somehow examine the lifetime spending habits of people before deciding how much pension they deserve.

 

 

On 3/26/2024 at 4:19 PM, youreavinalaff said:

Means test why someone has reached pensionable age with nothing . Check their working history and their spending habits. Why should someone whose been irresponsible with their money most of their working lives be rewarded?

 

Tell us how that would work, are the whole nation to keep their receipts when they spend any money?

[Chomper Higgot]

8 hours ago, Rampant Rabbit said:

nah this  just creates a  load of lazy people who know if they do nothing they will get a pension regardless. I worked like a dog  from 16 to 46 many 12  hour days Im not paying for those lazy bstards

You never were.

[noobexpat]

8 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I’m sure you have a grasp of your own understanding of the ‘complicated history of NI contributions’.

 

How on earth you determine I might have no idea of the same is one of those leaps of the imagination that characterize so many baseless assumptions on this forum.

 

Unless you did it professionally, you have zero chance of understanding the interconnection between all the schemes.

 

You have zero knowledge, its obvious to me.

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, noobexpat said:

 

Unless you did it professionally, you have zero chance of understanding the interconnection between all the schemes.

 

You have zero knowledge, its obvious to me.

 

 

So identify something I have said about NI contributions that is incorrect.

 

 

Edited March 27 by Chomper Higgot

[noobexpat]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

So identify something I have said about NI contributions that U.S. incorrect.

 

Its not just contributions is it you silly man, its the benefits that come with those contributions.

 

Lets not pretend you know anything. I studied this stuff when i worked alongside my actuary mentors in my younger days. 

[Chomper Higgot]

23 minutes ago, noobexpat said:

 

Its not just contributions is it you silly man, its the benefits that come with those contributions.

 

Lets not pretend you know anything. I studied this stuff when i worked alongside my actuary mentors in my younger days. 

Really?

 

Odd thing to say given my earlier post:

 

3 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

UK State Pensions an entitlement paid for by individuals’ NI contributions.

 

Along with NHS care they are one of the very entitlements that the vast majority of people receive.

 

There is also the direct relationship between NI contributions and entitlement to the State Pension.

 

[Chomper Higgot]

2 hours ago, TorquayFan said:

But I don't think you are right here - "UK State Pensions an entitlement paid for by individuals’ NI contributions". Rather, 'UK State Pensions an entitlement PARTLY paid for by individuals’ NI contributions'.

 

Whilst the period and amount an individual contributes is used to calibrate the entitlement at Pensionable Age, I'm afraid it's a fact that the payments to Pensioners each year, come out of the current national tax take from all sources.

Agreed.

 

My point was that NI contributions are directly linked to receiving a state pension. 
 

We often read the common refrain ‘I paid my NI I therefore am entitled to my pension’ or words to that effect. 
 

The link is clearly in people’s minds that they receive something very tangible for their NI Contributions.

 

 

[scottiejohn]

2 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

'll wait until you grasp the basic concepts of English.

ll I will wait until you grasp the basic concepts of English. of making intelligent and non aggressive posts!

[noobexpat]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

Agreed.

 

My point was that NI contributions are directly linked to receiving a state pension. 
 

We often read the common refrain ‘I paid my NI I therefore am entitled to my pension’ or words to that effect. 
 

The link is clearly in people’s minds that they receive something very tangible for their NI Contributions.

 

 

 

You've basically ignored decades of history when it was a double-tiered system.

And what happened to all those folks who redirected their contributions? Where did they go? How were they integrated into other schemes? 

 

...as if you have the faintest clue 🙄

 

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, noobexpat said:

 

You've basically ignored decades of history when it was a double-tiered system.

And what happened to all those folks who redirected their contributions? Where did they go? How were they integrated into other schemes? 

 

...as if you have the faintest clue 🙄

 

That’s a remarkable claim noobe.

 

Now let me see you quote a post of mine in which I have done any of that.

 

I’ll put kettle on while you wriggle.

[scottiejohn]

Just now, Chomper Higgot said:

That’s a remarkable claim noobe.

 

Now let me see you quote a post of mine in which I have done any of that.

 

I’ll put kettle on while you wriggle.

Have you got a kettle big enough kettle?

[Chomper Higgot]

2 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

Have you got a kettle big enough kettle?

I’ve put it on a very low heat.