PDA

View Full Version : Cut pensioner benefits 'immediately'



Shabbychic
05-Oct-15, 09:40
The government should waste no time in cutting pensioner benefits (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34439965), advises the Taxpayers' Alliance.

Mr Wild, who is research director of the think tank which campaigns for lower taxes and highlights examples of Government waste, said the cuts should be made "as soon as possible after an election for two reasons".


"The first of which will sound a little bit morbid - some of the people... won't be around to vote against you in the next election. So that's just a practical point, and the other point is they might have forgotten by then."


He added: "If you did it now, chances are that in 2020 someone who has had their winter fuel cut might be thinking, 'Oh I can't remember, was it this government or was it the last one? I'm not quite sure.'

What a charming man.

sids
05-Oct-15, 12:31
I think your "Alliance" are just UKIP-type loonies.

But thanks for linking to them.

BetterTogether
05-Oct-15, 13:25
I'm sure you'll find equally outrageous ideas floated from think tanks for every party.

When they become policy there may be a case to answer until then it's just kicking about ideas.

rob murray
05-Oct-15, 16:32
I'm sure you'll find equally outrageous ideas floated from think tanks for every party.

When they become policy there may be a case to answer until then it's just kicking about ideas.

But you will agree that if true, its a cynical cruel "idea" though ?

BetterTogether
05-Oct-15, 17:26
But you will agree that if true, its a cynical cruel "idea" though ?

Yes it's not the best I'd not be in favour of it. I doubt it will become policy.

Better than saying you've got integrity and support the poor while ripping them off though. Eh

theone
05-Oct-15, 23:51
'A Think tank'.

Think tanks can advise and suggest whatever they want, in the same way Labour's new farming minister suggests meat eaters should be treated like smokers.

'Thinking' it, 'suggesting' and 'advising' it is not a problem. I'll worry about it if the government actually decides to try to implement it.

weezer 316
06-Oct-15, 14:32
I wish it was policy. Pensioners, and those due to claim the penson soon, have landed my generation knee deep in it, firstly by taking all the houses, not building more and then by running us into debt. I wont see a state pension yet will have worked all my life.

If you work all your life, you should pay into a private pension. Your ENTIRE working life to pay into it. No excuses. Only those on the bare minumum should have a state pension provided for them upon retirement.

Our pension bill is over 80bn a year. It matches our Education and defence budgets combined. Its lunacy. And I am paying for yours without hope of ever seeing mine.

rob murray
06-Oct-15, 14:34
I wish it was policy. Pensioners, and those due to claim the penson soon, have landed my generation knee deep in it, firstly by taking all the houses, not building more and then by running us into debt. I wont see a state pension yet will have worked all my life.

If you work all your life, you should pay into a private pension. Your ENTIRE working life to pay into it. No excuses. Only those on the bare minumum should have a state pension provided for them upon retirement.

Our pension bill is over 80bn a year. It matches our Education and defence budgets combined. Its lunacy. And I am paying for yours without hope of ever seeing mine.

WHy not pay into a private pension, if your employed you will have one if not within next year or so.

weezer 316
06-Oct-15, 15:06
Really? I have a stakeholder pension, I think it will be around.....

Really, why not? I wont see a public pension I bet. 80bn albatross round our neck when the vast majority of these people could ad should have provided for themselves in retirement. Many managed to provide themselves with a nice house they finished paying of years ago, why not a pension? Oh I know, that can be fobbed off until the next generation.....

Unreal. Nothing riles me more than this. Cut the pensions bill by 10% the 12bn austerity cuts could be cancelled, Consider than. WIpe that out entiterly and our budget deficit is gone.

rob murray
06-Oct-15, 15:16
Really? I have a stakeholder pension, I think it will be around.....

Really, why not? I wont see a public pension I bet. 80bn albatross round our neck when the vast majority of these people could ad should have provided for themselves in retirement. Many managed to provide themselves with a nice house they finished paying of years ago, why not a pension? Oh I know, that can be fobbed off until the next generation.....

Unreal. Nothing riles me more than this. Cut the pensions bill by 10% the 12bn austerity cuts could be cancelled, Consider than. WIpe that out entiterly and our budget deficit is gone.

OK Ive paid national insurance contributions for 40 years, so I shouldnt get the miserable minimum state pension ?

BetterTogether
06-Oct-15, 15:36
I think it's fair the pensions system has had an overhaul and those in work should pay into a pension but they need to be properly regulated and managed without the big charges applied to them. The old system hasn't been working for some time and a period of transition is going to be required it wouldn't be fair those who have paid NI contributions all their lives are penalised so late in the day but those who are younger should be making provision and not expecting the state to provide everything for them when they get older.

weezer 316
06-Oct-15, 15:50
OK Ive paid national insurance contributions for 40 years, so I shouldnt get the miserable minimum state pension ?

Right first off NI doesn't pay for your pension, it all goes into one big pot. If it did you would have had to pay a helluva lot more years ago.

Either one of two things should happen.

1) Abolish it starting now. If your older than say 40, you can claim a state pension upon retirement, but its closed to new entrants and anyone that was in the top say 80% of income earners (roughly around 15,800 pa or above just now off the top of my head) for a majority of their working lives.

2) Continue it, but link payments to it in NI contributions (or introduce and actual pension payment to stop people deceiving themselves) to life expectancy measurements. That means as people live longer you will pay more during your working lives, possibly even a rise every year until you retire

Its just madness. Im utterly raging my generation has been left in the position by you lot. You have literally mortgaged not only our future but actually spent the money already because you guys didnt have the forsight to provide one for yourselves or elect a govt that had the guts to spell out the obvious, namely if we live longer we need to actually pay more.

rob murray
06-Oct-15, 15:59
Right first off NI doesn't pay for your pension, it all goes into one big pot. If it did you would have had to pay a helluva lot more years ago.

Either one of two things should happen.

1) Abolish it starting now. If your older than say 40, you can claim a state pension upon retirement, but its closed to new entrants and anyone that was in the top say 80% of income earners (roughly around 15,800 pa or above just now off the top of my head) for a majority of their working lives.

2) Continue it, but link payments to it in NI contributions (or introduce and actual pension payment to stop people deceiving themselves) to life expectancy measurements. That means as people live longer you will pay more during your working lives, possibly even a rise every year until you retire

Its just madness. Im utterly raging my generation has been left in the position by you lot. You have literally mortgaged not only our future but actually spent the money already because you guys didnt have the forsight to provide one for yourselves or elect a govt that had the guts to spell out the obvious, namely if we live longer we need to actually pay more.

Fine but an element IS allocatted towards state pensions.. raging.......youve every right to rage over the mess your generation will inherit. Dont put everyone over 50 in the same bag though, many of us have worked all our lives, paid tax ( high rates and 40% etc ) paid corporation tax etc and no government in my life time has ever properly raised the demographic issue,basically the retiring baby boomers born 1945 - 1960 and how this demographic blip is to be financed. as its a vote loser isnt it ?? SO blame the political system not individuals I didnt personally spend the money, governments did !!

