The state benefits system mega-thread.

Originally Posted by Hugh

Erm, 'paid for by the tax payer'?

You must be meaning me, as my employer and I pay total NI of over £700 per month....

I will be 'sitting pretty' because I have always paid between 7 and 10% of my salary into various pensions where I worked - excuse me if I don't feel too guilty about not spending everything I earn and expecting others to foot my pension bill...

So, how are you saving for your retirement?

by awaiting the hopefully long off death of my parents

as for the rest it is still one of the biggest bills that el gov and the tax coffers pay for . Like it or not

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

what about it?

What about the growing cost as more and more people live longer and longer. As I said it is an inconvenient truth but it is still the truth.

So let me get this straight, are you saying you want those who have worked for most of there lives and put money in to be penalised and have there pension stopped or reduced whilst at the same time protecting or increasing the benefits given to those who have NEVER put any money in because they are lazy *******s that have never worked and refuse to work.

---------- Post added at 17:04 ---------- Previous post was at 17:01 ----------

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

no no no the state pension costs 74 billion a year

Means test it

Why. If i have paid in all my life because i am not a lazy ******* that has no intention of working and has never worked why should my pension be reduced to fund the lazy *******s. I tell you what as of now i agree that anyone that can work but will not work should have every penny of there benefits stopped, i bet they get a job pretty quickly then.


It ****es me off when those who have never worked and will not work because they are lazy ***** still get given benefits. Meanwhile those who work fund the lazy ***** that will not work.

These days i suffer from bad arthritis and the Doctor said i have a case to reduce my hours or not work at all. However the tramadol i get reduces the pain so i can still work WHY because i want to work.

Originally Posted by Sirius

So let me get this straight, are you saying you want those who have worked for most of there lives and put money in to be penalised and have there pension stopped or reduced whilst at the same time protecting or increasing the benefits given to those who have NEVER put any money in because they are lazy *******s that have never worked and refuse to work.

---------- Post added at 17:04 ---------- Previous post was at 17:01 ----------



Why. If i have paid in all my life because i am not a lazy ******* that has no intention of working and has never worked why should my pension be reduced to fund the lazy *******s. I tell you what as of now i agree that anyone that can work but will not work should have every penny of there benefits stopped, i bet they get a job pretty quickly then.

Yes I understand a very emotive point. However I have not and did not say any of what you said there I also have not attacked the workers over this and I totally understand your point

However the country is in the crap the economy is totally screwed and all the government are doing is chipping away at a big rock of debt with a toothpick

Now you see they are clever educated people so what they have done is manipulated the workers to react just how you just have and blaming all the shirkers for the countries woes. Dude you have been appeased. You see lots in the press about cuts and cutting back on those you think are just lazy when it actually is not achieving anything

As I have said the total ESA and JSA bills together is less than the foreign aid
yet the State pension costs 6 times as much as the aid bill and it is only going to go up and the estimate is 120 billion a year in 20 or 30 years

Now if you Hugh Barney McGrew think that is sustainable by the tiny little meaningless cuts that have you slathering at the bit after the unemployed blood then you be deluded old buddy

[Osem]

@ Sirius: Well that's fair isn't it? I mean why shouldn't folks, who could work but choose not to or decide they want loads of kids they can't afford, just expect to be provided for by the rest of society? If people have paid tax and saved all their lives why shouldn't they have to pay a bit more to support those who would rather sit around whining all day than go out and get a job?

It's not achieving nothing. These are structural changes, intended, in part, to change the national attitude to benefit. Ending the culture of welfarism now will result in lower benefit bills in the longer term.

Originally Posted by Osem

@ Sirius: Well that's fair isn't it? I mean why shouldn't folks, who could work but choose not to or decide they want loads of kids they can't afford, just expect to be provided for by the rest of society? If people have paid tax and saved all their lives why shouldn't they have to pay a bit more to support those who would rather sit around whining all day than go out and get a job?

Another one totally brainwashed by the propaganda.

The unemployed are not actually costing you that much in comparison to what other things

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

Yes I understand a very emotive point. However I have not and did not say any of what you said there I also have not attacked the workers over this and I totally understand your point

However the country is in the crap the economy is totally screwed and all the government are doing is chipping away at a big rock of debt with a toothpick

Now you see they are clever educated people so what they have done is manipulated the workers to react just how you just have and blaming all the shirkers for the countries woes. Dude you have been appeased. You see lots in the press about cuts and cutting back on those you think are just lazy when it actually is not achieving anything

As I have said the total ESA and JSA bills together is less than the foreign aid
yet the State pension costs 6 times as much as the aid bill and it is only going to go up and the estimate is 120 billion a year in 20 or 30 years

Now if you Hugh Barney McGrew think that is sustainable by the tiny little meaningless cuts that have you slathering at the bit after the unemployed blood then you be deluded old buddy

