MSE News: Tory Conference: State pension age could rise early

marklv

Lokolo wrote: »

No both, at the same time. Its contradicting.

You say people can't get to a level and be happy where they are. Then say thats what you want. Eh?

Where did I say that?

blackfive

marklv wrote: »

You would be funny if you didn't mean what you say, you really would.

The idea of making unemployed people do menial work for benefits belongs in Nazi Germany or the middle ages - not in the modern civilised world. Why should anyone work for a pittance of £60 a week? You could always give the unemployed the option of doing work for the legally agreed minimum wage, but not less.

Moreover, if you move unemployed people into forced labour, as you suggest, when are they ever going to have the chance of looking for proper jobs? Or have the time to attend interviews? It's the most idiotic thing I've heard from you yet (and I've heard a lot).

I agree with you there Mark. We used to have a system like that called the Workhouse. But look just what that did. If you went into a workhouse it was almost impossible to get yourself out of it and some remained in their doing, what amounted to, slave labour in abysmal conditions for the rest of their life. It was essentially like a prison.

When there was some snow during the last winter someone locally to me was advocating forcing the unemployed to shovel snow but when it was suggested it was a good idea, and gain them extra money, it transpired that the idea was to pay them nothing. I'd like to see some of these people with those ideas being forced to work for nothing. Oh, and last time people were made to shovel snow for nothing in Europe must have been Germany in the late 30's and early 40's. Enough said!

But considering pensions and the raising of the age, has anyone thought that this has already been paid for by those in their 50's so they can retire at 65? Its called National Insurance which you pay to get the pension at 65. Its through no fault of them that there's no money left in the pot as since a certain political party did a "Robert Maxwell" with the pension pot in the 80's to pay for tax cuts the NI from the people in the 50's has been used to pay for those already on the pension.

Also in this age of equality why is the male retirement age going up before the female retiremant age? Surely both should now rise at the same time or if one is to be higher it should be the females as they live longer. However I think that none should be higher than the other but should be equal.

marklv

Raising the retirement age at all is a socially regressive step. Britain is the fourth richest country in the world in terms of GDP per head; the money is there, it's just that parties are too afraid to tax it. Instead the response is to bash the public sector and make people work longer. Of course the tax loopholes for the rich will still be there, as they fund all the major political parties!

roddydogs

Someones got to pay for raising IHT to 1 Million!

bumpoowee

blackfive wrote: »

I agree with you there Mark. We used to have a system like that called the Workhouse. But look just what that did. If you went into a workhouse it was almost impossible to get yourself out of it and some remained in their doing, what amounted to, slave labour in abysmal conditions for the rest of their life. It was essentially like a prison.

Out of interest, what alternative would you suggest to a modern 'workhouse'? I think most people agree there are unemployed who need to be gently 'pursuaded' back into work, but life on benefits is often to cushy to do this in a painless way.

blackfive wrote: »

But considering pensions and the raising of the age, has anyone thought that this has already been paid for by those in their 50's so they can retire at 65? Its called National Insurance which you pay to get the pension at 65.

Since state pensions are paid for by the current workforce, rather than saved up by ones NI contributions for future use, this argument is a bit irrelivant, as you can't pay pensions to people if there isn't the money to do it with. But I would argue they haven't paid enough since many of them will be retired for a very long time and when they originally started working it wasn't expected that somebody would claim state pention for a period which is 50%+ of the time they were actually working.

marklv

roddydogs wrote: »

Someones got to pay for raising IHT to 1 Million!

In reality this move will cost the treasury very little. A drop in the ocean. But it's certainly clever politics, as it gives the impression of a massive giveaway when only a small minority will benefit from it.

bendix

marklv wrote: »

You would be funny if you didn't mean what you say, you really would.

The idea of making unemployed people do menial work for benefits belongs in Nazi Germany or the middle ages - not in the modern civilised world. Why should anyone work for a pittance of £60 a week? You could always give the unemployed the option of doing work for the legally agreed minimum wage, but not less.

Moreover, if you move unemployed people into forced labour, as you suggest, when are they ever going to have the chance of looking for proper jobs? Or have the time to attend interviews? It's the most idiotic thing I've heard from you yet (and I've heard a lot).

Mmmmm . interesting. So you're prefer they wasted their lives on the dole with no incentive to get off it. Did you know there are an estimated 2 million people who have been claiming benefits and not worked for the entire 11 or 12 years of Labour rule? There are a million people who have never worked at all. How do we deal with them - people who have opted for a life on welfare.

It's curious. You liberal lefties seem to think your attitude is the caring one. But when I see your replies it strikes me that while the left are portayed as the caring group, in fact you always come across as patronising, paternalistic and with an attitude of you know what's best for people. And here you confirm it - you would prefer to condemn people to mediocrity for the rest of their lives, rather than challenge or incentivise them to rise above it and become what everyone has the potential to be - a fully operational economic and social being. A person with pride.

Us neo-conservatives on the other hand believe in empowering people - freeing them from both constraints and pseudo-welfare to be what they can really be. We have more faith in humanity than you do.

You have called me Satan and evil in the past. I personally think it's evil to develop a culture and a society in which it's permissable for generations - and their families - to stagnate and fail. Social engineering - and that is what the welfare state is - is closer to nazism than suggesting people form some kind of useful social service in exchange for society taking care of them.

bendix

marklv wrote: »

In reality this move will cost the treasury very little. A drop in the ocean. But it's certainly clever politics, as it gives the impression of a massive giveaway when only a small minority will benefit from it.

Don't you have any work to do in the public sector mark? Me? I can get away with it. I'm a boss in the private, called upon now and again to advise. If I fail in my job or slack off, it's a purely personal issue.

But you on the other hand always talk about the stresses of being in the public sector and how you resent private sector consultants coming in and doing the job you could do.

So what do you do all day?

marklv

bumpoowee wrote: »

Out of interest, what alternative would you suggest to a modern 'workhouse'? I think most people agree there are unemployed who need to be gently 'pursuaded' back into work, but life on benefits is often to cushy to do this in a painless way.

£60 a week is hardly cushy. I've been there and bought the T-shirt, have you? You need to differentiate between genuine people and the immigrant family with 10 kids who claims thousands every week in benefits. Don't tar every benefit claimant with the same brush.

bumpoowee wrote: »

Since state pensions are paid for by the current workforce, rather than saved up by ones NI contributions for future use, this argument is a bit irrelivant, as you can't pay pensions to people if there isn't the money to do it with. But I would argue they haven't paid enough since many of them will be retired for a very long time and when they originally started working it wasn't expected that somebody would claim state pention for a period which is 50%+ of the time they were actually working.

So what would you do? Kill everyone once they reach 85? Some people live to 100, others die at 70 or earlier. That's life. Maybe one feasible idea is for the government to claim back some years of pension money from the estates of those who live the longest. It could work - generally these are the richest as well.

Harry_Powell

bendix wrote: »

So what do you do all day?

He ruins the pensions board with his ill-conceived and poorly researched arguments.