BetterTogether
06-Oct-15, 16:04
I'm part of that generation weezer although not at state retirement age. I've got a military pension yet to start and three private pensions I've paid into, it's unfair to say that one generation has created the mess that NI now find itself in but it is fair to say that during the years that have noted it needs changing and things aren't working those on a reasonable wage should of done something to help themselves, I agree the system is broken and the charge to the public pot is unsustainable but public sector pensions which are an awful lot more generous than the private sector ones haven't helped the situation either. It's a big ole bag of worms and no ones going to be particularly happy at changes being made but you're right changes do need to be made.

BetterTogether
06-Oct-15, 16:07
Fine but an element IS allocatted towards state pensions.. raging.......youve every right to rage over the mess your generation will inherit. Dont put everyone over 50 in the same bag though, many of us have worked all our lives, paid tax ( high rates and 40% etc ) paid corporation tax etc and no government in my life time has ever properly raised the demographic issue,basically the retiring baby boomers born 1945 - 1960 and how this demographic blip is to be financed. as its a vote loser isnt it ?? SO blame the political system not individuals I didnt personally spend the money, governments did !!Rob pensions have been on the radar for most people for the last twenty years or so it's not a bubble that's suddenly burst. A lots changed since we left school and went to work but since the mid 80s pensions and state pension have been looking more unsustainable. If you've been on a decent wage and paid the 40% tax there's very little or no reason for you not to have made some provision for yourself.

rob murray
06-Oct-15, 16:09
I'm part of that generation weezer although not at state retirement age. I've got a military pension yet to start and three private pensions I've paid into, it's unfair to say that one generation has created the mess that NI now find itself in but it is fair to say that during the years that have noted it needs changing and things aren't working those on a reasonable wage should of done something to help themselves, I agree the system is broken and the charge to the public pot is unsustainable but public sector pensions which are an awful lot more generous than the private sector ones haven't helped the situation either. It's a big ole bag of worms and no ones going to be particularly happy at changes being made but you're right changes do need to be made.

Would agree, public pensions legacy is huge and a massive burden but cant be wished away, a better deal needs pulled together for the younger generation

rob murray
06-Oct-15, 16:10
Rob pensions have been on the radar for most people for the last twenty years or so it's not a bubble that's suddenly burst. A lots changed since we left school and went to work but since the mid 80s pensions and state pension have been looking more unsustainable. If you've been on a decent wage and paid the 40% tax there's very little or no reason for you not to have made some provision for yourself.

I have but Im still entitled to the basic state pension as I feel Iv contributed

BetterTogether
06-Oct-15, 16:14
Would agree, public pensions legacy is huge and a massive burden but cant be wished away, a better deal needs pulled together for the younger generationI fail to see why those in the public sector should receive preferential treatment to anyone over the private sector. There is no reason that public sector employees should receive pensions unavailable to the rest of the population. What should be made mandatory is a % of a persons pay that is paid into a pension fund of their choice if they choose to top up all well add good but just because you've got a job with the council is no reason to have a pension. But those pension schemes also need more regulations and the fees and charges controlled a lot more.

weezer 316
06-Oct-15, 16:27
Fine but an element IS allocatted towards state pensions.. raging.......youve every right to rage over the mess your generation will inherit. Dont put everyone over 50 in the same bag though, many of us have worked all our lives, paid tax ( high rates and 40% etc ) paid corporation tax etc and no government in my life time has ever properly raised the demographic issue,basically the retiring baby boomers born 1945 - 1960 and how this demographic blip is to be financed. as its a vote loser isnt it ?? SO blame the political system not individuals I didnt personally spend the money, governments did !!

So in short no one did the right thing, either voters or govts, because it was inconvenient, despite all knowing such an issue would one day blow up in our faces? Riles me massively. The welfare state is there to care for those who struggle to themselves, not for those who worked fine all their lives and yet simply didnt bother putting protection in place. My great aunt retired with 2 pensions and only worked in a factory her whole life. Amazing what can be done when you bother planning for the future.

Day of reckoning is almost here I feel and we are all gonna feel it. 80bn a year. Such a massive waste and one that could so easily have been avoided with some planning.

rob murray
06-Oct-15, 16:32
So in short no one did the right thing, either voters or govts, because it was inconvenient, despite all knowing such an issue would one day blow up in our faces? Riles me massively. The welfare state is there to care for those who struggle to themselves, not for those who worked fine all their lives and yet simply didnt bother putting protection in place. My great aunt retired with 2 pensions and only worked in a factory her whole life. Amazing what can be done when you bother planning for the future.

Day of reckoning is almost here I feel and we are all gonna feel it. 80bn a year. Such a massive waste and one that could so easily have been avoided with some planning.

WOuld have to agree with you !

BetterTogether
06-Oct-15, 16:55
Hate to say this but that's what happens when you expect the state to look after you from cradle to grave. Some state support is ok but the entire state system has grown well beyond what it was ever intended to be and spawned a whole industry of self serving individuals who will have you believe that it's the states job to do everything for you. Why because they make a very nice living out of it and it keeps them in jobs earning wages they'd never dream of out in the private sector. Another area that needs a radical shake up is the charity sector, I'm not saying charity is bad or we shouldn't give to worthy causes, what I'm saying is can we really justify so many charities supplying the same services to the same causes just eating up donations on money for staff and infrastructure that could and should go directly to those they aim to support. Just think how much more money would go to third world countries if we had just one major charity. Or one dog and one cat charity. The money lost to employing directors, paying for offices and all the rest would do far more good going to those that need it.

roshep
06-Oct-15, 17:33
Sorry is it wheezer or whinger !!!. Myself and many other pensioners would gladly contribute 10 per cent of our state pension to see the deficit gone, saying that how much would you be prepared to contribute ?. you will no doubt say you are paying into the pot at the moment as I did from the age of 15 till retirement

theone
07-Oct-15, 00:19
Sorry is it wheezer or whinger !!!. Myself and many other pensioners would gladly contribute 10 per cent of our state pension to see the deficit gone,

I would guess wou are in the minority.

There would be OUTRAGE in the press/media if state pensions were cut by 10%.

Fulmar
07-Oct-15, 08:23
I think it is also worth bearing in mind, Wheezer, that many of those in what you identify as the selfish post-war baby boomer generation are directly supporting people of your generation with everything from direct financial aid to spending their retirement giving un-paid childcare. OK it may only be for the support of their own children and grandchildren but not everyone is 'living it up' on their ill-gotten gains. Also, the material things taken for granted as rights by younger people were un-heard of among my generation when young. We were expected to work, work, work for absolutely everything and jobs were not necessarily easy to come by. To be grateful for second hand furniture handed down etc and to save up if you wanted to buy a particular more expensive item. Oh, and the biggie for me is that hardly anyone I knew had a car and did not expect to have one either. I think if you had lived in that world, you might have a more enlightened opinion and to blame today's pensioners is just ridiculous- none of us had a crystal ball to see what was lying a lifetime ahead and we just got on with life in the world that we inhabited.

weezer 316
07-Oct-15, 09:39
Sorry is it wheezer or whinger !!!. Myself and many other pensioners would gladly contribute 10 per cent of our state pension to see the deficit gone, saying that how much would you be prepared to contribute ?. you will no doubt say you are paying into the pot at the moment as I did from the age of 15 till retirement

Neither, its weezer.

