# Prescription charges frozen to help with cost of living crisis, Sajid Javid says (England)



## Northerner

Prescription charges will be frozen for the first time in 12 years as a gesture to help with cost-of-living pressures, the government has said.

The move is one of a number of small measures that government departments have been ordered to find to reduce families’ costs, but comes amid criticism that steps taken so far have done little to ease the burden of rising bills and inflation.

Sajid Javid, the health secretary, said the freeze on charges, which usually increase in line with average inflation, would save people a total of £17m.

The Department of Health said charges for prescriptions would remain at £9.35 for a single charge or £30.25 for a three-month prescription prepayment certificate.

“The rise in the cost of living has been unavoidable as we face global challenges and the repercussions of Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine. Whilst we can’t completely prevent these rises, where we can help – we absolutely will,” Javid said.









						Prescription charges frozen to help with cost of living crisis, Sajid Javid says
					

Move will save total of £17m, says health secretary, as Labour and head of TUC say windfall tax needed to tackle issue




					www.theguardian.com
				




Pointless. Why not just scrap them completely, as in the other home nations?


----------



## Drummer

Over the years I have been taking Thyroxine I have gone to the pharmacy to collect it and often heard someone asking which of the medications is most needed, as they could not afford to pay for all of them, or asking if they could take some and get the rest later. 
Politicians seem oblivious to the choices ordinary people have to make when they cannot work.


----------



## travellor

It certainly is a small measure.
Scrapping charges, (and providing free sanitary products across all the UK) should be in the next (emergency) budget.


----------



## trophywench

I remember being amazed in 1972 that my b/f's mom who'd had pretty severe asthma as long as I'd known her daughter at least, didn't get free prescriptions same as I now would.

Plus, prescription charges and cost of living don't belong in the same sentence.  They are NOT part of the general cost of living - they're extras that don't fall into the same category as food heating light and transport - but ones you can't avoid when you need them, rather like sanpro and incontinence pads when you need those - and that latter isn't limited to only when you get free ones cos you're old, either.


----------



## Leadinglights

I remember it used to be a fixed price regardless of how many items there were on the prescription but then it changed to per item so that was when you got people asking the pharmacist did they need everything prescribed and very definitely they did as some medications were needed to counter side effects of others.


----------



## IrvineHimself

travellor said:


> Scrapping charges, (and providing free sanitary products across all the UK) should be in the next (emergency) budget.


Up here in Scotland they already are free. The Pharmacist can also prescribe a lot of extras that would seriously deplete the pockets of those down South. You have absolutely no idea of the deranged rants coming from papers like the Mail and Express that Sturgeon gets for introducing these policies. They instead advocate tax cuts which, in reality, would only benefit the very rich.



trophywench said:


> Plus, prescription charges and cost of living don't belong in the same sentence.


Totally agree.



Leadinglights said:


> I remember it used to be a fixed price regardless of how many items there were on the prescription but then it changed to per item


As I recall, the official advice at that time was that many of items normally prescribed were cheaper to buy from the pharmacy shelves than the flat rate prescription charge.


----------



## mikeyB

The Mail and the Express don't rant against the Welsh Government or the Northern Irish Assembly for introducing free prescriptions. Free sanitary products for women may be more controversial, but that is because poor women in England aren't expected to to menstruate...or such products are never considered in the cost of living.

And they don't know whether this would have any effect on the cost of living because they don't know how many people ask the chemist if there are any of their prescriptions they absolutely need to take so they have money to feed their kids.And they usually say that you can reduce costs by taking out a yearly prescription charge, which is around £110 or so, a sum not attainable by millions out of their perilous income. The number of people living in both relative an absolute poverty is increasing dramatically. This has nothing to do with the cost of living. And then if they work the get hit wityh an increase in National Insurance, which specifically effectsa the poorly paid workers far more than it will affect those heartless and useless tory MPs, who only look after their pals in banking and industry.


----------



## IrvineHimself

mikeyB said:


> The Mail and the Express don't rant against the Welsh Government or the Northern Irish Assembly for introducing free prescriptions.


They rant against Sturgeon for the flimsiest of reasons, she is a major hate figure.

I am *not* a great fan of the SNP, but their coverage is truly depressing. There are major crisis and scandals going on all the time, both at home and abroad and every day, for years, I walk past the daily's in the supermarket,  look at the headlines, and it's a steady litany of: "Sturgeon This!", "Oh no! look what Sturgeon has done now!" .... "She has got to GO!"

I mean, how gullible do they think the Scottish people are? They will run a banner headline ranting against a policy Sturgeon has introduced, then the following week they will run a front page article praising some senior tory minister for introducing the exact same policy in England.

Until recently, I was a member of the old Liberal party and have been on their approved list of parliamentary candidates since the late 1970's, (still am I think?). On their behalf, on several occasions since returning to Scotland, I  have stood as the official Liberal party candidate for the City of Edinburgh Council. Since Brexit, I have resigned from the Liberal party and now vote for the Greens, so believe me: When I say I am no fan of the SNP, I really mean it. However, the coverage of Sturgeon is so vitriolic, I always give the SNP my second choice vote, something I would not normally do if it hadn't been for the rabidly partisan press coverage of Sturgeon.


----------



## trophywench

Any amount of it is nob all to do with the pandemic, the special military operation in Ukraine or the B word.  There is something rotten in the state of UK and we're lucky it's only started to stink now.


----------



## Abi

As regards sanitary protection- must be brutal to genuinely struggle to purchase it- either going without or facing hardship elswhere.
I would much rather that people had a living income and could afford their own . Seems somehow more dignified than being supplied directly.
And I believe cost of living has everything to do with poverty- cost of housing/ transport etc. There has IMHO been a cost of living crisis regarding rent etc for a long time but now I believe increasing and compounded by increase in cost of energy and food...
Perhaps when enough people have nothing to loose and get nasty those in power might take notice


----------



## IrvineHimself

Amity Island said:


> Cost of living crisis? more like cost of lockdown crisis.


The problem with a successful public policy is that the masses never realise how bad it would have got without that policy being in place. If there had no lock-down, lock-down sceptics would be shouting an awful lot louder. Just ask Dick Farrel. Oh wait, you can't, he along with thousands of other vociferous COVID sceptics are dead.



Amity Island said:


> The pandemic, restrictions, tax rises, furlough, business closures, massive government debts will all have an impact on the cost of living. )*. *


Very true



Amity Island said:


> Just one example is the quantitative easing which has to be paid back at some point.


Just what exactly are you proposing, Calvin Coolidge's  laissez-faire policies proved to be one of the greatest economic disasters in human history.



Amity Island said:


> Then there is government debt, In March 2022, it was £2.34 trillion. The figure almost exceeds the size of the UK economy, with debt having reached 96.2% of gross domestic product (GDP)*. *


I have no problem with these facts, it has been a hobby horse of mine for many years. However, by the context, you are implying, (without explicitly stating,) a solution that has historically proved to be disastrous.

At it's root, the UK's economic malaise starts with maintaining the pound as a reserve currency. While the associated Exorbitant Privilege is very attractive to politicians, the other side of the coin is the Triffin Paradox, which has destroyed the UK's manufacturing base and thus lead to an unskilled, low wage workforce which cannot easily absorb the current economic shocks of Brexit, COVID, Supply Chain Crisis, War in Ukraine.... etc

There are many other contributing factors, which, to a large part, are a direct result of rabidly ideological social and economic policy. But, as stated, the rot starts with the pound as a reserve currency.

For the last forty odd years, the focus of economic policy has been on tax cuts which are largely funded by increasing government debt. On a macroeconomic scale, these tax cuts only benefit the very few at the top of the pyramid, and, as a result, have resulted in a steady, continuous decline in living standards. So far, the benefits of Exorbitant Privilege have allowed the government to buy off the masses with cheap, readily available credit. But now, the chickens are all coming home to roost. The mantra of 'tax cuts' and 'austerity' has, (due to the associated financial pressure,) resulted in a deep, systematic failure of government at all levels, and the days of freely available credit are fast becoming increasingly unaffordable.


----------



## mikeyB

It was Thatcher who destroyed manufacturing in this country, in an effort to stop the Unions, and inflation and the cost of living is as much to do with Brexit as Ukraine. Boris went for the hardest break from the EU and we are now feeling the consequences of that. As are many businesses who export goods to the EU, with pages of forms to fill in just cross the channel.


