Originally Posted by heero_yuy (Post 35113690)

Maybe it's because the pensioners actually worked all their lives to obtain that benefit rather than sitting on their fat backsides waiting for the next sprog / money machine to be dropped, with no intention of ever getting a job and contibuting to the society that they expect to bankroll them.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35113717)

Actually your point was not that the pension and JSA are 'both state provided benefits' ... your point was that the pension is 'just like JSA'.

The differences between the two are profound and varied. In fact the only real similarity is that they are both paid out of taxation.

Originally Posted by Chris (Post 35113755)

It will be seen as different, because it is different.

Originally Posted by Kymmy (Post 35114017)

I wonder how many of those having a moan about benefits/pensions would soon change their tune if we had an american system and they suddenly found through no fault of their own that they'd lost their job and couldn't get another???

I'd rather have that back-up even if I never had to use it and for others to have the same backup equal to my own even at pension age...

You know what they say if you don't like it then go elsewhere as moaning on a forum is only gonna do one thing ;)

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35114014)

One small flaw in your otherwise reasoned argument - the premise that "they then go on contribution based incapacity benefit (or ESA now days) and having paid 17 years worth of NI now claiming back due to ill health, they be considered **** and undeserving".

Please don't believe what the red-top rags print - it's not the view (imho) of the majority of the country, the red-tops would just like to think it is (and try to make it so).

Nearly everyone I know has no issues with genuine Incapacity Benefits/ESA claimants, but it is the likes of the Mail/Sun/etc who try to tar all claimants with the same brush that leads to your feelings, I believe.

Originally Posted by Chrysalis (Post 35113923)

my point was to try and make it clearer, that I said many people if not most people believe pensions to be a different class of income to any other state benefit. You then said because it is different which is exactly what I said people think.

We have contribution based pensions funded by national insurance tax, only payable to those who have paid enough NI. It is a state benefit.
We have income based pensions payable to those who have a lack of income and savings, it is a state benefit.

Pensions come under the same budget as every other benefit and make the vast bulk of the DWP budget.

Someone could be claiming JSA or IB all their life and be considered layabouts by poeple, as soon as they hit pension age they suddenly more respected and more deserving why?

Likewise someone could be working all their life and then fall ill at 35, they then go on contribution based incapacity benefit (or ESA now days) and having paid 17 years worth of NI now claiming back due to ill health, they be considered **** and undeserving but likewise someone who claims contribution based pensions has earned it. Whats the difference?

There is certianly no reason why IB(ESA) should be different from the pension rate, they both there to cover living costs for people who dont have to work. They differ tho due to political reasons.

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35114354)

And isn't that were some of the burden should be? - NI doesn't cover/fund an adequate State Pension.