Good. Im glad you would. I personally could easily pay more tax and in fact I think almost all bar the oldest should. I want a welfare state, christ I was raised by it, and the fact I am 10 years into a mortgage and have thousands in savings tells me I can pay more in tax, not to mention the fact a night out or two less a year wouldnt hurt and that money going to the govt could help keep the support structures in place that support many of societies poorest.

I am paying into the pot, the difference is I can and should pay more, as we all should. I am under no illusions I will see a state pension and if I do it will be a pittance, and the blame is squarley at your generations feet as this could have been fixed years ago. Instead the can was kicked down the road as the bill once your gone is not something to worry about.

weezer 316
07-Oct-15, 10:02
I think it is also worth bearing in mind, Wheezer, that many of those in what you identify as the selfish post-war baby boomer generation are directly supporting people of your generation with everything from direct financial aid to spending their retirement giving un-paid childcare. OK it may only be for the support of their own children and grandchildren but not everyone is 'living it up' on their ill-gotten gains. Also, the material things taken for granted as rights by younger people were un-heard of among my generation when young. We were expected to work, work, work for absolutely everything and jobs were not necessarily easy to come by. To be grateful for second hand furniture handed down etc and to save up if you wanted to buy a particular more expensive item. Oh, and the biggie for me is that hardly anyone I knew had a car and did not expect to have one either. I think if you had lived in that world, you might have a more enlightened opinion and to blame today's pensioners is just ridiculous- none of us had a crystal ball to see what was lying a lifetime ahead and we just got on with life in the world that we inhabited.

I hate to upset the apple cart here but helping your family, you kow ones you created, is not something to boast about. You just do it.

You have not only left us with a pension crisis, and thats a biggie because unless you start bumping folk off you are stuck paying it, but also a housing crisis. I am one of very few folk my age that owns my own home and your generation, again, is the reason why. Decided to sell all the council houses to yourselves and stop building them. The result is a generation that cant afford a home of their own and frankly are stuck paying private rents that eat up anything from 30-60% of their wages. Your generation didnt have that and the result is a sprial of debt, while trying to pay a private pension and god knows what else.

rob murray
07-Oct-15, 10:25
I hate to upset the apple cart here but helping your family, you kow ones you created, is not something to boast about. You just do it.

You have not only left us with a pension crisis, and thats a biggie because unless you start bumping folk off you are stuck paying it, but also a housing crisis. I am one of very few folk my age that owns my own home and your generation, again, is the reason why. Decided to sell all the council houses to yourselves and stop building them. The result is a generation that cant afford a home of their own and frankly are stuck paying private rents that eat up anything from 30-60% of their wages. Your generation didnt have that and the result is a sprial of debt, while trying to pay a private pension and god knows what else.

We, as you put it didnt sell of council houses, it was government policy and not everyone voted for the government at the time, its called democracy, first past the post even with 30% of the vote calls the shots and theres nowt you or I or anyone can do about it. STop blaming " your generation".......ie a homogenous mass / we / all of us created the mess....we bloody didnt, try studying a bit of political history. Oh and are you telling me you cant get a house in Caithness from the council or Albyn / Cairn etc....plenty houses in WIck are available. You made the choice to buy, no one forced you to. State pensions are miserable, so anyone with any sense years back took out private pensions, anyway your employer ( if you work which I presume ) and you will be contributing to your pension pot.....so your covered

weezer 316
07-Oct-15, 10:31
We, as you put it didnt sell of council houses, it was government policy and not everyone voted for the government at the time, its called democracy, first past the post even with 30% of the vote calls the shots and theres nowt you or I or anyone can do about it. STop blaming " your generation".......ie a homogenous mass / we / all of us created the mess....we bloody didnt, try studying a bit of political history. Oh and are you telling me you cant get a house in Caithness from the council or Albyn / Cairn etc....plenty houses in WIck are available. You made the choice to buy, no one forced you to. State pensions are miserable, so anyone with any sense years back took out private pensions, anyway your employer ( if you work which I presume ) and you will be contributing to your pension pot.....so your covered

You didnt have to buy them though, did you? You did. Many who didnt vote for it took full advantage of it. Infact given the paucity of tory voters on estates like I was brought up on that are now mostly private I would bet its a bit of doublethink on behalf of the masses. Like I say, I am lucky and even then it was only govt assistance that got me my house.

No, my employer doesn't contribute to my pension and never has.

Im not worried about me, its the position in general my generation finds itself in.

You did create it. That democracy you talk of guides govt policy and neither seemed to care too much about the future. We are lumped with it and the pensions probelm is the most infuriating part of it as I will "contribute my whole life" and likely see nothing without radical reform.

cptdodger
07-Oct-15, 10:55
You didnt have to buy them though, did you? You did. Many who didnt vote for it took full advantage of it. Infact given the paucity of tory voters on estates like I was brought up on that are now mostly private I would bet its a bit of doublethink on behalf of the masses. Like I say, I am lucky and even then it was only govt assistance that got me my house.

No, my employer doesn't contribute to my pension and never has.

Im not worried about me, its the position in general my generation finds itself in.

You did create it. That democracy you talk of guides govt policy and neither seemed to care too much about the future. We are lumped with it and the pensions probelm is the most infuriating part of it as I will "contribute my whole life" and likely see nothing without radical reform.

Why is it so important to you that you own your own house ?

weezer 316
07-Oct-15, 11:07
Why is it so important to you that you own your own house ?

Because otherwise I will be stuck paying unsustainable rents for the rest of my life and that is a direct result of previous govt policy and previous generations choices to sell all the council houses and not build any more. Pretty obvious I would have thought,

Anyway, its off topic now, pensions should be cut completely, everyone bar the very lowest earners put to a private pensions and the state pension phased out to new entrants from everyone else. And when we are at it, raise taxes across the board.

BetterTogether
07-Oct-15, 11:20
Ok weezer you make some fair points but where do you draw the line for those who you consider the very lowest earners and those close to it you'd then find that maybe the ones who are placed into a governement pension scheme could well end up with a better pension on those who were on just a low wage.
You'll never get away from some sort of inequality but you can't make a system that pays more for either doing nothing or lowest wage than for working in a low paid job.
When you start to consider the wider ramifications of any individual action you end up tying yourself in real knots.

The premise of what you're saying is good though but implementing it could be problematic.

What you have to remember in today's political landscape those with little or nothing are frequently better represented than the middle ground.

weezer 316
07-Oct-15, 11:51
Ok weezer you make some fair points but where do you draw the line for those who you consider the very lowest earners and those close to it you'd then find that maybe the ones who are placed into a governement pension scheme could well end up with a better pension on those who were on just a low wage.
You'll never get away from some sort of inequality but you can't make a system that pays more for either doing nothing or lowest wage than for working in a low paid job.
When you start to consider the wider ramifications of any individual action you end up tying yourself in real knots.

The premise of what you're saying is good though but implementing it could be problematic.

What you have to remember in today's political landscape those with little or nothing are frequently better represented than the middle ground.

Why cant someone with a lower wage end up with a pension that is higher than than someone of a higher wage? It happens all the time if you take a private one out. If your trying to insinuate people will take lower paid jobs to avoid havig to pay into a private pension then your nuts.

It is complicated but at this rate no one will have one. You would tie contributions to life expectancy and then your contributions would go to either the govt or your private pension based on what you earned that year. I would put a cut off around 80% but obviously it would depend on what was sustainable in the long term. Possibly even a tiered scheme where say bottom 15% are covered, ad the 15% on top of that receivee govt assistance on top of the private contributions they will be paying as a top up. After that, cut it off. You earn 30k a year, that puts you comfortablly in the copy half of earners in this country, pay your own way.

In short, if your wage that year puts you in the 20% of the lowest earners, it goes to govt with govt subsidising the rest. If your above that, its private. You should be forced to do this like you are with taxes as otherwise many wont bother to save anything.

Those will little or nothing need to be better represented, Without assistance from a young age those with nothing will always have nothing bar the very fewest of cases. I dont own a house, have a good job and manage to bring my brother up on just becuase of my own work ethic you know. The govt helped me massively and should continue to do so for those in the position I found myself in when I was a child.

cptdodger
07-Oct-15, 12:02
Because otherwise I will be stuck paying unsustainable rents for the rest of my life and that is a direct result of previous govt policy and previous generations choices to sell all the council houses and not build any more. Pretty obvious I would have thought,

Well you kept going on about it that is why I asked. So, because you don't want to pay unsustainable rents for the rest of your life, would you not think that would be the same for council tenants? My parents bought their council house, so they are a pair of irresponsible people who did not demand to know before they bought the house whether more were going to be built.

My mother has lived in that house since she was 8 years old, she left when she married, and moved back four years later when my Grandmother died, I was born there two years later. As of 2015 she has lived in that house for a total of 76 years, so when they had the offer to buy the house they took it.

You are blaming my parents and many thousands more like them for the lack of action taken by the Government to replace housing stock that was sold. If only they had that much power.

rob murray
07-Oct-15, 12:08
You didnt have to buy them though, did you? You did. Many who didnt vote for it took full advantage of it. Infact given the paucity of tory voters on estates like I was brought up on that are now mostly private I would bet its a bit of doublethink on behalf of the masses. Like I say, I am lucky and even then it was only govt assistance that got me my house.

No, my employer doesn't contribute to my pension and never has.

Im not worried about me, its the position in general my generation finds itself in.

You did create it. That democracy you talk of guides govt policy and neither seemed to care too much about the future. We are lumped with it and the pensions probelm is the most infuriating part of it as I will "contribute my whole life" and likely see nothing without radical reform.

Yep plenty people did, check out pensions...as far as I know, from I think its next year, by law your employer has to "enrol" you in their company pension scheme, they pay minimum of 3% and you pay 3% although you can pay more in, so check this out. The sooner you get started the more you will pay in that will be paid out along what the state pension will be when you retire...oh...drop the "you" pal....talk sense....we created nowt as you put it.....oh and .many folk over the past couple of years have had their age of retirement actualy increased, I cant get a state pension until I am 66 and there are many more like me......your generation as you put it, now will 100% have access to employer pension schemes by law, ours didnt, the public sector yes...private sector generally no.....so check this out and ask your employer when he / she is going to start the scheme https://www.gov.uk/workplace-pensions/about-workplace-pensions : your generation are also going to benefit from major changes in pensions...ie the ability to get 25% of your total pension fund paid to you in a oner....ours got sweet fa, most folk got the basic state pension....so get your facts right.

Fulmar
07-Oct-15, 12:19
Spot on, cptdodger!
Also, you Weezer, seem to be contradicting yourself. In an earlier post you are buying but above, you say that you don't own a house so which is it?
My parents-in-law never owned their own home. They were working people who privately rented their two up two down terrace house in a poor area of Sheffield all their days. They would have liked to have bought the house but the owner (who was a distant relative) would not sell it to them but left them to fund all the improvements, including installation of a bathroom. When I was a kid, it was not uncommon to still be using a tin bath filled from the sink in the kitchen. What does that prove, nothing!
My kids belong to your generation. You speak as though we are somehow divorced from it but I understand their problems only too well. None of mine can afford to buy- they pay private (and in one case (in London), exorbitant rents with little or no long term security. They don't whinge about it but accept it and in fact, think that because they rent, they can afford to live somewhere nicer within the cities in which they live. All money goes on making ends meet and little left for pension provision at the moment but we help out and we all hope that things will change. You don't want to pay unsustainable rents- well mine have no choice and yet you are blaming me and others like me for the situation. NO WAY!

rob murray
07-Oct-15, 12:25
Spot on, cptdodger!
Also, you Weezer, seem to be contradicting yourself. In an earlier post you are buying but above, you say that you don't own a house so which is it?
My parents-in-law never owned their own home. They were working people who privately rented their two up two down terrace house in a poor area of Sheffield all their days. They would have liked to have bought the house but the owner (who was a distant relative) would not sell it to them but left them to fund all the improvements, including installation of a bathroom. When I was a kid, it was not uncommon to still be using a tin bath filled from the sink in the kitchen. What does that prove, nothing!
My kids belong to your generation. You speak as though we are somehow divorced from it but I understand their problems only too well. None of mine can afford to buy- they pay private (and in one case (in London), exorbitant rents with little or no long term security. They don't whinge about it but accept it and in fact, think that because they rent, they can afford to live somewhere nicer within the cities in which they live. All money goes on making ends meet and little left for pension provision at the moment but we help out and we all hope that things will change. You don't want to pay unsustainable rents- well mine have no choice and yet you are blaming me and others like me for the situation. NO WAY!

My son pays 650 a month for a single small room in London, and has to pay his share of bills as well, doesnt have an employer pension scheme as of yet, cant afford to pay into one of his own, and just gets on with it nejoying London !!!

theone
07-Oct-15, 12:31
You are blaming my parents and many thousands more like them for the lack of action taken by the Government to replace housing stock that was sold. If only they had that much power.

Were they not allowed to vote?

Did they, and their generation, not vote for political parties that promised unsustainable pensions for all and sold housing without replacing it?

Everyone blames the government for policy. The people choose the government so ultimately policy.

cptdodger
07-Oct-15, 12:36
Were they not allowed to vote?

Did they, and their generation, not vote for political parties that promised unsustainable pensions for all and sold housing without replacing it?

Everyone blames the government for policy. The people choose the government so ultimately policy.

I have no idea who they voted for. I have a vote and vote, but I didn't vote SNP or Conservative, so when things go wrong with these parties that are in power, will it be my fault?

In reality, it should have been down to the Government of the day that decided to sell the council houses, to put in place some provision to replace them.

theone
07-Oct-15, 12:40
I have no idea who they voted for. I have a vote and vote, but I didn't vote SNP or Conservative, so when things go wrong with these parties that are in power, will it be my fault?

Not the fault of an individual, but of a generation as a collective.

cptdodger
07-Oct-15, 12:44
Not the fault of an individual, but of a generation as a collective.

You could say that about any generation, how will history view this generation ?

theone
07-Oct-15, 12:51
You could say that about any generation, how will history view this generation ?

In many ways I'm sure.

But staying on topic, this mindset the post war generation developed, that tax payer funded guaranteed income for all was a right, without investing the taxed income to cover it is a nonsense.

They promised themselves money that their children would have to provide.

Saying that everyone should receive a fixed amount of money from the taxpayer in retirement , regardless of income, regardless of need is fundamentally ridiculous.

Why don't we provide housing benefit for all, regardless of need?

Everyone needs a house in the same way everyone requires retirement income.

