Caithness Map :: Links to Site Map Paying too much for broadband? Move to PlusNet broadband and save£££s. Free setup now available - terms apply. PlusNet broadband.  
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 83

Thread: Cut pensioner benefits 'immediately'

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    2,245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cptdodger View Post
    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?
    Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; Nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.

    - Charles de Gaulle

  2. #42

    Default

    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.

  3. #43
    BetterTogether is offline Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,239

    Default

    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/ukne...0-billion.html
    Last edited by BetterTogether; 10-Oct-15 at 09:41.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Thurso
    Posts
    1,288

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by theone View Post
    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.
    There are basically 3 type of people in this world, those who can count and those who cant

  5. #45
    BetterTogether is offline Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by weezer 316 View Post
    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.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    2,245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BetterTogether View Post
    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.................
    Last edited by theone; 13-Oct-15 at 03:08.
    Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; Nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.

    - Charles de Gaulle

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Thurso
    Posts
    1,288

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BetterTogether View Post
    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.
    There are basically 3 type of people in this world, those who can count and those who cant

  8. #48
    BetterTogether is offline Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,239

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by BetterTogether; 13-Oct-15 at 14:35.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Thurso
    Posts
    1,288

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BetterTogether View Post
    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.
    There are basically 3 type of people in this world, those who can count and those who cant

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Caithness
    Posts
    893

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BetterTogether View Post
    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.

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    2,245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shabbychic View Post
    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.
    Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; Nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.

    - Charles de Gaulle

  12. #52
    BetterTogether is offline Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by theone View Post
    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.
    Last edited by BetterTogether; 14-Oct-15 at 10:36.

  13. #53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BetterTogether View Post
    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 ??

  14. #54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by theone View Post
    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

  15. #55
    BetterTogether is offline Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rob murray View Post
    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

  16. #56
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    2,245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BetterTogether View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by BetterTogether View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by BetterTogether View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by BetterTogether View Post
    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?

    Quote Originally Posted by BetterTogether View Post
    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.
    Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; Nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.

    - Charles de Gaulle

  17. #57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BetterTogether View Post
    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

  18. #58
    BetterTogether is offline Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rob murray View Post
    Its there now !!! UNless it always was and Im to stupid to see it lol lol lol
    No comment

  19. #59
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Posts
    2,245

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rob murray View Post
    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.
    Last edited by theone; 14-Oct-15 at 12:14.
    Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; Nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.

    - Charles de Gaulle

  20. #60
    BetterTogether is offline Banned (Sock Puppet of previously banned user)
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Posts
    1,239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by theone View Post
    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.

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •