Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
Basic State Pension
35 Answers
how do people who have never made any NI contributions claim a basic state pension?...it seems unfair when people who have made 25 years of NI contributions can only claim the same.
Answers
//seems unfair that people who work for nearly 30years making NI contribution
10:54 Sat 08th Jun 2019
Nor with folk who tried but still ended up with a poor employment record.
It should be an every citizen qualifies basic benefit from around 60, or arguably earlier if one wants to get more young folk off the dole and into work, contributing their bit to society; and not rely on separate contributions. Personal pensions to top up retirement income should rely on contributions.
It should be an every citizen qualifies basic benefit from around 60, or arguably earlier if one wants to get more young folk off the dole and into work, contributing their bit to society; and not rely on separate contributions. Personal pensions to top up retirement income should rely on contributions.
wouldn't be fair or sustainable if everybody got a pension at 60 or earlier as you suggest. if you have made NI contributions for 35 years then they should get a lot more than people who have contributed nothing. The only exceptions would be single parents who have brought up children or foster parents. What is the incentive for people to have made full NI contributions??
The trouble is, the issue becomes clearer once you start to think about the exceptions.
The majority of people who have not paid NI have done so for a reason, as you say ..... single parents, disabled people, people with poor physical or mental health, learning difficulties, people caring for others. The list goes on, lets just give them a pension eh?
The majority of people who have not paid NI have done so for a reason, as you say ..... single parents, disabled people, people with poor physical or mental health, learning difficulties, people caring for others. The list goes on, lets just give them a pension eh?
This is a very familiar consideration/question and the answer centres on whether society wants to "level out" the survival challenges for/amongst everyone.
If, as is the case with any state/public pension/income, the aim is to ensure everyone has some minimum means of support then it has to a degree to be taken from those who already have more than that minimum, i.e. through wealth adjustment from those who have to those who don't. That is one type of "fairness" and it is (too often with snide connotations) called socialism (something with a social conscience).
There is another form of "fairness" and that is where you leave those who have to enjoy their advantage and those who don't have to their disadvantage/hardship/misery. That is usually referred to as capitalism and also as (often in a vitriolic way) the law of the jungle.
The first gives rise to resentment of the sort you hint at together with decisions to get away from the "System" (either by physically exiting its sphere of influence or by circumventing its effects). The second to the very toxic social illness that is the "us and them" culture.
In practice most/all of the more developed countries are now a mix of the two, being neither at one extreme end of the spectrum or the other but at differing points along the scale either side of the middle. What to my eyes is both puzzling and sad is how much us-and-them goes on in the UK, a country where very many of those who espouse that viewpoint are in fact enjoying socialistic benefits of some kind. In the UK the us-and-them folk are (it seems to me) either at the "lower" income position or pretending not to be as comfortably off as they really are (I'm not a Toff, I'm Working Class) to avoid the stigma they are casting on "them". It is an historic and cultural thing.
In the end, for the most part, the electorate chooses the level of income levelling that they want. More levelling has, one assumes, been chosen by those who want their fellow citizens not to be obviously far worse off than they themselves are (for them, but not all, it is an uncomfortable comparison to have before one's eyes every day) their empathy levels extend to sacrificing one type of "fairness" for another. Less levelling is fine by those who simply ensure their immediate surroundings exclude being reminded the others are significantly worse off, they live among people with a similar level of income to themselves and the lesser income people live in their area.
The social "fairness" is most vulnerable to criticism when abuse of the system's generosity comes to light. The capitalist "fairness" is most vulnerable to criticism when extreme examples of the abandonment of people by their own society come to light. In between you have all sorts of situations where the majority of either persuasion will agree something has gone badly wrong, that surely there must be a better way. Interestingly everyone then shouts "What's the government going to do about it ?" - that, it can be argued, is a call for increased socialism.
Both systems are "unfair" in some way, there is no such thing as a perfect system. Both systems can, in principle, be seen to have fairness as an aim. Neither system has found a truly good way to allow luck or the lack of it to be shared. Human nature is varied and both systems are grappling with those whose aims, when it comes to the grasping of an opportunity, actually are unfair.
If, as is the case with any state/public pension/income, the aim is to ensure everyone has some minimum means of support then it has to a degree to be taken from those who already have more than that minimum, i.e. through wealth adjustment from those who have to those who don't. That is one type of "fairness" and it is (too often with snide connotations) called socialism (something with a social conscience).
There is another form of "fairness" and that is where you leave those who have to enjoy their advantage and those who don't have to their disadvantage/hardship/misery. That is usually referred to as capitalism and also as (often in a vitriolic way) the law of the jungle.
The first gives rise to resentment of the sort you hint at together with decisions to get away from the "System" (either by physically exiting its sphere of influence or by circumventing its effects). The second to the very toxic social illness that is the "us and them" culture.
In practice most/all of the more developed countries are now a mix of the two, being neither at one extreme end of the spectrum or the other but at differing points along the scale either side of the middle. What to my eyes is both puzzling and sad is how much us-and-them goes on in the UK, a country where very many of those who espouse that viewpoint are in fact enjoying socialistic benefits of some kind. In the UK the us-and-them folk are (it seems to me) either at the "lower" income position or pretending not to be as comfortably off as they really are (I'm not a Toff, I'm Working Class) to avoid the stigma they are casting on "them". It is an historic and cultural thing.
In the end, for the most part, the electorate chooses the level of income levelling that they want. More levelling has, one assumes, been chosen by those who want their fellow citizens not to be obviously far worse off than they themselves are (for them, but not all, it is an uncomfortable comparison to have before one's eyes every day) their empathy levels extend to sacrificing one type of "fairness" for another. Less levelling is fine by those who simply ensure their immediate surroundings exclude being reminded the others are significantly worse off, they live among people with a similar level of income to themselves and the lesser income people live in their area.