What's the difference?

Redsnapper
10-Oct-15, 08:30
The UK state pension which you all seem to be complaining about is just about the worst in the industrialised world. Non state pensions are paid for by quite a hefty deduction from pay. If you've chosen not to put money into pension fund during your working life then it is only yourself self to blame.What you should be kicking up a fuss about is all those poor people who have paid pension contributions but landed up with nothing due to company fraud.

BetterTogether
10-Oct-15, 09:31
I'd tend to disagree a bit the pension status of this country used to be very good until a certain chancellor decided to play with them after that they've been a disaster.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1531448/Browns-raid-on-pensions-costs-Britain-100-billion.html

weezer 316
12-Oct-15, 14:17
In many ways I'm sure.

But staying on topic, this mindset the post war generation developed, that tax payer funded guaranteed income for all was a right, without investing the taxed income to cover it is a nonsense.

They promised themselves money that their children would have to provide.

Saying that everyone should receive a fixed amount of money from the taxpayer in retirement , regardless of income, regardless of need is fundamentally ridiculous.

Why don't we provide housing benefit for all, regardless of need?

Everyone needs a house in the same way everyone requires retirement income.

What's the difference?

Very good point. It is apportioned to who needs it. I work, Can pay my way and free up resources for someone who needs it as they cant afford a house.

I fear this sense of entitlement is the issue on pensions. That mentality needs changing before anything else.

BetterTogether
12-Oct-15, 16:27
Very good point. It is apportioned to who needs it. I work, Can pay my way and free up resources for someone who needs it as they cant afford a house.

I fear this sense of entitlement is the issue on pensions. That mentality needs changing before anything else.

So you're suggesting a self of entitlement from people who have worked hard paid their dues as requested by the government should start with Pensions ! And who may be then considered entitled those who have never worked or paid into the system, only those currently paying into the system. Seems the view of pensioners is distinctly ageist if nothing else.

theone
13-Oct-15, 03:00
So you're suggesting a self of entitlement from people who have worked hard paid their dues as requested by the government should start with Pensions ! And who may be then considered entitled those who have never worked or paid into the system, only those currently paying into the system. Seems the view of pensioners is distinctly ageist if nothing else.

I think for me it's this belief that they have "paid in" to some sort of pension fund, a big pot of money waiting to be used in future.

That doesn't exist.

Governments of different parties, voted in over the past generation, continued to spend, spend, spend, not only spending this 'pension fund' but getting us deeper and deeper into debt at the same time. At the moment we're something in the region of 26,000 in debt for every man woman and child in the UK and even with current cuts that number is growing. Most people would be horrified if they had 26,000 in debt each, or 104,000 of debt per family of four, excluding perhaps their mortgage, so why are they happy to have the whole country owe that?

There's many ways we could deal with the pension burden.

One way would be to means test it straight away - stop paying out to those who don't need it. Again, this would be contentious as this mindset of 'I'm entitled to it' has not been removed. But it should be. The only people who should be entitled to benefit (and pensions are a benefit) are the people who need that benefit. I never saw many pensioners campaigning to save child benefit for all............

Another would be to pass laws that government is forced to save or invest national insurance contributions into a fund for future use. Take it out of their hands for general expenditure. Stop governments winning votes with popular promises of spending whilst passing the burden to the future generation. Of course this won't stop the current issue but it will ease it in future.

Pensioners, as a rule, turn out in higher numbers than other age groups to vote in elections and THAT is why no party is really willing to cut back on pensioners benefits. It's not that they believe in them, it's that they're scared to approach the subject.

Look at the free bus pass scheme for example. Where's the logic in it? Why is it a 60 year old deserves taxpayer funded travel but a 30 year old doesn't? It's nonsensical. 250 Million from the Scottish government straight into the hands of private bus companies. It's no surprise the owner of stagecoach buses donated 1,000,000 to the SNP, the policy is throwing public money at him.

I personally know well-off pensioners who leave their Audi A6 in the garage and jump on the 'free' bus to Inverness. They don't need a free bus ticket. They don't need free prescriptions. They don't need winter fuel payments. They don't need free TV licenses. But they continue to take advantage of these things, paid for by ordinary taxpayers, because they're 'entitled' to.................

weezer 316
13-Oct-15, 12:34
So you're suggesting a self of entitlement from people who have worked hard paid their dues as requested by the government should start with Pensions ! And who may be then considered entitled those who have never worked or paid into the system, only those currently paying into the system. Seems the view of pensioners is distinctly ageist if nothing else.

Its not an entitlement though, thats the point. That money they paud in 30 years ago covered the govt expenditure at the time. It wasnt in some fund for future use no matter how many times you say it. Should it have been? Yes. but it never was and everyone knew it. Bascially they lied to themselves, and the govt was keen to carry on this lie as it was expedient at the time.

Now we have arrived at a point where the lie is costing us an absolute fortune that cant be sustained. I am "paying into the system" yet I am certain I wont see a public pension. Where is the fairness in that? At least my generation knows this is the case and openly says it.

Private for everyone but the most needy and if you fail to look after yourself after an entire lifetime of working, tough. Just tough. You cant possibly sit and argue some of the points you have about the welfare state over the past ferw years on here and argue that 45 years of work shouldnt put you in a place to afford a pension. if you do your a hypocrite.

BetterTogether
13-Oct-15, 14:30
What you're trying to use is the current modern more educated view of how the Governmemt pension system works to condem all those who when growing up didn't have a clue how the system they where led believe paid for their pensions works. It's very easy to make remarks about how state systems work now as you've grown up being educated how things work I very much doubt if many of the previous working class people you so readily condem even had more than a basic grasp of how pensions worked. Trying to rewrite history to claim that everyone was as educated as they are now doesn't make you big or clever it does make you somewhat haughty and arrogant. No doubt in hindsight it would of been more appropriate for all those now claiming pensions to have made their own provisions but at the same time had that been the case and a more market driven case for the welfare state been enacted then we wouldn't have most of the benefits we now enjoy as a society. No Hyprocrisy in what I've said in the slightest I just don't expect to be able to hop in a time machine travel back in time and expect everyone to foresee the current state of pensions back in the 40s /50s/60s and 70s. Society was very different back then maybe you're old enough to remember things before maybe you're not but you're current enlightened view cannot easily be sat on the shoulders of an 80yr old.

weezer 316
13-Oct-15, 14:53
What you're trying to use is the current modern more educated view of how the Governmemt pension system works to condem all those who when growing up didn't have a clue how the system they where led believe paid for their pensions works. It's very easy to make remarks about how state systems work now as you've grown up being educated how things work I very much doubt if many of the previous working class people you so readily condem even had more than a basic grasp of how pensions worked. Trying to rewrite history to claim that everyone was as educated as they are now doesn't make you big or clever it does make you somewhat haughty and arrogant. No doubt in hindsight it would of been more appropriate for all those now claiming pensions to have made their own provisions but at the same time had that been the case and a more market driven case for the welfare state been enacted then we wouldn't have most of the benefits we now enjoy as a society. No Hyprocrisy in what I've said in the slightest I just don't expect to be able to hop in a time machine travel back in time and expect everyone to foresee the current state of pensions back in the 40s /50s/60s and 70s. Society was very different back then maybe you're old enough to remember things before maybe you're not but you're current enlightened view cannot easily be sat on the shoulders of an 80yr old.

