Pensioners up next on the Government hit list?

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Pensioners up next on the Government hit list?

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 4 of 8 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >

silvertop Portishead 05 Oct 15 11.24am
Quote Hoof Hearted at 05 Oct 2015 11.16am Quote aquickgame2 at 05 Oct 2015 11.14am Quote susmik at 05 Oct 2015 10.55am Quote matt_himself at 05 Oct 2015 9.35am Quote Kermit8 at 05 Oct 2015 7.25am [Link] 1) "because they might die before the next election so can't vote." 2) "because they will probably forget who did it to them" What a delightful group. What an unintelligent post. Pensioners are the richest age group in the country. Benefits are universal and not means tested, as a result the poorest pensioners get the same as those who go on regular cruises. The fact is that that universal benefits for pensioners is not fair. The system needs reviewing and change. I suppose then that all the public service workers are OK to get their gold plated pensions when they retire? I am not alone on these boards as a "fully paid up" pensioner. We had our rough times in our youth and had to fight to get a mortgage and a job but we did it instead of just bleating about hard done we were. We did not have all the technology that is around today and we still brought up our children in a decent manner. If more youngsters and some older people got off their fat behinds and actually went out looking they would find a job and start like we had to.... from the bottom rung!! Now this is a real spot bollock Definitely hits the spot! With Matt on this one; save that there are many pensioners in poverty. The issue is not one of taking money away; it is one of not giving to those who are wealthy and channelling resources to those who actually need it. Universal benefits to the elderly is just one of the sacred post war cows that needs to be gently led to the knacker's yard.
Alert a moderator to this post

silvertop

Portishead 05 Oct 15 11.24am

Quote Hoof Hearted at 05 Oct 2015 11.16am

Quote aquickgame2 at 05 Oct 2015 11.14am

Quote susmik at 05 Oct 2015 10.55am

Quote matt_himself at 05 Oct 2015 9.35am

Quote Kermit8 at 05 Oct 2015 7.25am

[Link]

1) "because they might die before the next election so can't vote."

2) "because they will probably forget who did it to them"

What a delightful group.

What an unintelligent post.

Pensioners are the richest age group in the country. Benefits are universal and not means tested, as a result the poorest pensioners get the same as those who go on regular cruises.

The fact is that that universal benefits for pensioners is not fair. The system needs reviewing and change.

I suppose then that all the public service workers are OK to get their gold plated pensions when they retire?
I am not alone on these boards as a "fully paid up" pensioner. We had our rough times in our youth and had to fight to get a mortgage and a job but we did it instead of just bleating about hard done we were. We did not have all the technology that is around today and we still brought up our children in a decent manner. If more youngsters and some older people got off their fat behinds and actually went out looking they would find a job and start like we had to.... from the bottom rung!!

Now this is a real spot bollock

Definitely hits the spot!

With Matt on this one; save that there are many pensioners in poverty. The issue is not one of taking money away; it is one of not giving to those who are wealthy and channelling resources to those who actually need it. Universal benefits to the elderly is just one of the sacred post war cows that needs to be gently led to the knacker's yard.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hoof Hearted 05 Oct 15 11.29am
Quote silvertop at 05 Oct 2015 11.24am Quote Hoof Hearted at 05 Oct 2015 11.16am Quote aquickgame2 at 05 Oct 2015 11.14am Quote susmik at 05 Oct 2015 10.55am Quote matt_himself at 05 Oct 2015 9.35am Quote Kermit8 at 05 Oct 2015 7.25am [Link] 1) "because they might die before the next election so can't vote." 2) "because they will probably forget who did it to them" What a delightful group. What an unintelligent post. Pensioners are the richest age group in the country. Benefits are universal and not means tested, as a result the poorest pensioners get the same as those who go on regular cruises. The fact is that that universal benefits for pensioners is not fair. The system needs reviewing and change. I suppose then that all the public service workers are OK to get their gold plated pensions when they retire? I am not alone on these boards as a "fully paid up" pensioner. We had our rough times in our youth and had to fight to get a mortgage and a job but we did it instead of just bleating about hard done we were. We did not have all the technology that is around today and we still brought up our children in a decent manner. If more youngsters and some older people got off their fat behinds and actually went out looking they would find a job and start like we had to.... from the bottom rung!! Now this is a real spot bollock Definitely hits the spot! With Matt on this one; save that there are many pensioners in poverty. The issue is not one of taking money away; it is one of not giving to those who are wealthy and channelling resources to those who actually need it. Universal benefits to the elderly is just one of the sacred post war cows that needs to be gently led to the knacker's yard. As long as Public Sector pensions are led to the knacker's yard at the same time.
Alert a moderator to this post

