Equality and Diversity Laws, should these be scrapped??

The source for that is The Private Office, and I don't know what, or how reliable it is, and it's not clear what sort of average is being used, but it's a start.

DD. Those are government numbers to 2024 after housing costs (AHC).

www.gov.uk/government/statistics/pensioners-incomes-financial-years-ending-1995-to-2024/pensioners-incomes-financial-years-ending-1995-to-2024

The £282 for singles is an average for men and women. Further down, you will see that single men had an average income AHC of £292 while for women it was £278.

Single women comprise two thirds of all pension credit claimants.

Section 8 of the link explains how the numbers are arrived at:

[ Quote]

8. About these statistics

How do we measure income?

The main income measure used in PI (Pensioner Income) is weekly net disposable unequivalised income, calculated for both BHC and AHC. Estimates should therefore only be regarded as broadly indicative of pensioners’ overall living standards. BHC income comprises total income from all sources for all members of the pensioner unit.

Income is net of:

• income tax payments and National Insurance contributions
• domestic rates or council tax
• contributions to pension schemes
• all maintenance payments
• student loan repayments
• parental contributions to students living away from home

Income AHC is derived by deducting a measure of housing costs from the overall income measure.

Housing costs include:

• rent (gross of housing benefit)
• water rates, community water charges and council water charges
• mortgage interest payments
• structural insurance premiums
• ground rent and service charges

When looking at individual income components, figures are calculated from gross income.

[End quote]

"If large numbers of people don't see the point in paying into pensions, or saving for older age, as it will be taxed away or taken from them in care fees or whatever, the welfare bill will rise exponentially. More and more people will realise that they'd be better off on PC and spend their spare money on cars, holidays etc."

Large numbers already spend their income month to month and borrow as a way of balancing the budget. They pay for their holidays and cars month by month. Others save and invest for the future, the lucky ones will save enough to make a difference, most will end up in the same care home as those that didnt save.

The very lucky ones will accumulate enough to make a difference in retirement, in most cases it's going to be because of property inflation NOT because they have worked harder, although they will have made smarter investments.

Thanks Graphite. TBH, a few pounds here or there doesn't alter the point though.

David, much of what you say is pretty much what I said. Ordinary people muddle along, trying to make their lives better for themselves and their children, just to find that they'd have been just as well off if they hadn't.

I agree that property inflation is an important factor, but assuming people don't 'emigrate' to cheaper areas (something that happens a lot where I live - the once small town has a large number of residents who have retired here on the proceeds of a house sale that released a lot of equity) it's not the only one.

A final salary pension makes a huge difference, for instance. Obviously not all of them are as 'gold plated' as the media would have us believe, but even the people on the lower end of them would have been worse off without them. They don't come free though - people pay in a chunk of their salary, and are often on lower wages in the roles that have them.

Inheritance is another thing that makes a difference. There will be others, too - it's not all about property inflation.

Also, savings outside of pensions - rainy day funds, if you like - can debar people from 'targeted' benefits of various types. The problem is not that they are given to those with no money, but that they are not given to those with a little put by, even if the people concerned earned the same salary and there were no obstacles such as disability to make a difference. Someone not getting the help their neighbour gets may soon find that they have used up the money they'd put by and are in the same position as the man next door, so they may as well not have saved it.

I'm not saying everyone thinks like that, or whether it's reasonable or not - just that I think many people do, and they are disillusioned. We (as a country) rely on a dependable workforce to do the essential things that keep us ticking along. If those people give up, it will be worse for everyone, so (IMO) there has to be an incentive to it. Even if they know they'll never have the big house on the hill or the fancy car, believing that they'll be better off in older age is an incentive to get up every day and go to work.

David49

"The problem therefore David49 is your provocative suggestion that a household with £500k wealth in 2026 constitutes the top 20% of wealth holders win the UK- it doesn't. It did not even meet the top 20% threshold 4 to 5 years ago and is more likely hovering around the average wealth in 2026."

Pension paid is fixed per person 20% of pension fund cannot be the average wealth, it's very difficult to pin down the point that a 20% (or 10%wealth) threshold would apply threshold would apply, most of the statistics refer to income.
Clearly a lot of homeowners have properties valued at £200k or less and little private pension, others have houses worth £1m + plus and a private pension pot of £1m as well, where does the 20% threshold lie?

The principle that we should not give benefits to those that dont need them applies just as much the WFA, we know that wealthy families have enormous advantages over a poor family, if we are to have wealth tax it needs to apply to a much larger group than the ultra rich.
Obviously most of us would like any tax to apply to someone else, we all want as little tax and as many benefits as we can.

*ONS data- April 2020 to March 2022 calculated top 10%, top 20% and Median household wealth in the UK:
1) Top 20% threshold required a net worth of roughly £600,00 per household.
2) Top 10% threshold required £1.2 million or more
3) Median wealth, ie the average adult's net worth hovered around £400,000 household wealth in that period*

The ONS used data from the Wealth and Assets Survey WAS to calculate household wealth- methodology on ONS website. I understood that you suggested anyone with household wealth of £500,000 or more in 2026 constitutes the top 20% of wealth holders in the UK? If I misunderstood you please feel free to put me straight. As, allowing for inflation, £500k household didn't even constitute top 20% of wealth in 2020 to 2022 never mind about 2026= and is closer to median household wealth after adjustment for inflation.

What methodology/measure are you using to calculate household wealth in your £500,000 threshold amount? How does that differ from the ONS methodology? What measure did you use to support your suggestion that household wealth of £500k in 2026 constitutes the top 20% of UK wealth holders?

I understand and agree with your principle of a wealth tax and the principle we shouldn't give benefits to those that do not need them. However it's your suggestion that anyone with £500k household wealth in 2026, ie more or less median wealth should not be eligible for state pension. That somewhat shifts your position towards advocating state pension should only be paid to those with less than average household wealth

.

Lemonjam

"*ONS data- April 2020 to March 2022 calculated top 10%, top 20% and Median household wealth in the UK:
1) Top 20% threshold required a net worth of roughly £600,00 per household.
2) Top 10% threshold required £1.2 million or more
3) Median wealth, ie the average adult's net worth hovered around £400,000 household wealth in that period*"

Yes, that refers to the population in general not pensioners, because pensions are being drawn down the average pensioner wealth is less.

You can choose 20% or 10% of pensioners or anything in between, taper it as you choose, the principle is that we should not give benefits to those that don't need them.

However because the pensioner vote is vital to any party which is why they all have committed to retaining the triple lock on pensions.

David49

Contentious, yes, it's meant to set everyone thinking. If pension were withdrawn from the top 20% of wealth it would yield savings of £36 billion if we are serious about improving equality changes like this are going to be needed.

Anyone with assets over £500k is well able to support themselves, the UK has plenty of wealth if we don't start using it efficiently we are going to sink further and the equality gap is going to get wider.

This was your original suggestion. Now I realise you don't actually mean the top 20% of general population wealth which the ONS calculated as £600k for period 2020 to March 2022- now would be higher.

Your £500k assets per household threshold below which people should not be eligible for state pension therefore is a personal view and does not represent the top 20% of anything. A couple could reside in a £400k+ house in south east, just finished paying off their mortgage, have little savings, a modest car, but no personal or job pension. Their family and friends ie their support network, lives in the same area. Your proposal is that as they both retire at state pension age they should not qualify for or receive the state pension.

I now understand- thank you- it was the top 20% bit that I found confusing.