Mate, I asking you to hop in a time machine and claiming as such shows my points are inarguable, namely it is what it is, this is what we do going forward and this is hwo we address the pensions bill, which is ludicrous. I really don't see why I should pay for both the past and future on top of the present because your generation didnt, either through will or ignorance. It cant be changed but we can enact policies now that will help in future and that will mean pensioners taking a bit of the sandwich they helped make.

Shabbychic
13-Oct-15, 17:05
What you're trying to use is the current modern more educated view of how the Governmemt pension system works to condem all those who when growing up didn't have a clue how the system they where led believe paid for their pensions works. It's very easy to make remarks about how state systems work now as you've grown up being educated how things work I very much doubt if many of the previous working class people you so readily condem even had more than a basic grasp of how pensions worked. Trying to rewrite history to claim that everyone was as educated as they are now doesn't make you big or clever it does make you somewhat haughty and arrogant. No doubt in hindsight it would of been more appropriate for all those now claiming pensions to have made their own provisions but at the same time had that been the case and a more market driven case for the welfare state been enacted then we wouldn't have most of the benefits we now enjoy as a society. No Hyprocrisy in what I've said in the slightest I just don't expect to be able to hop in a time machine travel back in time and expect everyone to foresee the current state of pensions back in the 40s /50s/60s and 70s. Society was very different back then maybe you're old enough to remember things before maybe you're not but you're current enlightened view cannot easily be sat on the shoulders of an 80yr old.


I never thought I'd see the day, but, I agree with you wholeheartedly!

I believe Weezie suffers from a severe bout of snobbish, egotistical, hindsight bias. If people who are now in their 70s, 80s and 90s knew what was coming, I'm quite sure some might have done things differently, but then again, like today, many were living on the breadline, and to even contemplate putting extra money aside for later years, was totally impossible. I also don't believe the average joe was ever really up on what was happening in politics back then, as without the web, they were reliant on the media to keep them informed, and that didn't cover much.

theone
13-Oct-15, 23:17
If people who are now in their 70s, 80s and 90s knew what was coming, I'm quite sure some might have done things differently, but then again, like today, many were living on the breadline, and to even contemplate putting extra money aside for later years, was totally impossible. I also don't believe the average joe was ever really up on what was happening in politics back then, as without the web, they were reliant on the media to keep them informed, and that didn't cover much.

And what about those in their 70's. 80's and 90's with savings and assets of hundreds of thousands of pounds?

What about those who have retired with final salary pensions (remember those) from both the public and private sector whose income in retirement is significantly higher than today's average workers wage?

Why should THEY keep receiving taxpayers money for something they don't need?

Benefits should be for the needy.

Nobody is suggesting taking the pension away from those on the breadline. Those who need a state pension should continue to do so.

BetterTogether
14-Oct-15, 10:30
And what about those in their 70's. 80's and 90's with savings and assets of hundreds of thousands of pounds?

What about those who have retired with final salary pensions (remember those) from both the public and private sector whose income in retirement is significantly higher than today's average workers wage?

Why should THEY keep receiving taxpayers money for something they don't need?

Benefits should be for the needy.

Nobody is suggesting taking the pension away from those on the breadline. Those who need a state pension should continue to do so.



Those assets worth hundreds of thousands of pounds would generally be called homes, are you suggesting that anyone of pensionable age who owns their own home should be treated differently to those who live in a council house. If you've worked hard and own a four bedroom house why should you be treated differently to someone who rents a 4 bedroom house from the council.

There are a huge amount of pensioners living in properties they own but still have very limited lifestyles due to their pensions.
You like to point the finger at pensioners with hundreds of thousands pounds while ignoring that the vast majority don't have those kind of liquid assets.

Most final salary pensions are from ex public employees a small percentage are private sector but the reality is private sector final salary pensions all stopped decades ago when they became unsustainable.

The public sector has carried on lavishing out this type of pension with little or no regard to what's been going on in the private sector so in that particular section of society you'd probably be better off blaming the unions who have represented those workers and ensured their benefits haven't been affected as society has progressed. There's nothing wrong with reforming certain parts of the benefits system to ensure they aren't abused and do the job intended but in Scotland scrapping free prescriptions and lifting the freeze on council tax would be a good step forward to easing financial pressures on the system but those wouldn't be popular and lose votes.

Funny how this thread started out as an outrage that a conservative think tank has considered cutting some benefits and turned into a conservative defending pensions while and SNP voter demands they be downgraded.

So much for progressive politics and social caring.

You really couldnt make make it up.

rob murray
14-Oct-15, 10:52
Those assets worth hundreds of thousands of pounds would generally be called homes, are you suggesting that anyone of pensionable age who owns their own home should be treated differently to those who live in a council house. If you've worked hard and own a four bedroom house why should you be treated differently to someone who rents a 4 bedroom house from the council.

There are a huge amount of pensioners living in properties they own but still have very limited lifestyles due to their pensions.
You like to point the finger at pensioners with hundreds of thousands pounds while ignoring that the vast majority don't have those kind of liquid assets.

Most final salary pensions are from ex public employees a small percentage are private sector but the reality is private sector final salary pensions all stopped decades ago when they became unsustainable.

The public sector has carried on lavishing out this type of pension with little or no regard to what's been going on in the private sector so in that particular section of society you'd probably be better off blaming the unions who have represented those workers and ensured their benefits haven't been affected as society has progressed. There's nothing wrong with reforming certain parts of the benefits system to ensure they aren't abused and do the job intended but in Scotland scrapping free prescriptions and lifting the freeze on council tax would be a good step forward to easing financial pressures on the system but those wouldn't be popular and lose votes.

Funny how this thread started out as an outrage that a conservative think tank has considered cutting some benefits and turned into a conservative defending pensions while and SNP voter demands they be downgraded.

So much for progressive politics and social caring.

You really couldnt make make it up.

Can any one tell me why we cannot open new threads on the forum ??

rob murray
14-Oct-15, 11:31
I think for me it's this belief that they have "paid in" to some sort of pension fund, a big pot of money waiting to be used in future.

That doesn't exist.

Governments of different parties, voted in over the past generation, continued to spend, spend, spend, not only spending this 'pension fund' but getting us deeper and deeper into debt at the same time. At the moment we're something in the region of 26,000 in debt for every man woman and child in the UK and even with current cuts that number is growing. Most people would be horrified if they had 26,000 in debt each, or 104,000 of debt per family of four, excluding perhaps their mortgage, so why are they happy to have the whole country owe that?

There's many ways we could deal with the pension burden.

One way would be to means test it straight away - stop paying out to those who don't need it. Again, this would be contentious as this mindset of 'I'm entitled to it' has not been removed. But it should be. The only people who should be entitled to benefit (and pensions are a benefit) are the people who need that benefit. I never saw many pensioners campaigning to save child benefit for all............

Another would be to pass laws that government is forced to save or invest national insurance contributions into a fund for future use. Take it out of their hands for general expenditure. Stop governments winning votes with popular promises of spending whilst passing the burden to the future generation. Of course this won't stop the current issue but it will ease it in future.

Pensioners, as a rule, turn out in higher numbers than other age groups to vote in elections and THAT is why no party is really willing to cut back on pensioners benefits. It's not that they believe in them, it's that they're scared to approach the subject.