Hoof Hearted 05 Oct 15 11.29am

Quote silvertop at 05 Oct 2015 11.24am

Quote Hoof Hearted at 05 Oct 2015 11.16am

Quote aquickgame2 at 05 Oct 2015 11.14am

Quote susmik at 05 Oct 2015 10.55am

Quote matt_himself at 05 Oct 2015 9.35am

Quote Kermit8 at 05 Oct 2015 7.25am

[Link]

1) "because they might die before the next election so can't vote."

2) "because they will probably forget who did it to them"

What a delightful group.

What an unintelligent post.

Pensioners are the richest age group in the country. Benefits are universal and not means tested, as a result the poorest pensioners get the same as those who go on regular cruises.

The fact is that that universal benefits for pensioners is not fair. The system needs reviewing and change.

Now this is a real spot bollock

Definitely hits the spot!

As long as Public Sector pensions are led to the knacker's yard at the same time.

Alert a moderator to this post

DanH SW2 05 Oct 15 11.34am
Let's just get rid of everyone over the age of 60.
Alert a moderator to this post

DanH

SW2 05 Oct 15 11.34am

Let's just get rid of everyone over the age of 60.

Alert a moderator to this post

Hoof Hearted 05 Oct 15 11.37am
Quote DanH at 05 Oct 2015 11.34am Let's just get rid of everyone over the age of 60. Even Joanna Lumley Dan?
Alert a moderator to this post

Hoof Hearted 05 Oct 15 11.37am

Quote DanH at 05 Oct 2015 11.34am

Let's just get rid of everyone over the age of 60.

Even Joanna Lumley Dan?

Alert a moderator to this post

Midlands Eagle 05 Oct 15 11.39am
Quote DanH at 05 Oct 2015 11.34am Let's just get rid of everyone over the age of 60. There wouldn't be many left on this forum if you did
Alert a moderator to this post

Midlands Eagle

05 Oct 15 11.39am

Send a Private Message to Midlands Eagle

Quote DanH at 05 Oct 2015 11.34am

Let's just get rid of everyone over the age of 60.

There wouldn't be many left on this forum if you did

Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8 Hevon 05 Oct 15 11.43am
Quote DanH at 05 Oct 2015 11.34am Let's just get rid of everyone over the age of 60. You might be on to something. Hyde in Greater Manchester does have a remarkably low pension cost still and no housing issues. Big chest and massive boobs [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Kermit8

Hevon 05 Oct 15 11.43am

Quote DanH at 05 Oct 2015 11.34am

Let's just get rid of everyone over the age of 60.

You might be on to something. Hyde in Greater Manchester does have a remarkably low pension cost still and no housing issues.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Lyons550 Shirley 05 Oct 15 11.47am
Why are we paying pensions so early in life anyway? Under the Pension reform in 1908 a pension of 5 shillings (£0.25p) was given to those over 70 whose annual means do not exceed £31.50. Now bearing in mind that the average age at the turn of the 19th century was 47 for men and 50 for women; if we were to apply the same principles to todays avg ages of 79 for men and 83 for women, we wouldn't expect to see a pension until 102-103! [Link] [Link] Edited by Lyons550 (05 Oct 2015 11.48am) The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World
Alert a moderator to this post

Lyons550

Shirley 05 Oct 15 11.47am

Why are we paying pensions so early in life anyway?

Under the Pension reform in 1908 a pension of 5 shillings (£0.25p) was given to those over 70 whose annual means do not exceed £31.50.

Now bearing in mind that the average age at the turn of the 19th century was 47 for men and 50 for women; if we were to apply the same principles to todays avg ages of 79 for men and 83 for women, we wouldn't expect to see a pension until 102-103!

