Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet
You'd be surprised how many working people do 'scrounge off the state' as they or their household draw more in services than they pay in taxes on an ongoing basis let alone during retirement.
Pensioners have been the only demographic to see incomes rise during this government and they and near-retirees the only demographics to see home ownership rates increase.
With an ageing population, expensive housing and a constant attack on their entitlements the young probably have quite enough to deal with for now without those people who will inevitably do as you suggest.
|
I think the workers that are 'scrounging' off the state are doing so because of:
a. The negative impacts of the minimum wage. (There is also a positive impact)
b. The 16 hour brigade encouraged by the previous government.
My parents have become pensioners in recent years, mother about 6 years ago and my father about a year ago. They are now better off financially than they have been for many years.
Whilst at my partners house over the holidays we were invited around the neighbours for a drink, we were tod not to bother bringing any because there was plenty of booze for all. It was the same story, he was on benefits not worked for 18 years and she has a part time cleaning job. Both have very recently become pensioners, he said it's great now. He no longer has the bedroom tax threat to worry about, he gets x amount for his disability, x amount pension and doesn't pay rent or council tax. We were amazed adding it up, they are most likely after tax left with about the same as a working couple wold net earning about £50k between them after paying their rent and council tax.
Now I understand why they are able to arrive home with 12 x 1 litre bottles of whiskey and nice joints of meat when they do their fortnightly shopping.
---------- Post added at 13:21 ---------- Previous post was at 13:16 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Osem
It may be a very good idea for those who'll use the money wisely and are able to provide a decent standard of living for themselves but for those who don't or fall prey to the same suits who've ripped many of us off before it could be a disaster. It may be nice to make a point by divesting yourself of all your assets and deciding to "live off the state" but I think the resulting sense of satisfaction might be very short lived as life surviving on the basics the elderly are entitled to dawns...  |
It's most likely that people have with a conscience who have saved to prepare for their future are unlikely to lose their conscience when they reach retirement age. I do wonder if it's worth it though when some have not contributed or worried about the future and are provided for by those that have.
---------- Post added at 13:23 ---------- Previous post was at 13:21 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet
Indeed - incomes have become dramatically more imbalanced at the extremes, due in no small part to the prevalence of financial services and the disproportionately high incomes received by some employed there relative to other occupations whose incomes in real terms have largely stagnated or at very least grown far more slowly in the past 30-35 years.
It's also entirely true that 40% of households do not make a contribution to the state at all, and this rises to 60% once health, education and other associated services are added to the mix. This is on a current basis and ignores the inevitable very high net receipt of state services and cash that they will have during retirement.
The idea that 'workers' are contributing to the state purely because they are working rather than 'scrounging' by not working is, sadly, quite wrong these days, and it's also interesting to note that the poorest 10% are not the biggest net recipients, but the following two deciles.
|
It's very scary when you look at those figures and then take away the figure for those who work directly or indirectly for the state.