Look at the free bus pass scheme for example. Where's the logic in it? Why is it a 60 year old deserves taxpayer funded travel but a 30 year old doesn't? It's nonsensical. 250 Million from the Scottish government straight into the hands of private bus companies. It's no surprise the owner of stagecoach buses donated 1,000,000 to the SNP, the policy is throwing public money at him.

I personally know well-off pensioners who leave their Audi A6 in the garage and jump on the 'free' bus to Inverness. They don't need a free bus ticket. They don't need free prescriptions. They don't need winter fuel payments. They don't need free TV licenses. But they continue to take advantage of these things, paid for by ordinary taxpayers, because they're 'entitled' to.................

I would 100% agree on the freebies you mention that are non means tested...thats plainly wrong

BetterTogether
14-Oct-15, 11:34
Can any one tell me why we cannot open new threads on the forum ??


Think it it might be just you Rob I've got a link to open new threads seemed to work ok but I didn't actually open a new thread

theone
14-Oct-15, 11:52
Those assets worth hundreds of thousands of pounds would generally be called homes, are you suggesting that anyone of pensionable age who owns their own home should be treated differently to those who live in a council house. If you've worked hard and own a four bedroom house why should you be treated differently to someone who rents a 4 bedroom house from the council.


I never said, nor intended to say homes. I'm speaking about pensioners with shares, endowments, annuities.

Why should they receive benefits from the taxpayer when they don't need them?


There are a huge amount of pensioners living in properties they own but still have very limited lifestyles due to their pensions. You like to point the finger at pensioners with hundreds of thousands pounds while ignoring that the vast majority don't have those kind of liquid assets.

Indeed, they are in the minority. But is that any reason to give them 600 a month from the taxpayer?


Most final salary pensions are from ex public employees a small percentage are private sector but the reality is private sector final salary pensions all stopped decades ago when they became unsustainable.

The public sector has carried on lavishing out this type of pension with little or no regard to what's been going on in the private sector so in that particular section of society you'd probably be better off blaming the unions who have represented those workers and ensured their benefits haven't been affected as society has progressed.

Indeed.

So why should people getting large, taxpayer funded, final salary pensions ALSO receive the state pension, also from the taxpayer, regardless of need?


There's nothing wrong with reforming certain parts of the benefits system to ensure they aren't abused and do the job intended but in Scotland scrapping free prescriptions and lifting the freeze on council tax would be a good step forward to easing financial pressures on the system but those wouldn't be popular and lose votes.

Indeed.

But I don't understand why you are so willing to make other benefits means tested.

Why should everyone receive one benefit based only on their income but get another without question?

People need pensions. People need houses.

If you believe everyone should get a pension from the government, do you also believe everyone should get housing benefit?

Of course not - so what's the difference?



Funny how this thread started out as an outrage that a conservative think tank has considered cutting some benefits and turned into a conservative defending pensions while and SNP voter demands they be.

I've never voted SNP.

rob murray
14-Oct-15, 11:53
Think it it might be just you Rob I've got a link to open new threads seemed to work ok but I didn't actually open a new thread

Its there now !!! UNless it always was and Im to stupid to see it lol lol lol

BetterTogether
14-Oct-15, 12:10
Its there now !!! UNless it always was and Im to stupid to see it lol lol lol

No comment :eek:

theone
14-Oct-15, 12:10
I would 100% agree on the freebies you mention that are non means tested...thats plainly wrong

That's great Rob.

But there's no freebies. Somebody has to pay.

If I've got to pay tax to fund benefits, I only want my money spent on those who really need it.

Pensions are no different.

A well off 65 year old doesn't need, nor deserve, 600 a month of my tax money any more than a well off 64 year old.

BetterTogether
14-Oct-15, 12:22
I never said, nor intended to say homes. I'm speaking about pensioners with shares, endowments, annuities.

Why should they receive benefits from the taxpayer when they don't need them?



Indeed, they are in the minority. But is that any reason to give them 600 a month from the taxpayer?



Indeed.

So why should people getting large, taxpayer funded, final salary pensions ALSO receive the state pension, also from the taxpayer, regardless of need?



Indeed.

But I don't understand why you are so willing to make other benefits means tested.

Why should everyone receive one benefit based only on their income but get another without question?

People need pensions. People need houses.

If you believe everyone should get a pension from the government, do you also believe everyone should get housing benefit?

Of course not - so what's the difference?



I've never voted SNP.


Ive no problems with means testing all benefits if you don't need them and have a reasonable income then I see no reason to lavish public money on you.

If a pensioner has shares, endowments and annuities then they count as income and are taxed accordingly contrary to popular opinion pensioners who go above the tax threshold pay tax, so they are still contributing back to the system.

It is only those who fall below the tax threshold that pay nothing.

What you are suggesting is that people who have paid to enjoy a higher standard of living in old age now be penalised for being frugal in earlier years while those who couldn't or didn't get the same from governement.

I have no problem with those who have always received a lower wage getting a state pension but you can't then remove any benefit from people who have invested into the same system and paid more in tax and national insurance all their working lives being penalised you then remove any reason for them to make provision for themselves.

When it comes to public service pensions I believe they should go to the private markets and buy and invest in their own pensions not rely on enhanced schemes supplied by the public purse.

There is no reason to keep public servants having final salary pensions which aren't available to the wider population.

rob murray
14-Oct-15, 12:50
No comment :eek:

Its off again, bottom right says I cant make new posts as BB code is on

theone
14-Oct-15, 12:52
Ive no problems with means testing all benefits if you don't need them and have a reasonable income then I see no reason to lavish public money on you.

If a pensioner has shares, endowments and annuities then they count as income and are taxed accordingly contrary to popular opinion pensioners who go above the tax threshold pay tax, so they are still contributing back to the system.

It is only those who fall below the tax threshold that pay nothing.

What you are suggesting is that people who have paid to enjoy a higher standard of living in old age now be penalised for being frugal in earlier years while those who couldn't or didn't get the same from governement.

I have no problem with those who have always received a lower wage getting a state pension but you can't then remove any benefit from people who have invested into the same system and paid more in tax and national insurance all their working lives being penalised you then remove any reason for them to make provision for themselves.

When it comes to public service pensions I believe they should go to the private markets and buy and invest in their own pensions not rely on enhanced schemes supplied by the public purse.

There is no reason to keep public servants having final salary pensions which aren't available to the wider population.

So we agree to means testing state pension.

Good.

I'm not saying we should stop pensions tomorrow, leaving those who have planned for years for that income.

But we should be starting to phase it out now.

We're up to our necks in debt and need to cut costs.

Public money handed out willy nilly to those who don't need it is a good place to start. Nobody should receive public money solely because of their age.

rob murray
14-Oct-15, 13:56
So we agree to means testing state pension.

Good.

I'm not saying we should stop pensions tomorrow, leaving those who have planned for years for that income.

But we should be starting to phase it out now.

We're up to our necks in debt and need to cut costs.

Public money handed out willy nilly to those who don't need it is a good place to start. Nobody should receive public money solely because of their age.