[Link]
[Link]

Edited by Lyons550 (05 Oct 2015 11.48am)

The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World

Alert a moderator to this post

npn Crowborough 05 Oct 15 11.56am
Quote silvertop at 05 Oct 2015 11.18am Quote Catfish at 05 Oct 2015 9.05am It appears to be OK to means test pensioners for benefits but also OK to tax them on their property "wealth" whether or not they have the ability to pay. The Tories look set to take on that Lib Dem idea which will mean a person who has an expensive house but little income will be forced to sell up. Good. One elderly lady/man living in a 5 bed house with families trying to get on the market but out priced because of the lack of supply. If it means they sensibly downsize I approve. For the benefit of any doubt, you can flush that sentimental tripe about a house they have lived in all their lives, inheritance for their kids etc. In terms of familiarity, I am aware this will be a shock; however, one more family getting a family house outweighs that point. And as to inheritance, if they had any regard for their kids, they would give them their house. Isn't that precisely what the much hated "bedroom tax" does though? Yet many on the left think that's a disgraceful piece of legislation
Alert a moderator to this post

npn

Crowborough 05 Oct 15 11.56am

Quote silvertop at 05 Oct 2015 11.18am

Quote Catfish at 05 Oct 2015 9.05am

It appears to be OK to means test pensioners for benefits but also OK to tax them on their property "wealth" whether or not they have the ability to pay. The Tories look set to take on that Lib Dem idea which will mean a person who has an expensive house but little income will be forced to sell up.

Good. One elderly lady/man living in a 5 bed house with families trying to get on the market but out priced because of the lack of supply.

If it means they sensibly downsize I approve. For the benefit of any doubt, you can flush that sentimental tripe about a house they have lived in all their lives, inheritance for their kids etc. In terms of familiarity, I am aware this will be a shock; however, one more family getting a family house outweighs that point. And as to inheritance, if they had any regard for their kids, they would give them their house.

Isn't that precisely what the much hated "bedroom tax" does though? Yet many on the left think that's a disgraceful piece of legislation

Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree Croydon 05 Oct 15 12.39pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 05 Oct 2015 11.29am Quote silvertop at 05 Oct 2015 11.24am Quote Hoof Hearted at 05 Oct 2015 11.16am Quote aquickgame2 at 05 Oct 2015 11.14am Quote susmik at 05 Oct 2015 10.55am Quote matt_himself at 05 Oct 2015 9.35am Quote Kermit8 at 05 Oct 2015 7.25am [Link] 1) "because they might die before the next election so can't vote." 2) "because they will probably forget who did it to them" What a delightful group. What an unintelligent post. Pensioners are the richest age group in the country. Benefits are universal and not means tested, as a result the poorest pensioners get the same as those who go on regular cruises. The fact is that that universal benefits for pensioners is not fair. The system needs reviewing and change. I suppose then that all the public service workers are OK to get their gold plated pensions when they retire? I am not alone on these boards as a "fully paid up" pensioner. We had our rough times in our youth and had to fight to get a mortgage and a job but we did it instead of just bleating about hard done we were. We did not have all the technology that is around today and we still brought up our children in a decent manner. If more youngsters and some older people got off their fat behinds and actually went out looking they would find a job and start like we had to.... from the bottom rung!! Now this is a real spot bollock Definitely hits the spot! With Matt on this one; save that there are many pensioners in poverty. The issue is not one of taking money away; it is one of not giving to those who are wealthy and channelling resources to those who actually need it. Universal benefits to the elderly is just one of the sacred post war cows that needs to be gently led to the knacker's yard. As long as Public Sector pensions are led to the knacker's yard at the same time. Agree with that. At least they are moving to average salary I believe, I guess you would know better than I.
Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree

Croydon 05 Oct 15 12.39pm

Quote Hoof Hearted at 05 Oct 2015 11.29am

Quote silvertop at 05 Oct 2015 11.24am

Quote Hoof Hearted at 05 Oct 2015 11.16am

Quote aquickgame2 at 05 Oct 2015 11.14am

Quote susmik at 05 Oct 2015 10.55am

Quote matt_himself at 05 Oct 2015 9.35am

Quote Kermit8 at 05 Oct 2015 7.25am

[Link]

1) "because they might die before the next election so can't vote."

2) "because they will probably forget who did it to them"

What a delightful group.

What an unintelligent post.

Pensioners are the richest age group in the country. Benefits are universal and not means tested, as a result the poorest pensioners get the same as those who go on regular cruises.

The fact is that that universal benefits for pensioners is not fair. The system needs reviewing and change.

Now this is a real spot bollock

Definitely hits the spot!

As long as Public Sector pensions are led to the knacker's yard at the same time.

Agree with that. At least they are moving to average salary I believe, I guess you would know better than I.

Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle Croydon 05 Oct 15 12.59pm
What about the under-10s? Cost the tax-payer a fortune in child allowance, are a constant drain on their parents' resources and they don't do a stroke of work. At least, in the good old days, you could stuff them up chimneys. mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler
Alert a moderator to this post

leggedstruggle

Croydon 05 Oct 15 12.59pm

What about the under-10s? Cost the tax-payer a fortune in child allowance, are a constant drain on their parents' resources and they don't do a stroke of work. At least, in the good old days, you could stuff them up chimneys.

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 05 Oct 15 1.07pm
Quote Lyons550 at 05 Oct 2015 11.47am Why are we paying pensions so early in life anyway? Under the Pension reform in 1908 a pension of 5 shillings (£0.25p) was given to those over 70 whose annual means do not exceed £31.50. Now bearing in mind that the average age at the turn of the 19th century was 47 for men and 50 for women; if we were to apply the same principles to todays avg ages of 79 for men and 83 for women, we wouldn't expect to see a pension until 102-103! [Link] [Link] Edited by Lyons550 (05 Oct 2015 11.48am) I suspect it had something to do with 'not wanting to upset a core demographic of voters - i.e. the upper working class and middle classes' during the 80s and 90s, who are now approaching their pension age. After all these were the housing boom's biggest benefactors - We seem, as a nation to have been very keen on keeping them very happy, even if it means generations of people unable to afford a home. But it does seem a bit unfair that they're now singled out as a 'disposable vote', so that they Conservatives can presumably make more appeal to the Upper working class and middle classes (note that New Labour did nothing either - its not a tory slate). Its an odd thing that anyone earning over 30k a year should be able to claim any kind of welfare benefit 'by default', in the same way that maybe someone can earn a '960,000' bonus for just doing their job. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 05 Oct 15 1.07pm

Quote Lyons550 at 05 Oct 2015 11.47am

Why are we paying pensions so early in life anyway?

Under the Pension reform in 1908 a pension of 5 shillings (£0.25p) was given to those over 70 whose annual means do not exceed £31.50.

[Link]
[Link]

Edited by Lyons550 (05 Oct 2015 11.48am)

I suspect it had something to do with 'not wanting to upset a core demographic of voters - i.e. the upper working class and middle classes' during the 80s and 90s, who are now approaching their pension age. After all these were the housing boom's biggest benefactors - We seem, as a nation to have been very keen on keeping them very happy, even if it means generations of people unable to afford a home. But it does seem a bit unfair that they're now singled out as a 'disposable vote', so that they Conservatives can presumably make more appeal to the Upper working class and middle classes (note that New Labour did nothing either - its not a tory slate).

Its an odd thing that anyone earning over 30k a year should be able to claim any kind of welfare benefit 'by default', in the same way that maybe someone can earn a '960,000' bonus for just doing their job.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721 Reading 05 Oct 15 1.12pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 05 Oct 2015 12.59pm What about the under-10s? Cost the tax-payer a fortune in child allowance, are a constant drain on their parents' resources and they don't do a stroke of work. At least, in the good old days, you could stuff them up chimneys. Your fed up with them. I don't even have kids and am funding them to receive a second rate education and to keep their mothers in gin; when they're not getting knocked up again by fathers who clearly lack the IQ to roll on a condom - Are these the people we want raising our nations children, those incapable of actually how birth control works. Then when they go and get sick I have to pay to heal them. Selfish society in operation. Kids, they're like heroin, but more expensive, time consuming and less enjoyable. Plus its easier to get off the junk than get rid of your kids. "One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

jamiemartin721

Reading 05 Oct 15 1.12pm

Quote leggedstruggle at 05 Oct 2015 12.59pm

Your fed up with them. I don't even have kids and am funding them to receive a second rate education and to keep their mothers in gin; when they're not getting knocked up again by fathers who clearly lack the IQ to roll on a condom - Are these the people we want raising our nations children, those incapable of actually how birth control works. Then when they go and get sick I have to pay to heal them.

Selfish society in operation. Kids, they're like heroin, but more expensive, time consuming and less enjoyable. Plus its easier to get off the junk than get rid of your kids.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 4 of 8 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Pensioners up next on the Government hit list?

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors