Pensioners up next on the Government hit list?
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
jamiemartin721  Reading 05 Oct 15 1.13pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote DanH at 05 Oct 2015 11.34am
Let's just get rid of everyone over the age of 60. Logan's Run style or Gladiator style.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
 Mapletree Croydon 05 Oct 15 1.19pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 05 Oct 2015 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!
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. The bigger issue now is the lack of housing stock in London. The Government must have determined this is a bigger voter issue than keeping this group happy. Maybe they should also put in place better equity release schemes so that the surplus value in housing can be used towards a comfortable retirement. Seems fair, you keep your house but in the end you don't pass on all the value, given you have excess value that is holding back the economy by not being realisable.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| Mapletree Croydon 05 Oct 15 1.24pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 05 Oct 2015 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.
Britain still has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in Western Europe despite being one of the world's biggest users of contraceptives. So basically we are a nation of shaggers.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 05 Oct 15 1.31pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Mapletree at 05 Oct 2015 1.19pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 05 Oct 2015 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!
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. The bigger issue now is the lack of housing stock in London. The Government must have determined this is a bigger voter issue than keeping this group happy. Maybe they should also put in place better equity release schemes so that the surplus value in housing can be used towards a comfortable retirement. Seems fair, you keep your house but in the end you don't pass on all the value, given you have excess value that is holding back the economy by not being realisable. Not just London. The South East. We have the same problems with affordable housing and rent as London in most areas that are vaguely feasible to commute from. Even places further afield such as Winchester (and f**king Basingstoke) property and rental prices are eye wateringly high to the point of 'wtf'. And if you think London is bad, try the really nice areas out side of London that are commutable. My parents bought an ex-council house in 1983, on an estate, for 35k, that now you'd be bitting the sellers hand off for a 400k. As it stands, you have to sell property to contribute towards care housing, if you have it (and the cost of that care is extortionately high, like 600-800 per week). Although I think there was legislation to end that. For a lot of people I suspect their only real hope of having somewhere decent to live, and own, is via inheritance, or a phenomenal career.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 05 Oct 15 1.39pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Mapletree at 05 Oct 2015 1.24pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 05 Oct 2015 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.
Britain still has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in Western Europe despite being one of the world's biggest users of contraceptives. So basically we are a nation of shaggers. Sounds about right. All teenagers should be forced to take birth control by injection every month. Male and female, until they're 25. Teens are idiots, who can't handle their booze or drugs and are raging with hormones. You just can't trust them not to do something stupid. Number of friends I knew who generally considered contraception to be thinking 'it'll be alright' was frightening.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stuk Top half 05 Oct 15 1.44pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Don't means test anything, just give all pensioners a decent weekly pension, with no extras and charge tax and NI to anyone meeting the applicable thresholds. Leave people who are in property they own to do as they want, so long as they can afford the council tax on it.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| dannyh wherever I lay my hat....... 05 Oct 15 1.52pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote Hoof Hearted at 05 Oct 2015 10.05am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 05 Oct 2015 9.49am
Quote Mapletree at 05 Oct 2015 9.33am
Protected, cossetted group sitting fat and happy on final salary pension schemes that they didn't pay nearly enough for and massive housing equity growth. In the very pleasant position of being able to dole out their largesse to the coming generation as they see fit, maintaining control over them. And they can avoid inheritance tax if they do that too. I see no reason they should get special treatment either way but I would err on the side of redistribution of wealth rather than giving them free bus journeys and fuel benefits without means testing. I actually fail to see why they are exempt from National Insurance payments (even when they are still working), they take so much out of the system it's hard to understand why they should consider that they have 'already paid their dues'. The politic of envy.
I agree with others who quite rightly call for a review of pensioner benefits to be means tested. I will not be a pensioner for another 6 years by then I expect fee bus passes to have gone, but I wouldn't have applied for one anyway as I can transport myself. Exactly Hoof, when and where did this sense of entitlement come from ? "i worked in Mcdonalds for 40 years therefore i deserve to live in a castle when I die is the latest battle cry of the great unwashed No you bloody don't. You provide for your own future, why should the Current crop of working tax payers pay for your living allowances ? Means testing is the only way to do it.
"It's not the bullet that's got my name on it that concerns me; it's all them other ones flyin' around marked 'To Whom It May Concern.'" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 05 Oct 15 2.28pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 05 Oct 2015 1.31pm
Quote Mapletree at 05 Oct 2015 1.19pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 05 Oct 2015 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!