Yep, why pay non means tested "services" to people on the basis of age ( free bus passes etc ) all that malarkey should be means tested...but come on....who ran the debt up...not the tax / NI payers directly, it werent me guv so why should I suffer, they took my dosh I cant stop them doing that ? .....sure public sector pensions need drastically over hauled as thats what is dragging us down.

BetterTogether
14-Oct-15, 14:44
So we agree to means testing state pension.

Good.

I'm not saying we should stop pensions tomorrow, leaving those who have planned for years for that income.

But we should be starting to phase it out now.

We're up to our necks in debt and need to cut costs.

Public money handed out willy nilly to those who don't need it is a good place to start. Nobody should receive public money solely because of their age.
I agree it's time we means tested all benefits across all sectors and need to change the view of relative poverty. You're either living in poverty or you're not, claiming to be in relative poverty is just a term bandied about by a certain section wanting to see unlimited benefits and their jobs usually public or third sector secured.

rob murray
14-Oct-15, 14:55
I agree it's time we means tested all benefits across all sectors and need to change the view of relative poverty. You're either living in poverty or you're not, claiming to be in relative poverty is just a term bandied about by a certain section wanting to see unlimited benefits and their jobs usually public or third sector secured.



What in your opinion is relative poverty.....just asking like ?

BetterTogether
14-Oct-15, 15:46
Well Rob if I was living in an area surrounded by Multi Millionaires and earning 50k a year one could argue that I was relatively living in poverty compared to them, I fully accept that's a somewhat flippant example but was used purely to show how flexible the term is. The term is used as relative to the average in this nation so in reality we have no one living in absolute poverty which is a totally different concept as I'm sure you'd agree.

rob murray
14-Oct-15, 16:13
Well Rob if I was living in an area surrounded by Multi Millionaires and earning 50k a year one could argue that I was relatively living in poverty compared to them, I fully accept that's a somewhat flippant example but was used purely to show how flexible the term is. The term is used as relative to the average in this nation so in reality we have no one living in absolute poverty which is a totally different concept as I'm sure you'd agree.

To me absolute poverty is being homeless, living on the streets, with no benefit / dole money, raking in bins for food, and living on yer wits to survive. Thats absolute, relative poverty.....where do you start or end ?? Found below on The Poverty site

Relative poverty refers to a standard which is defined in terms of the society in which an individual lives and which therefore differs between countries and over time. An income-related example would be living on less than X% of average UK income.

rob murray
14-Oct-15, 16:14
Well Rob if I was living in an area surrounded by Multi Millionaires and earning 50k a year one could argue that I was relatively living in poverty compared to them, I fully accept that's a somewhat flippant example but was used purely to show how flexible the term is. The term is used as relative to the average in this nation so in reality we have no one living in absolute poverty which is a totally different concept as I'm sure you'd agree.

Thats me !!! Im surrounded by Ross shire millionaires, so Im in poverty ( comparitive poverty )

BetterTogether
14-Oct-15, 16:23
To me absolute poverty is being homeless, living on the streets, with no benefit / dole money, raking in bins for food, and living on yer wits to survive. Thats absolute, relative poverty.....where do you start or end ?? Found below on The Poverty site

Relative poverty refers to a standard which is defined in terms of the society in which an individual lives and which therefore differs between countries and over time. An income-related example would be living on less than X% of average UK income.

There you go farcical if it wasn't take so seriously, by that theory despite the whole nation getting wealthier you will always have relative poverty it's a self fulfilling prophecy each generation believing despite having nice warm homes,good food,plasma TVs, computers and satellite and the latest Nike trainers they are living in poverty.


Thats me !!! Im surrounded by Ross shire millionaires, so Im in poverty ( comparitive poverty )
i truly feel for you.

rob murray
14-Oct-15, 16:33
There you go farcical if it wasn't take so seriously, by that theory despite the whole nation getting wealthier you will always have relative poverty it's a self fulfilling prophecy each generation believing despite having nice warm homes,good food,plasma TVs, computers and satellite and the latest Nike trainers they are living in poverty.


i truly feel for you.

Isnt it just !!!! Thanks for the sympathy vote its heart breaking to be surrounded by top of the range mercs......................

BetterTogether
14-Oct-15, 16:48
Isnt it just !!!! Thanks for the sympathy vote its heart breaking to be surrounded by top of the range mercs......................

i suppose you find yourself ground down by the capitalist oppression and only able to afford an Audi as you scrape by

rob murray
14-Oct-15, 16:51
i suppose you find yourself ground down by the capitalist oppression and only able to afford an Audi as you scrape by

Nope we are all capitalists and Ive a passatt................................used to have an Audi though, pretty crap car as it turned out, loads of problems, passatt touch wood fine !

BetterTogether
15-Oct-15, 10:14
Oh ! You drive a VW Passat would this be a picture of you by any chance ?

rob murray
15-Oct-15, 11:38
Oh ! You drive a VW Passat would this be a picture of you by any chance ?

Yep thats me, a good photo eh !!!! Got a letter in yesterday from VW offering re assurances and when theyre ready free remedy for the emission issue !!!

BetterTogether
15-Oct-15, 15:22
So it's carry on polluting !

rob murray
15-Oct-15, 16:02
So it's carry on polluting !

ARe you implying that VW garage sold me a car with higher than advertised emmissions....surely thats fraudulent misrepresentation....

BetterTogether
15-Oct-15, 16:34
I miss my days of company cardom. Pick it off a list, no servicing charges,no depreciation, changed every 3 yrs and no fuel worries stick it all on the company card. Life was easy back then

Fulmar
15-Oct-15, 19:41
I miss my days of company cardom. Pick it off a list, no servicing charges,no depreciation, changed every 3 yrs and no fuel worries stick it all on the company card. Life was easy back then

Shhh.....You'd better keep this one quiet. Weezer will have an absolute fit!

BetterTogether
15-Oct-15, 22:24
Shhh.....You'd better keep this one quiet. Weezer will have an absolute fit!


Oh crikey you're right he'd be apoplectic if I mentioned it was Mercedes 300.:lol:

Mind with the amount of tax and N.I I was paying at the time I feel no shame.

rob murray
16-Oct-15, 08:59
Oh crikey you're right he'd be apoplectic if I mentioned it was Mercedes 300.:lol:

Mind with the amount of tax and N.I I was paying at the time I feel no shame.

If your emplyer allocates a company car to you its for business use.... you know........... to help progress the business and its a taxable benefir in kind so more taxes paid to prop up the system

Redsnapper
16-Oct-15, 12:50
And while we sit here complaining about whats happening at the bottom of the food chain those at the top have squirelled another few million into their pension pots.

rob murray
16-Oct-15, 13:44
Oh crikey you're right he'd be apoplectic if I mentioned it was Mercedes 300.:lol:

Mind with the amount of tax and N.I I was paying at the time I feel no shame.

Shame for what....that your ex employer awarded you a company car so as to progress business and cars given are meant to represent the status of the business and input of employee..or we would all be driving 10 year old company skodas..... ????? MIllions have company cars.......

Fulmar
17-Oct-15, 08:59
Shame for what....that your ex employer awarded you a company car so as to progress business and cars given are meant to represent the status of the business and input of employee..or we would all be driving 10 year old company skodas..... ????? MIllions have company cars.......
Yes, I know. It was meant to be mildly funny rather than strictly accurate. It is nice to sometimes have some humour on here.