The social "fairness" is most vulnerable to criticism when abuse of the system's generosity comes to light. The capitalist "fairness" is most vulnerable to criticism when extreme examples of the abandonment of people by their own society come to light. In between you have all sorts of situations where the majority of either persuasion will agree something has gone badly wrong, that surely there must be a better way. Interestingly everyone then shouts "What's the government going to do about it ?" - that, it can be argued, is a call for increased socialism.
Both systems are "unfair" in some way, there is no such thing as a perfect system. Both systems can, in principle, be seen to have fairness as an aim. Neither system has found a truly good way to allow luck or the lack of it to be shared. Human nature is varied and both systems are grappling with those whose aims, when it comes to the grasping of an opportunity, actually are unfair.
maybe the system should give people with the necessary contributions a more realistic payout.. £168 is pretty miserly... of course we don't want that tea cake but you must .. see that the system is flawed and gives little incentives to make those contri utions, esp when you can claim pension credit, and get even more than myself.. I would make it twice as much for qualifying people to those who have worked less than 10years with a sliding scale to comparity... I enjoyed what Karl put who is well into ethics.. given a balenced series of views.. but I would think the system as it stands favours the shirkers
//seems unfair that people who work for nearly 30years making NI contributions are no better off than people who have stayed at home//
In fact, at least as far as the State pension goes, they will be worse off if they have missed a few NI contributions. Assuming they have no other income or savings a person who has made no contributions whatsoever will be entitled to a minimum income of £168.20 per week. A person who may be a year or two short of the full required NI contributions will, if they have any other income, have that sum reduced. More than that, the basic State pension for those who reached State pension age after April 2016 is that same amount, but for those who reached pension age before then the basic State pension is just £129.20. This was done to make the system “fair for everyone” (except those who reached pension age before April 206, that is).
In addition to that, no account is taken of the amount of NI people pay. Only “contributing years” are considered. So, somebody earning £15,000 pa will currently pay £764 NI. Somebody earning £150,000 pa will pay £6,967 NI. Yet, provided they both have the same number of contributing years they will receive the same State pension.
For many people the State pension scheme is not a pension scheme at all. It is simply a benefit system for people who are beyond working age. There is no proper relationship between contributions made and payments due (if anything it is inversely proportional to a large degree). When the government tells the country how much State pensions are costing it should only quote the cost of those pensions which have been properly funded. The rest are not pensions but benefits.
//The majority of people who have not paid NI have done so for a reason, as you say ..... single parents, disabled people, people with poor physical or mental health, learning difficulties, people caring for others. The list goes on, lets just give them a pension eh?//
Except that you left out a few – the feckless, the workshy, career criminals, recent arrivals from other countries, people who have chosen to knock out large families with no hope of sustaining them by working. Indeed, the list does go on.
By all means pay a minimum amount for those who have paid in nothing (if we must) but make sure that those who have contributed more receive more. Then you can call it a pension scheme.
In fact, at least as far as the State pension goes, they will be worse off if they have missed a few NI contributions. Assuming they have no other income or savings a person who has made no contributions whatsoever will be entitled to a minimum income of £168.20 per week. A person who may be a year or two short of the full required NI contributions will, if they have any other income, have that sum reduced. More than that, the basic State pension for those who reached State pension age after April 2016 is that same amount, but for those who reached pension age before then the basic State pension is just £129.20. This was done to make the system “fair for everyone” (except those who reached pension age before April 206, that is).
In addition to that, no account is taken of the amount of NI people pay. Only “contributing years” are considered. So, somebody earning £15,000 pa will currently pay £764 NI. Somebody earning £150,000 pa will pay £6,967 NI. Yet, provided they both have the same number of contributing years they will receive the same State pension.
For many people the State pension scheme is not a pension scheme at all. It is simply a benefit system for people who are beyond working age. There is no proper relationship between contributions made and payments due (if anything it is inversely proportional to a large degree). When the government tells the country how much State pensions are costing it should only quote the cost of those pensions which have been properly funded. The rest are not pensions but benefits.
//The majority of people who have not paid NI have done so for a reason, as you say ..... single parents, disabled people, people with poor physical or mental health, learning difficulties, people caring for others. The list goes on, lets just give them a pension eh?//
Except that you left out a few – the feckless, the workshy, career criminals, recent arrivals from other countries, people who have chosen to knock out large families with no hope of sustaining them by working. Indeed, the list does go on.
By all means pay a minimum amount for those who have paid in nothing (if we must) but make sure that those who have contributed more receive more. Then you can call it a pension scheme.
Lets not forget that the government has moved the goalposts by increasing the age at which men receive the basic state pension to 66 - so a man turning 65 this year will not receive his pension till next year.
It's even worse for some women, as in increasing the pension age from 60 to 66 over the past few years, many women have lost years of pension that they had thought they would be getting.
It's even worse for some women, as in increasing the pension age from 60 to 66 over the past few years, many women have lost years of pension that they had thought they would be getting.
teacake.. David was referring to the relevance of the fairness of the system. If the non contributers have the same income then I fail to see how that would lead to more homeless.. it's the higher end which needs to go upwards.. a more proportional benefit to the people who have contributed most.. if the able bodied, workshy who have opted out of the workforce wished to get a tick towards a pension should be given mandatory jobs to help our local services.. ie: sweeping the pavements, combing the beaches, cemetaries.. doing errands for the elderly.
