The state benefits system mega-thread.

[Osem]

Well off pensioners almost certainly have had their fair share of pain but they're well off and can obviously afford to receive a little less.

Our children are not to blame for the mess we're in but they're going to have to pay for it their whole lives and work longer because of it. That's not fair either.

Many pensioners are really struggling, however, and it'd be wrong to expect them to pay more/receive less but a good number are doing very nicely thank you and although that may be down to their prudence, they can't really expect to be immune form the pain any more than our kids can. It may be unfair but blame is irrelevant because you can only take from those who have something.

[johnhook]

Originally Posted by Osem

Well off pensioners almost certainly have had their fair share of pain but they're well off and can obviously afford to receive a little less.

Our children are not to blame for the mess we're in but they're going to have to pay for it their whole lives and work longer because of it. That's not fair either.

Many pensioners are really struggling, however, and it'd be wrong to expect them to pay more/receive less but a good number are doing very nicely thank you and although that may be down to their prudence, they can't really expect to be immune form the pain any more than our kids can. It may be unfair but blame is irrelevant because you can only take from those who have something.

My Dad get 28.5 k a year pension and still gets state pension yes he paid his stamp and yes he should get it but with people living longer the figures keep rising yet no one ever brings it up. When is it to much ? when its 200 billion in 2030? and I bet the sick and unemployed are still blamed then

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Tax Credits Act 2002

What has debt to GDP ratio got to do with it?

That was a reform, tax credits began in 1999.

Ratio is everything for the simple reason that that's how the debt burden of economies are judged. I seem to have to repeat that over and over again.

Strangely enough nation states aren't households and shouldn't be run like them. It gets really boring have to say that over and over again too.

What do poor people do with money? Do they stash it in the Cayman Islands or do they, perhaps, spend it? There is a multiplier effect, which is why welfare cuts have had a pretty bad effect on the Greek economy. The IMF actually mentioned that that multiplier was worse than 1 in the case of Greece - they anticipated it being 0.5.

Sorry, again I'm bringing facts and economics into an attempt to bash welfare. I'll stop.

---------- Post added at 19:07 ---------- Previous post was at 19:01 ----------

Originally Posted by Osem

Our children are not to blame for the mess we're in but they're going to have to pay for it their whole lives and work longer because of it. That's not fair either.

Many pensioners are really struggling, however, and it'd be wrong to expect them to pay more/receive less but a good number are doing very nicely thank you and although that may be down to their prudence, they can't really expect to be immune form the pain any more than our kids can. It may be unfair but blame is irrelevant because you can only take from those who have something.

The poverty rate is higher among those of working age than pensioners now. Pensioners and those near retirement have done best out of all age demographics over the past 7 years.

A good number are doing very nicely and it's far less to do with prudence and far more to do with generous final salary pension schemes, subsidised by those currently working and far more generous than their schemes, alongside rampant property price inflation.

We have an entire generation that have had massively good fortune. It's not that hard to say 'Lucky them' rather than trying to make out they were somehow so much 'better' than following generations. I have no idea why people refuse to say that in many cases it's purely about when they were born, or that it's those who are working who are footing the bill in a variety of ways.

If we follow the kind of policies you seem to want our children won't be able to 'pay for it' because we'll have failed to provide them the education and infrastructure they need to be competitive in the future, and be leeching what wealth they do have from them in overpriced housing, which is nothing more than a transfer of wealth to the well housed from those who are not.

---------- Post added at 19:11 ---------- Previous post was at 19:07 ----------

Originally Posted by Taf

Unfortunately the economic downturn has meant poor performance in Pensions Schemes worldwide, so there will be a big shortfall one day.

So they will try to reduce all other "benefits" so that there will be enough to pay the State, Civil Service and Local Government Service pensions that already exist. But one day those pensions will gobble up all we have to spend.

And then we could end up like Greece.

The Labour and then Conservative governments, in concert with the Bank of England, basically fiddling the books to save the arses of insolvent banks has meant poor performance in pension schemes as these tend to hold large amounts of sovereign debt and the yield on that debt has been hugely depressed through quantitative easing and unjustifiably low interest rates.

That said, share prices are inflated through the roof. So if your plan is heavy on stocks you're good to go. Most aren't though, because at some point that bubble will brutally burst.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by denphone

l think the difference is you think everybody on benefits sits on their bloody ass and is a scrounger/skiver where my point its a tiny minority who do that thus you are misrepresenting the facts because of your deep prejudices about benefit claimants.

You seem to be a mind reader.

You say that I think everybody on benefits sits on their bloody ass and is a scrounger/skiver and that I misrepresent the facts because of my deep prejudices about benefit claimants.