----------



## MikeyBikey

mikeyB said:


> It was Thatcher who destroyed manufacturing in this country, in an effort to stop the Unions, and inflation and the cost of living is as much to do with Brexit as Ukraine. Boris went for the hardest break from the EU and we are now feeling the consequences of that. As are many businesses who export goods to the EU, with pages of forms to fill in just cross the channel.



I saw the deviation in the NE in the 80s caused by Thatcher and the destruction of the coal and steel industries. Then I suffered a 15% mortgage. 

If Johnson and Truss cause the NI peace process to break down they should be treated as war criminals. Truss is a good name for dealing with an oven ready turkey of a deal!


----------



## IrvineHimself

@Amity Island, @mikeyB:​Not really disagreeing with the sentiment of what either of you said, but technically the malaise began long beforehand. It's difficult to put a precise date, but the Nixon Shock  of 1971 is probably as good as any. I don't know if  either of you are old enough to remember, but in the 60's the BBC would give almost weekly updates on the balance of payments and the current account deficit. Subsequent to the Nixon shock, these updates more or less ceased.

The reason for this was because, unlike Germany and France, successive British governments took the decision to  support the pound as a reserve, or trading, currency at the expense of manufacturing. Essentially, to be a reserve currency, the pound needs exchange rate stability and offer liquidity in the form of debt. In other words, UK consumers get ready access to cheap credit which they then  use to buy ever cheaper imports. This might sound good, but because of the need for exchange rate stability, the government cannot defend UK manufacturers from this flood of cheap imports by lowering the exchange rate to make UK manufacturing more competitive. This is why both Germany and France have a large and relatively healthy manufacturing base.

Even worse, because we are buying cheap imports on credit, the cumulative current account deficit is growing at an exponential rate. It's actually quite shocking, the curve for rise in the cumulative current account deficit more or less matches the curve for the fall in manufacturing.


----------



## MikeyBikey

I remember Nixon as a liar who had problems with inflation. Any resemblance to BoJo is purely intentional!


----------



## IrvineHimself

At the time, it was widely asked: Would you buy a used car from that man?

I understand and agree with the BoJo comparison. But ever since he first decided to run for president, Trump has always reminded me of Nixon.


----------



## pinkjude

Drummer said:


> Over the years I have been taking Thyroxine I have gone to the pharmacy to collect it and often heard someone asking which of the medications is most needed, as they could not afford to pay for all of them, or asking if they could take some and get the rest later.
> Politicians seem oblivious to the choices ordinary people have to make when they cannot work.


I think if you dont work prescriptions are free


----------



## mikeyB

pinkjude said:


> I think if you dont work prescriptions are free


That may have been true years ago, but you will find that getting free prescriptions is a sight harder then simply being out of work. You have to be receiving certain specific benefits (mainly related to disability, not just out of a job) as well as not having a partner who works. Nor having a set amount of assets.


----------



## IrvineHimself

Amity Island said:


> I think the biggest potential shock to hit the world is currently going through review. It's the treaty between our country and the W.H.O


I must admit, this a new one to me, what exactly concerns you about the WHO?



Amity Island said:


> give up our sovereignty and allow an external company to dictate how we respond to future pandemics. By the looks of it our country will no longer have control over our country.


If you are genuinely concerned about national sovereignty, what you should be screaming about is the CTTP. a successor to the failed TPP. This treaty_ [CTTP]_, is one that the same politicians who most vociferously decry the WTO on the grounds of national sovereignty, are the most vocal in support of joining.

Along with any future trade agreement with the US, the CTTP contains investor-state dispute settlement provisions which would allow foreign companies to sue host country governments for loss of profits, including future profits due to policy changes that promote national interest.

The WTO, by the way, has no such provision, and, under WTO terms, in any dispute with a sovereign government,  multi-national corporations are forced to rely on a patchwork of local laws, often in US jurisdictions like Delaware. These local laws are also a major threat to national sovereignty, but there existence has absolutely nothing to do with the WTO,_ (or the WHO for that matter)_.


----------



## Bruce Stephens

Amity Island said:


> Ukraine seems to be being held solely responsible for the UK's cost of living problems


I don't get that impression. The Bank of England governor was worrying about more than that in the select committee a couple of days ago.

But Ukraine seems the largest influence: this is (mostly) an increase in costs of things (energy and some ingredients for making fertiliser as well as basic foods like wheat are more expensive because Russia and Ukraine are significant suppliers). In addition, the continuing pandemic is causing problems in China (which produces lots of basic stuff), and a collection of problems has produced continuing shortages of some microchips. And Brexit has increased the costs of trading with the EU (that's one factor that's less mentioned, though the BoE did mention it). There are staff shortages (which doesn't yet seem to be causing wages to rise in general), and the BoE seemed to think an important part of that is an increase in long term disability, with some mix of long covid and people with unrelated chronic conditions who felt unwilling to reenter the workplace.

I can see why QE and government dept could cause inflation (and could cause problems in State spending) but I'm not sure why they'd be more than a rounding error in this case. This one's surely caused mostly by the costs of things going up for fairly clear reasons (the war, extreme infection control in China, Brexit costs), and people aren't getting enough of an increase in money to cover that?


----------



## Bruce Stephens

Amity Island said:


> Nothing in particular, just feels a bit unnerving that we could end up in lockdown/restrictions again, without any consultation from ourselves or our government. We could end up in another cost of living crisis. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9550/


Seems unlikely to me. That page seems to be talking about a desire for monitoring and cooperation. I can't imagine the WHO trying to impose lockdowns or restrictions in any way. WHO (and public health people generally) have repeatedly said that extreme restrictions are a sign you failed: much better to control infections sooner, so you don't need to shut everything down. WHO just isn't that big of an organisation and doesn't have a whole lot of power.


----------



## IrvineHimself

@Amity Island: Thanks for the link, I do in fact remember reading about this. Although I didn't put it together with the way you seem to have interpreted it.

I have to agree with @Bruce Stephens on this: With 194 member states, many of whom are either: extremely secretive; paranoid dictatorships or both, there is absolutely zero chance of what you suggest coming to pass.

In general, my initial reaction to the proposal, which hasn't changed, was: *"It's about bloody time!"*

For over thirty years, since before Gulf War 1, I have been concerned about the twin threats of emerging disease and bio-terrorism. Having an ex-girlfriend who was involved with CND during the 1980's, I did a review of bio-weapons. There was very little public information available. but what I did find was alarming. Though not for the reasons you might think.

At the time, the prevailing western military thinking was on area denial with bio-weapons you could control: botulism toxin, ricin, anthrax and smallpox. The problem, in my view, was that this is not the way dictators and terrorists think. People like Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden do not think in terms of controlling the result. Their ideal weapon is literally a chicken egg full of a really nasty hemorrhagic virus like ebola, (or worse), which you can break in a crowded airport. Today, the threat is even more dangerous, with either Jihadists deliberately infecting themselves with something truly awful, or right wing extremists cooking up a nasty home-brew in a disused brewery. In both cases, there is a distinct possibility of the bio-weapon being genetically modified to evade vaccines and increase the  infection and fatality rates.

Similarly, a few years ago I was doing a review of literature on environmentalism and re-wilding. While not figuring prominently in the literature at the time, for anyone moderately familiar with the subject, emerging disease linked to climate change and habitat loss was obviously going to become a major issue. Which it now has, hence BoJo's support for the WHO initiative.

Like I say, if you want to get on your soap-box about national sovereignty, its a free country and I will support your right to do so to the hilt. However, make it about things that are a genuine threat to sovereignty, (like the CTTP or any future US trade deal,) not non-issues like this which if we do nothing, can only lead to a disaster of epic proportions.

Remember, it is estimated that the Black Death killed somewhere between 45 and 55% of the population of Europe. It is not beyond the realms of possibility for history to repeat itself. In fact, while still in it's infancy, mathematical-ecology _[think particle physics]_ would say that increasing environmental pressure will make such an outbreak an inevitability.

@Bruce Stephens: Interesting analysis in the Guardian today on why the UK has the highest inflation  rate amongst any of the G7.


----------



## Bruce Stephens

IrvineHimself said:


> @Bruce Stephens: Interesting analysis in the Guardian today on why the UK has the highest inflation rate amongst any of the G7.