You get no argument from me on foreign aid trust me

Originally Posted by Chris

It's not achieving nothing. These are structural changes, intended, in part, to change the national attitude to benefit. Ending the culture of welfarism now will result in lower benefit bills in the longer term.

but the welfare bill will continue to rise due to more people getting state pension

I am talking about ways to get the deficit down so we are not paying billions in interest. My point on wanting the state pension means tested has nothing to do with changingpeople views on benefits

Unless we have to discuss the whole thread with all its multiple subjects all at once ? to confusing that

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

but the welfare bill will continue to rise due to more people getting state pension

I am talking about ways to get the deficit down so we are not paying billions in interest. My point on wanting the state pension means tested has nothing to do with changingpeople views on benefits

Unless we have to discuss the whole thread with all its multiple subjects all at once ? to confusing that

Actually pensions are a slightly different issue. While they may be a 'benefit' in the broadest sense, they're a class apart because it is more or less inevitable that you're going to get one (unless you die) and it is very, very difficult for any government to make any meaningful difference to the number of recipients or the size of the payment, due to the inevitability of old age and the need to allow for private individuals to make long-term retirement plans that take account of the likely size of the state pension. Any attempt to reform pensions would of necessity be radical.

Benefits for working age people are a different matter entirely. A lot of things can be changed with the aim of paying less money, or no money, to anyone who ought to be able to support themselves. In this area, the amount saved by, say, allowing fiscal drag to reduce the value of tax credits or JSA may be small in the immediate term, but in the longer term the expectation that these benefits will be worth less, or harder to get, will reduce the number of people who are prepared to pass over a potential job and result in a larger saving.

Originally Posted by Chris

Actually pensions are a slightly different issue. While they may be a 'benefit' in the broadest sense, they're a class apart because it is more or less inevitable that you're going to get one (unless you die) and it is very, very difficult for any government to make any meaningful difference to the number of recipients or the size of the payment, due to the inevitability of old age and the need to allow for private individuals to make long-term retirement plans that take account of the likely size of the state pension. Any attempt to reform pensions would of necessity be radical.

Benefits for working age people are a different matter entirely. A lot of things can be changed with the aim of paying less money, or no money, to anyone who ought to be able to support themselves. In this area, the amount saved by, say, allowing fiscal drag to reduce the value of tax credits or JSA may be small in the immediate term, but in the longer term the expectation that these benefits will be worth less, or harder to get, will reduce the number of people who are prepared to pass over a potential job and result in a larger saving.

still comes out of the welfare bill and the tax payers pocket due to all the funds already being long gone

Of course it does. But the criteria for receiving it are totally different - so different that when politicians and journalists talk about the 'benefits bill' they customarily separate the pensions component out. IIRC a senior Tory came unstuck a few months ago by raiing against the size of the benefits bill without first discounting the portion paid as pensions.

TBH if we can manage a separate discussion of pensions that doesn't simply re-state all the same overlapping arguments that resulted in this mega-thread merge, just go ahead ... especially if you can find a recent news item to hook it on.

[dilli-theclaw]

I just heard of someone getting a 'food card' instead of normal benefjts while they being invrstigaged. Not a reliable source though so I was wondering if snyone else has heard of this?

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

by awaiting the hopefully long off death of my parents

as for the rest it is still one of the biggest bills that el gov and the tax coffers pay for . Like it or not

So if I understand you correctly you want to deprive people of a pension they have contributed to all their life so that people who have contributed little or nothing get that money ,and you justify this because in your opinion they have enough .I have a modest private pension so does that mean you want to take my state pension away that I have paid all my life

---------- Post added at 18:25 ---------- Previous post was at 18:16 ----------

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

Another one totally brainwashed by the propaganda.

The unemployed are not actually costing you that much in comparison to what other things

So bloody what,it doesn't matter what the benefits bill is ,if people can work they should .

Originally Posted by martyh

So if I understand you correctly you want to deprive people of a pension they have contributed to all their life so that people who have contributed little or nothing get that money ,and you justify this because in your opinion they have enough .I have a modest private pension so does that mean you want to take my state pension away that I have paid all my life

---------- Post added at 18:25 ---------- Previous post was at 18:16 ----------



So bloody what,it doesn't matter what the benefits bill is ,if people can work they should .

No I want to cut the deficit

Not denying that as I said I see it as a necessary step to cut the debt

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by tizmeinnit

No I want to cut the deficit

Not denying that as I said I see it as a necessary step to cut the debt

As i see it a necessary step to remove ALL benefits from those lazy buggers who refuse to work, have never worked because they refuse to work and will not work because they think they are owed something for nothing. I don't care if it means they get kicked out of there state funded house, it might make them work