No, this is not at all how pensions work in the US. In the UK, does the person with a bigger income contribute more to the pension?
The contribution to the state pension is I think I'm right in saying is equal but reduced if one misses some payments. Even smaller peanuts ? Also the retirement age is being raised to help pay for overspending politicians. They had the cheek to give themselves a 30% pay rise not long ago too ??
Hang on, so everyone contributes the same pound amt to the state pension despite income? And some people (the rich, according to you) get a bigger pension income because of their income? Is this what you are saying?
There is the basic state pension plus one from the company one works for. Back in the 1970s you had to work for them for more than 2 years, so guess what they made one redundant after 2 years quite often. There are a lot of elderly people here that shiver in the cold from lack of heating, food etc. They did offer £200 p.y. (about $300) suplement a few years ago but.........David Cameron claims "we are all in it togethor". Hardly. I am lucky I am above this poverty trap but many are not.
So are you saying that your original statement "Now come pension time the rich are hogging most of the money, as if they even need it." has no actual basis in reality? Because that's where I'm ending up after making an effort to get you to explain why this is so in the UK.
Seems simple enough to me. Everyone is eligible for part or the whole state pension ( if you made umpteen years of contributions ) currently about £100 ($150) per week. and on top of that people earn pensions from the companies they worked for. The higher earners getting bigger pensions. It would cost the state nothing to distribute all pensions equally. And it would barely affect the rich. I am dreaming of course. The rich right wing lot would never accept it. None meaner than them.
Here is another take on the prickly question of tax ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Did you know that, according to the latest SEC filings, Warren Buffett is getting "tax-free dividends" on his shares of IBM? Same goes for Bill Gates. After reviewing Microsoft's SEC filings, I found that Gates has been getting "tax-free dividends" going back to 2003. It seems impossible. But I assure you it's true and perfectly legal. The good news is, "tax-free dividends" aren't reserved only for the rich and famous. By investing in a small group of stocks, some of which you've probably never heard of, you can also get "tax-free dividends." There's one little-known company in particular that's paid over $26 billion in "tax-free dividends" over the last four years. And it just announced a new plan to spend another $18 billion on "tax-free dividends" over the next three years. With all the changes being made to the tax code right now, receiving "tax-free dividends" could be one of the best ways to increase your income in 2013 and beyond. To get the name and ticker symbol of this stock, and to learn how you can start receiving "tax-free dividends" today, click here.
Hang on, if everyone's only getting 100 quid from the state a week as the whole state pension, how is the rich getting more exactly? How would be the state be more 'equal' than distributing the same 100 quid to everyone? I'm trying really hard to understand your logic here.
Ur... 'tax free dividend', as in share backbacks? Where are you quoting this text from? It sounds suspiciously like a spam scam, given the "and to learn how you can start receiving "tax-free dividends" today, click here. " line. You aren't seriously quoting scam emails as a 'take on the prickly question of tax', as you?
As I am not in the seriously rich bracket I am ignoring their offer but some rich guys like Buffett are not so particular it seems.