Yes, I saw that. All the stories seem to be saying roughly the same thing (except for one woman on Politics Live who blamed government borrowing and QE, though she wasn't challenged and didn't offer any reasoning). (I'd again saying I don't think excessive government borrowing or QE is harmless, just that I'm not sure this is excessive and I don't see the mechanism that would cause significant inflation. It feels a lot like a right wing meme, much like invoking the Laffer curve whenever someone suggests changing a tax rate.)


----------



## IrvineHimself

I agree completely. I actually find it quite shocking how politicians, particularly on the right, by wrapping themselves in the flag, can get away with wild claims which do not stand up to any kind of analysis.

In the news, I have recently been reading occasional articles about Green New Deal and New Keynesian economics. I keep meaning to take a longer look at the subject. It's a project which is only at the kernel stage, just lacking the impetus to get started. But, about a month or so ago I was talking to one of the lecturers at the uni, being very much a post Reagan/Thatcher orthodox, he was a bit dismissive about the idea. However, when I pointed out that Keynesian economics worked during both the 1930's and during the post-war recovery, he conceded the point.

What I find extremely worrying is the increasing trend of government borrowing to fund tax cuts that only really benefit people who are already extremely wealthy. Both from private conversations and published articles, I think many fund managers, analysts and other members of the business elite feel the same way and are starting to worry about how wealth inequality is actually dragging the wider economy down.


----------



## IrvineHimself

Bruce Stephens said:


> It feels a lot like a right wing meme, much like invoking the Laffer curve whenever someone suggests changing a tax rate


I read the Wikipedia page on the Laffer Curve and spent the evening digesting it. It was very interesting, and fits in with a lot of things I have been mulling over recently. In applied maths, the idea of maximisation is pretty common and, in terms of what I have been reading recently, this seems to provide a missing piece to the puzzle. Thanks for mentioning it.


----------



## nonethewiser

Small measure alright, Rishi is sitting on his hands while country struggles.


----------



## nonethewiser

Amity Island said:


> Martin Lewis yesterday talking about riots due to cost of living. Police chief said they will be considerate in these circumstances as they understand why. Still...people will be reluctant to give up their mobile phone subscription and netflix/prime subscription, beer, fags, designer bags, collagen implants, pedicures, hairdressers, 4x4's yet turn up at food banks etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Lewis warns of RIOTS amid cost of living crisis
> 
> 
> Andy Cooke, the new chief inspector of constabulary, said there are 'no two ways about' the impact of poverty leading to an increase in crime and that he 'fully support officers using their discretion'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailymail.co.uk



If your housebound tv might be all you have so don't agree with all you said AM, what might seem like luxuries to some can be essential to others for their mental wellbeing.

Tbh I couldnt give up mobile phone as they'd be no way for people to contact me, example drs & hospital appointments as don't have landline phone anymore.


----------



## Drummer

Amity Island said:


> I get what you are saying too. I'm talking about for example that there is no need to have anything beyond what is essential. There are kids going to school each day having had no breakfast, not because of lack of the ability to buy food but lack of priorities (fags more important than food).
> 
> I see people going to food banks in £60,000 4x4's, yes cars are important, but a cheap runaround does the job. I see the same people with £600 mobile phones.
> 
> I agree mental health is important, but for me mental health is about being treated with respect, having a decent meal, feeling valued etc etc, "needing" the latest phone isn't about mental health, it's about the ego.


To access some benefits you must have a mobile phone and email. No other way to access. If circumstances change quickly then it is likely people have good stuff but no money. 
When trading down an expensive vehicle will not be part exchanged or bought for the same price as when trading up. You'd be lucky to get a cheap runaround in a straight swap. 
A phone which costs £600 to buy can't be sold for the same amount. You have obviously never found yourself in cash strapped circumstances.
I have a fairly expensive guitar which I bought back in 1970 for a few pounds as the owner was desperate for cash - I gave him all that I had in notes and coins because he had to pay a debt in hard currency and was going around everyone he knew to try to scrape together enough to pay off his dealer. It really was pay or die.


----------



## IrvineHimself

Amity Island said:


> You've missed the point I was trying to put across.


I think it is you that is missing the point, again! 

It has been proven over and over again that eye witness testimony is the very worst kind of evidence. As scientist have known since the birth of science: What you think you think you see, is highly coloured by personal prejudice, and, as a result, totally unreliable in any kind of factual context.

This why mathematicians developed hypothesis testing, and Procurators are very reluctant to prosecute on eye witness testimony alone.


----------



## IrvineHimself

Your latest opinion is predicated on you, personally, having seen people outside food banks with expensive phones and big, flash cars. This is despite all reputable sources saying that the need for food banks is so desperate, the system is close to collapse. As a result, the only thing your posts are telling us is that you have a prejudice against people who use food banks. 

I am not trying to be offensive, and it may not be your intention, but that is what your posts are actually saying.


----------



## mikeyB

The depressing thing about foodbanks is that may folk who use them are in work, or have a family member who is working. The sad fact is that low paid jobs are not able to cope with the increase in food prices and the increase in energy costs. Some nurses have had to use them.

Don't forget that not anyone can just walk into a fooodbank to get supplies. You need a voucher which involves checking your family income.

And foodbanks appeared before the recent energy price increases, or the increase in food prices.  This was a direct result of ten years of austerity and wage freezes, plus the separating benefits from the RPI, so they haven't increased for years.

Sunak's plan for all this money - £400 for everyone, even himself - is peanuts. I'll get that, plus the added bonus for being disabled. So will my wife. Even if I get the whole panoply of bonuses on the £400 it will amount to less than a week's income from my pension. How is that a sensible use of money? I don't need it, it will all go to charity.


----------



## IrvineHimself

mikeyB said:


> Sunak's plan for all this money - £400 for everyone, even himself - is peanuts.


Being on the street and not claiming benefits, I won't get a penny.

Edit:
Additionally, evan if by some miracle all the bureaucratic started to co-operate and I suddenly got my state-pension, it would still be too late for me to get any help from Sunak's largess.


----------



## travellor

mikeyB said:


> The depressing thing about foodbanks is that may folk who use them are in work, or have a family member who is working. The sad fact is that low paid jobs are not able to cope with the increase in food prices and the increase in energy costs. Some nurses have had to use them.
> 
> Don't forget that not anyone can just walk into a fooodbank to get supplies. You need a voucher which involves checking your family income.
> 
> And foodbanks appeared before the recent energy price increases, or the increase in food prices.  This was a direct result of ten years of austerity and wage freezes, plus the separating benefits from the RPI, so they haven't increased for years.
> 
> Sunak's plan for all this money - £400 for everyone, even himself - is peanuts. I'll get that, plus the added bonus for being disabled. So will my wife. Even if I get the whole panoply of bonuses on the £400 it will amount to less than a week's income from my pension. How is that a sensible use of money? I don't need it, it will all go to charity.



That's the other issue.
Not all pensions are equal.
The divide seems to be created for life.


----------



## mikeyB

travellor said:


> That's the other issue.
> Not all pensions are equal.
> The divide seems to be created for life.


You make that statement as though there's something wrong with that divide. I worked hard for that divide. Unlike some of my schoolfriends who went straight into work, or spent three years at University and then went into well paid jobs, I spent five years at University, then 5 years learning how to become a doctor in a variety of junior posts in various specialties, working countless hours of overtime living, when on call, in chilly hospital accommodation (which no longer exists). Only then could I start a career of being a GP, and latterly as in the Civil Service as  Medical Advisor in the War Pensions Agency because I fancied a 9 to 5 job. At lower money, but then Civil Service then had a non contributory pension , a final salary pension into which I transferred my NHS pension which I had paid for.

So yes, the divide is created for life, but it is all through my own efforts. I'm not a retired banker, or a businessman who has used workers to create his money. And there a lots of folk who have such pensions. 

In fact, though I'm 69 I've never bothered with applying for the state pension. It wouldn't be a full state pension because of the time when I was younger at not contributing, and I don't need the money, and more than I need the chancellor's "largesse".


----------



## IrvineHimself

mikeyB said:


> I'm 69 I've never bothered with applying for the state pension.


It's surprising the number of people I meet who, for a variety of reasons, feel that the hassle of claiming a state pension is not worth the effort. (Emphasising that there is a variety of reasons, but complications with tax is often mentioned)



mikeyB said:


> You make that statement as though there's something wrong with that divide. I worked hard for that divide.