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. The bigger issue now is the lack of housing stock in London. The Government must have determined this is a bigger voter issue than keeping this group happy. Maybe they should also put in place better equity release schemes so that the surplus value in housing can be used towards a comfortable retirement. Seems fair, you keep your house but in the end you don't pass on all the value, given you have excess value that is holding back the economy by not being realisable. Not just London. The South East. We have the same problems with affordable housing and rent as London in most areas that are vaguely feasible to commute from. Even places further afield such as Winchester (and f**king Basingstoke) property and rental prices are eye wateringly high to the point of 'wtf'. And if you think London is bad, try the really nice areas out side of London that are commutable. My parents bought an ex-council house in 1983, on an estate, for 35k, that now you'd be bitting the sellers hand off for a 400k. As it stands, you have to sell property to contribute towards care housing, if you have it (and the cost of that care is extortionately high, like 600-800 per week). Although I think there was legislation to end that. For a lot of people I suspect their only real hope of having somewhere decent to live, and own, is via inheritance, or a phenomenal career. Thanks goodness for mass-immigration though eh? Would be so much worse without the untold benefits of it. Edited by leggedstruggle (05 Oct 2015 2.28pm)
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 05 Oct 15 2.30pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote dannyh at 05 Oct 2015 1.52pm
Quote Hoof Hearted at 05 Oct 2015 10.05am
Quote jamiemartin721 at 05 Oct 2015 9.49am
Quote Mapletree at 05 Oct 2015 9.33am
Protected, cossetted group sitting fat and happy on final salary pension schemes that they didn't pay nearly enough for and massive housing equity growth. In the very pleasant position of being able to dole out their largesse to the coming generation as they see fit, maintaining control over them. And they can avoid inheritance tax if they do that too. I see no reason they should get special treatment either way but I would err on the side of redistribution of wealth rather than giving them free bus journeys and fuel benefits without means testing. I actually fail to see why they are exempt from National Insurance payments (even when they are still working), they take so much out of the system it's hard to understand why they should consider that they have 'already paid their dues'. The politic of envy.
I agree with others who quite rightly call for a review of pensioner benefits to be means tested. I will not be a pensioner for another 6 years by then I expect fee bus passes to have gone, but I wouldn't have applied for one anyway as I can transport myself. Exactly Hoof, when and where did this sense of entitlement come from ? "i worked in Mcdonalds for 40 years therefore i deserve to live in a castle when I die is the latest battle cry of the great unwashed No you bloody don't. You provide for your own future, why should the Current crop of working tax payers pay for your living allowances ? Means testing is the only way to do it.
I think if you've worked for 40 years, and paid tax and national insurance you're entitled to a state pension, access to old age care etc because that's what you paid in for. I don't think you deserve a castle or anything special, but the way the current situation is developing, we have a generation growing up that actual seem overly entitled to demand that others receive nothing. Everyone is entitled to the basics. If I paid in NIC I've actually bought my state pension, but then successive governments seem to be hell bent on making sure they meet as few responsibilities to society as possible, and farming as much of it out to private enterprise as possible to milk. Also a lot of people are still working as pensioners to make ends meet now days, which kind of suggests that something is going a bit wrong. Realistically, I think you should be able to live out your last few years when you retire. I'd like to see means testing not as a method for making sure pensioners and people over the state age of retirement aren't s**ting themselves about the cost of buying food or putting on the heating.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 05 Oct 15 2.35pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 05 Oct 2015 2.28pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 05 Oct 2015 1.31pm
Quote Mapletree at 05 Oct 2015 1.19pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 05 Oct 2015 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!
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. The bigger issue now is the lack of housing stock in London. The Government must have determined this is a bigger voter issue than keeping this group happy. Maybe they should also put in place better equity release schemes so that the surplus value in housing can be used towards a comfortable retirement. Seems fair, you keep your house but in the end you don't pass on all the value, given you have excess value that is holding back the economy by not being realisable. Not just London. The South East. We have the same problems with affordable housing and rent as London in most areas that are vaguely feasible to commute from. Even places further afield such as Winchester (and f**king Basingstoke) property and rental prices are eye wateringly high to the point of 'wtf'. And if you think London is bad, try the really nice areas out side of London that are commutable. My parents bought an ex-council house in 1983, on an estate, for 35k, that now you'd be bitting the sellers hand off for a 400k. As it stands, you have to sell property to contribute towards care housing, if you have it (and the cost of that care is extortionately high, like 600-800 per week). Although I think there was legislation to end that. For a lot of people I suspect their only real hope of having somewhere decent to live, and own, is via inheritance, or a phenomenal career. Thanks goodness for mass-immigration though eh? Would be so much worse without the untold benefits of it. Edited by leggedstruggle (05 Oct 2015 2.28pm) In terms of pension and NIC we very well might have been. Of course its also kept a lot of people with second homes and rental property in a very comfortable position. Of course those people are driving up housing prices and rents, that has prevented the housing crisis from being resolved 'naturally' by capitalism (ie crashing) and them having to flood the market with property they can no longer afford. A lot of people in the UK benefit greatly by renting out to migrants, who otherwise would likely have been saddled with massive negative equity had the market crashed in the 'crunch'. I'm not defending that mind, or working migrants. Its just that a lot of British people directly profited from a 'demand boom' that wasn't driven by natural UK economics.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| leggedstruggle Croydon 05 Oct 15 3.13pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote jamiemartin721 at 05 Oct 2015 2.35pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 05 Oct 2015 2.28pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 05 Oct 2015 1.31pm
Quote Mapletree at 05 Oct 2015 1.19pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 05 Oct 2015 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!
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. The bigger issue now is the lack of housing stock in London. The Government must have determined this is a bigger voter issue than keeping this group happy. Maybe they should also put in place better equity release schemes so that the surplus value in housing can be used towards a comfortable retirement. Seems fair, you keep your house but in the end you don't pass on all the value, given you have excess value that is holding back the economy by not being realisable. Not just London. The South East. We have the same problems with affordable housing and rent as London in most areas that are vaguely feasible to commute from. Even places further afield such as Winchester (and f**king Basingstoke) property and rental prices are eye wateringly high to the point of 'wtf'. And if you think London is bad, try the really nice areas out side of London that are commutable. My parents bought an ex-council house in 1983, on an estate, for 35k, that now you'd be bitting the sellers hand off for a 400k. As it stands, you have to sell property to contribute towards care housing, if you have it (and the cost of that care is extortionately high, like 600-800 per week). Although I think there was legislation to end that. For a lot of people I suspect their only real hope of having somewhere decent to live, and own, is via inheritance, or a phenomenal career. Thanks goodness for mass-immigration though eh? Would be so much worse without the untold benefits of it. Edited by leggedstruggle (05 Oct 2015 2.28pm) In terms of pension and NIC we very well might have been. Of course its also kept a lot of people with second homes and rental property in a very comfortable position. Of course those people are driving up housing prices and rents, that has prevented the housing crisis from being resolved 'naturally' by capitalism (ie crashing) and them having to flood the market with property they can no longer afford. A lot of people in the UK benefit greatly by renting out to migrants, who otherwise would likely have been saddled with massive negative equity had the market crashed in the 'crunch'. I'm not defending that mind, or working migrants. Its just that a lot of British people directly profited from a 'demand boom' that wasn't driven by natural UK economics. I see, the answer to the housing crisis then is to try to get more immigration so that there are even more people requiring housing?
mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 05 Oct 15 3.18pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Quote leggedstruggle at 05 Oct 2015 3.13pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 05 Oct 2015 2.35pm
Quote leggedstruggle at 05 Oct 2015 2.28pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 05 Oct 2015 1.31pm
Quote Mapletree at 05 Oct 2015 1.19pm
Quote jamiemartin721 at 05 Oct 2015 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!
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. The bigger issue now is the lack of housing stock in London. The Government must have determined this is a bigger voter issue than keeping this group happy. Maybe they should also put in place better equity release schemes so that the surplus value in housing can be used towards a comfortable retirement. Seems fair, you keep your house but in the end you don't pass on all the value, given you have excess value that is holding back the economy by not being realisable. Not just London. The South East. We have the same problems with affordable housing and rent as London in most areas that are vaguely feasible to commute from. Even places further afield such as Winchester (and f**king Basingstoke) property and rental prices are eye wateringly high to the point of 'wtf'. And if you think London is bad, try the really nice areas out side of London that are commutable. My parents bought an ex-council house in 1983, on an estate, for 35k, that now you'd be bitting the sellers hand off for a 400k. As it stands, you have to sell property to contribute towards care housing, if you have it (and the cost of that care is extortionately high, like 600-800 per week). Although I think there was legislation to end that. For a lot of people I suspect their only real hope of having somewhere decent to live, and own, is via inheritance, or a phenomenal career. Thanks goodness for mass-immigration though eh? Would be so much worse without the untold benefits of it. Edited by leggedstruggle (05 Oct 2015 2.28pm) In terms of pension and NIC we very well might have been. Of course its also kept a lot of people with second homes and rental property in a very comfortable position. Of course those people are driving up housing prices and rents, that has prevented the housing crisis from being resolved 'naturally' by capitalism (ie crashing) and them having to flood the market with property they can no longer afford. A lot of people in the UK benefit greatly by renting out to migrants, who otherwise would likely have been saddled with massive negative equity had the market crashed in the 'crunch'. I'm not defending that mind, or working migrants. Its just that a lot of British people directly profited from a 'demand boom' that wasn't driven by natural UK economics. I see, the answer to the housing crisis then is to try to get more immigration so that there are even more people requiring housing? No, I've always been against economic migration especially the EU right to work. But the outcome of ending that, is going to be a potential crash of the housing market (which is probably necessary and should have happened a long time ago). It would have some negative aspects on 'UK Home Owners esp Landlords'. But I think it really needs to happen, and has been effectively offset for eight years or more, by the demand of EU and working migrants.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.