Those are unpleasant accusations. Substantiate them.

Originally Posted by Kursk

You seem to be a mind reader.

You say that I think everybody on benefits sits on their bloody ass and is a scrounger/skiver and that I misrepresent the facts because of my deep prejudices about benefit claimants.

Those are unpleasant accusations. Substantiate them.

He won't,he never does ,I gave up trying to his accusations against me substantiated ages ago ,no where in your posts have you or anyone ever said or hinted that all benefit claimants are scroungers but Den (and a few others) like to throw accusations about to perpetuate the myth that society is turning against all benefit claimants

---------- Post added at 22:01 ---------- Previous post was at 21:57 ----------

Any way maybe the answer with state pensions is to scrap them all together and simply have an old age benefit which would only be given to pensioners who didn't have x amount income per year

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

The government doesn't make utility companies have a cap.

Because that will initially drive up prices and ultimately reduce investment in those companies resulting in power cuts. Look at South Africa.

Osborne and Cameron just want the poor to get poorer. They make me sick to the stomach

No, you numpty, they want the poor to get richer so that they can pay more tax.

[Kursk]

Originally Posted by martyh

He won't,he never does ,I gave up trying to his accusations against me substantiated ages ago ,no where in your posts have you or anyone ever said or hinted that all benefit claimants are scroungers but Den (and a few others) like to throw accusations about to perpetuate the myth that society is turning against all benefit claimants

I know you're right, he knows you're right. There seems to be a collective persecution complex . I can't think why (but Den will know for me).....

[MalteseFalcon]

So, according to the pie chart in this article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...12billion.html

The majority of welfare is spent on pensions. Would anyone object to the pension pot being cut drastically?

[MalteseFalcon]

Personally, I would cut the tax credits. Saves a lot of money in one go right there.

[heero_yuy]

Originally Posted by MarkC1984

Personally, I would cut the tax credits. Saves a lot of money in one go right there.

Well that's where Cameron's merry-go-round comes in: People paying income tax and then getting it back as credits. Eliminate that and you get savings in eliminating the burocrasy that has to administer it. If people can keep more of their wages they might work a little harder too by not being penalised.

I'll let you explain to the poor old biddy next door how you're going to reduce her pension.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by MarkC1984

So, according to the pie chart in this article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...12billion.html

The majority of welfare is spent on pensions. Would anyone object to the pension pot being cut drastically?

The Conservatives won't cut the state pension as it will lose them several million votes.

---------- Post added at 14:21 ---------- Previous post was at 14:15 ----------

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Well that's where Cameron's merry-go-round comes in: People paying income tax and then getting it back as credits. Eliminate that and you get savings in eliminating the burocrasy that has to administer it. If people can keep more of their wages they might work a little harder too by not being penalised.

I'll let you explain to the poor old biddy next door how you're going to reduce her pension.

That's a very big if as once they remove tax credits David Cameron has stated that he is expecting employers to make up the difference that people will have lost with the removal of tax credits through better wages which given our increasingly low wage economy looks highly unlikely as many employers will try to get away with paying as little as they can.

[johnhook]

Just look at how small the JSA figure is relative to everything. The Housing benefit is shared amongst all of them ESA has doubled but that will be because everyone is on it now.

15 billion to the sick disabled and unemployed out of a total tax and NI take of 600 billion. Even if you add the tax credits to it makes in 40 billion that is still <8% How many of these claimants do you think do not need the money? 10% 4 billion out of 600? 20% 8 billion?

The figures make it clear to me the cut they make are not going to all of a sudden make the tax payer better off then we will never see a penny of it anyway

---------- Post added at 14:36 ---------- Previous post was at 14:34 ----------

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Well that's where Cameron's merry-go-round comes in: People paying income tax and then getting it back as credits. Eliminate that and you get savings in eliminating the burocrasy that has to administer it. If people can keep more of their wages they might work a little harder too by not being penalised.

I'll let you explain to the poor old biddy next door how you're going to reduce her pension.

But the State pension is growing massively what can be done about that

[MalteseFalcon]

I asked about pensions, because you can guarantee someone will look at that pie chart and say that the pensioners need to have curs made as well. I don't think it is so much how much a pensioner gets, more the fact that more and more people now compared to 100 years ago are reaching a pensionable age.

[Gary L]

As I said earlier. a cut of around 6% on all benefits will sort it.

[johnhook]

Originally Posted by Gary L

As I said earlier. a cut of around 6% on all benefits will sort it.

6 % of 200 billion is only 12 billion what is that going to do ? it will just get swallowed up