We all make choices. When I chose my life style, I did so in the full knowledge of what it would mean for my pension. So, it would be extremely hypocritical of me to complain about the amount I am entitled to. In fact, looking at my entitlements, I am pleasantly surprised at how generous it will be when I finally get it. However, this doesn't stop me from raging at the bureaucratic hurdles I am being forced to navigate in order to make the clam.

The truth is, someone our age, without any qualifications, could have joined the military or police at 17 or 18, and been out by the time they were 39 or 40, with a full pension + a lump sum paid in two instalments over two years. The lump sums _[and the final pension]_ were extremely generous. Actuarially, they were designed to be just enough to drink your self to death. _(One of my class mates from uni went on to become a government actuary.)_ However, the fact that many ex military and police drink themselves to death before reaching full retirement age is another personal choice.

_Edited to change: _"... state pension is worth the effort ...." _to _".... state pension is not worth the effort  ...."


----------



## travellor

mikeyB said:


> You make that statement as though there's something wrong with that divide. I worked hard for that divide. Unlike some of my schoolfriends who went straight into work, or spent three years at University and then went into well paid jobs, I spent five years at University, then 5 years learning how to become a doctor in a variety of junior posts in various specialties, working countless hours of overtime living, when on call, in chilly hospital accommodation (which no longer exists). Only then could I start a career of being a GP, and latterly as in the Civil Service as  Medical Advisor in the War Pensions Agency because I fancied a 9 to 5 job. At lower money, but then Civil Service then had a non contributory pension , a final salary pension into which I transferred my NHS pension which I had paid for.
> 
> So yes, the divide is created for life, but it is all through my own efforts. I'm not a retired banker, or a businessman who has used workers to create his money. And there a lots of folk who have such pensions.
> 
> In fact, though I'm 69 I've never bothered with applying for the state pension. It wouldn't be a full state pension because of the time when I was younger at not contributing, and I don't need the money, and more than I need the chancellor's "largesse".


Ah, a retired civil servant who has created his own non contributory pension, using the taxpaying workers to fund it?
Which is probably on better terms then a retired banker, or a businessman who has used workers to create his money.
So good in fact it was worth moving an NHS final salary schemes into it?
It's a shame nurses and other government employees don't get such a generous scheme or opportunity.


----------



## IrvineHimself

@traveller, I think you are being  a bit unfair. Over the course of my lifetime employment related pensions have changed drastically. Like many of my friends and acquaintances from uni,  @mikeyB benefited from a time when employer pensions were extremely generous: At the time, they were seen as a way of cutting down the upfront wage bill.

Being able to benefit from this '_cost saving measure'_  was not something that was limited to the well educated, as I pointed out the police and military offered extremely generous pensions to those of modest academic attainment as did many major private employers.

In fact, for the last two decades, both government and private companies have been desperately trying to wriggle out of the pension liabilities they incurred during the seventies and eighties as prudent '_cost saving measures_'. You can't have it both ways: You either pay someone up front the going commercial rate for their services, or you do as the government chose and offer fringe benefits like a generous pension. When the final bill comes due, as it now has, complaining that the pension is 'too generous' is beyond hypocrisy..


----------



## travellor

IrvineHimself said:


> @traveller, I think you are being  a bit unfair. Over the course of my lifetime employment related pensions have changed drastically. Like many of my friends and acquaintances from uni,  @mikeyB benefited from a time when employer pensions were extremely generous: At the time, they were seen as a way of cutting down the upfront wage bill.
> 
> Being able to benefit from this '_cost saving measure'_  was not something that was limited to the well educated, as I pointed out the police and military offered extremely generous pensions to those of modest academic attainment as did many major private employers.
> 
> In fact, for the last two decades, both government and private companies have been desperately trying to wriggle out of the pension liabilities they incurred during the seventies and eighties as prudent '_cost saving measures_'. You can't have it both ways: You either pay someone up front the going commercial rate for their services, or you do as the government chose and offer fringe benefits like a generous pension. When the final bill comes due, as it now has, complaining that the pension is 'too generous' is beyond hypocrisy..



All I said was all pensions aren't equal.


I didn't say "I'm not a retired banker, or a businessman who has used workers to create his money. "

Yes they did create their own pot.

But a civil service pension is simply taking tax off the public, now, and passing it straight over. 


Just saying..


----------



## IrvineHimself

Especially in the upper ranks, civil servants can get three, four or even five times or more the salary they do in government service. How would you feel about paying the Cabinet Secretary  £5,000,000+ a year? 

Compared to private sector salaries, it would be cheap at half the price.


----------



## travellor

IrvineHimself said:


> Especially in the upper ranks, civil servants can get three, four or even five times or more the salary they do in government service. How would you feel about paying the Cabinet Secretary  £5,000,000+ a year?
> 
> Compared to private sector salaries, it would be cheap at half the price.



Very true.
But, we are talking about half a million civil servants employed in the UK.
(Highest paid is allegedly £625,000 by the way)
As opposed to probably a bit fewer in private sectors.
And these private sector headline figures include pension contributions, stock options, performance bonuses, not a protected flat salary.


----------



## IrvineHimself

I think you ar talking far larger numbers in the private sector, I know several pensioners who had low level jobs, (even cleaners and shop assistants,) who are now quite comfortably off because of various employment pensions. Sometimes they have income from as many as 5 or more pension schemes they have been enrolled in + the state pension.

In the early naughties,  pension and health benefit liabilities were a serious drain on large companies. In the US, one of the main economic arguments in favour of universal health coverage and state funded pensions is the drain on the economy caused by employers having to cover these benefits. Companies like General Motors couldn't compete with European and Japanese car makers because of the cost of health coverage and employee pensions for the US workforce.

While the example I gave was the US, even in  the UK, the wiggling and evasion the private sector has been going through to get out of accumulated pension liabilities is almost entertaining, or at least it would be if it didn't have such potentially dangerous consequences.

In fact, as a direct consequence of Brexit and our xenophobic Home Secretary, the _demographic time bomb_  is about to become an awful lot worse. To pay current pension liabilities, we require a young, economically ambitious workforce. In other words:  safe legal immigration. But, by closing down immigration and creating a hostile environment, we do not have the correct demographic balance to make the system work. Pre-referendum, I once tried to explain this to a rabid Brexiteer, his reply: _"Oh, but the government pays my pension!"_


----------



## travellor

IrvineHimself said:


> ..................._"Oh, but the government pays my pension!"_



Obviously a civil servant.


----------



## mikeyB

travellor said:


> Ah, a retired civil servant who has created his own non contributory pension, using the taxpaying workers to fund it?
> Which is probably on better terms then a retired banker, or a businessman who has used workers to create his money.
> So good in fact it was worth moving an NHS final salary schemes into it?
> It's a shame nurses and other government employees don't get such a generous scheme or opportunity.


I effectively paid into the scheme, not the taxpayer. My income dropped by £15k when I went into that job. My pension would be higher than it is, but it’s still much higher than the average salary. I have loads more disposable money because I don’t have a mortgage, after two downsizing home moves.


----------



## travellor

mikeyB said:


> I effectively paid into the scheme, not the taxpayer. My income dropped by £15k when I went into that job. My pension would be higher than it is, but it’s still much higher than the average salary. I have loads more disposable money because I don’t have a mortgage, after two downsizing home moves.


I doubt moving jobs because you fancied working 9 to 5 and had to take a pay cut to enable it would count as funding your non contributory pension scheme to many people.
Indeed it is high as you claim £650 is less than a weeks payment. 
£50k+ a year doesn't seem a hardship for a taxpayer funded scheme which uses taxpayers to continuously pay it now.
Not like a retired banker, or a businessman who has used (paid) workers to create his money, and now supports itself?
(And created jobs, salaries, and pensions for those workers along the way)


----------



## mikeyB

I was actually working out on the £550 I would receive, so my pension is actually lower than £50k. Just to irritate you more, I got a 3% rise this year, and it might be higher next April.


----------



## travellor

mikeyB said:


> I was actually working out on the £550 I would receive, so my pension is actually lower than £50k. Just to irritate you more, I got a 3% rise this year, and it might be higher next April.


It doesn't irritate me,  I'm just suggesting the hypocrisy of you complaining about people who fund their own pensions.
Then moving on to boast about how yours is then still so much higher than the average wage, and how it increases so much every year, and paid straight to you by taxpayers on here that can barely manage to fund their own day to day living at the moment.


----------

