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

Harry_Powell

bumpoowee wrote: »

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.

marklv wrote: »

£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.

So you do agree that there are unemployed who need to be 'persuaded' back into work - the immigrant family with 10 kids you seem to dislike?

Aren't you tarring every immigrant with the same brush?

bumpoowee

marklv wrote: »

£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.

I wasn't, I merely said the are unemployed (ie more than 1 person of those who are unemployed) who need to be pursuaded back into work. Some unemployed (generally single people) get very little in terms of benefit, but a significant number (generally those with kids) get huge handouts that need to stop. The problem seems to be that you can't just cut off those with kids who have no intention of contributing to society since the kids will suffer, but a workfare type system seems like a feasible way of keeping them supported without them getting a free ride. I was interested if anybody else can think of any other alternatives? Or would you rather keep the system as it is?

marklv wrote: »

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.

There is no easy answer, but sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the problem won't work - see Labours attitude to rising government and personal debt over the last 12 years as an example. I would do what the government is doing now, start raising the state pension age (but faster) - and make it affect the baby boomers, as they have had their cake and eaten it and taken bites out of several other peoples too so have no cause to whinge if they haven't bothered to save for the future.

marklv

bendix wrote: »

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.

You don't understand that many people are unemployable. No employers will want them. You talk about incentives, but it is the employers that need the incentives, not the people on the dole. Yes, some people opt for a life on welfare, but these tend to be the ones who exploit the system by having huge families that the state is forced to support. It is this that needs to be stopped. The number of genuine jobseekers (not cheats) who opt for life on the dole is minimal. Don't tar everyone with the same brush.

bendix wrote: »

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.

Nonsense. And I'm neither a leftie nor a liberal. You believe that by punishing the unfortunate you make them better - outdated Victorian rubbish. You could be a character from a novel by Dickens. I fully agree that the cheats and those who exploit the system need to be severely dealt with - of course I agree - but, for example, forcing 55 year old redundant managers to work as street sweepers is offensive and undignified nonsense.

bendix wrote: »

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.

Meaningless rhetoric.

bendix

marklv wrote: »

Meaningless rhetoric.

Which, roughly translated in marklv-speak, means . . . ummm, I can't address those issues.

Interesting that for the first time you mentioned immigrant families on benefits mark. Careful, your slip is showing . . . . for the first time, we're seeing the real you - a petty bourgeois junior manager (at 42 - and doesnt that speak volumes!) from a lower middle class family complete with all the accompanying principles and prejudices, which - in your case - include some kind of airy-fairy liberal sense of people's rights, so long as they aren't immigrants.

It's all becoming very clear.


Edited to add: As it's past 5 oclock, marklv will have gone home now. It's the public sector, after all.

marklv

Harry_Powell wrote: »

So you do agree that there are unemployed who need to be 'persuaded' back into work - the immigrant family with 10 kids you seem to dislike?

Aren't you tarring every immigrant with the same brush?

Yes, there are some who need firmer persuasion to be more proactive in looking for work, of course. I'm not tarring every immigrant with the same brush - it won't be long before you accuse me of being a BNP supporter! I just mentioned the 'immigrant family' because sadly, this seems to be all too common. The same applies to any family where the parents seem to breed in order to claim more benefits.

marklv

bumpoowee wrote: »

I wasn't, I merely said the are unemployed (ie more than 1 person of those who are unemployed) who need to be pursuaded back into work. Some unemployed (generally single people) get very little in terms of benefit, but a significant number (generally those with kids) get huge handouts that need to stop. The problem seems to be that you can't just cut off those with kids who have no intention of contributing to society since the kids will suffer, but a workfare type system seems like a feasible way of keeping them supported without them getting a free ride. I was interested if anybody else can think of any other alternatives? Or would you rather keep the system as it is?

In some cases a workfare system can be beneficial, but not in all. You have to look at individual circumstances.

bumpoowee wrote: »

There is no easy answer, but sticking your head in the sand and ignoring the problem won't work - see Labours attitude to rising government and personal debt over the last 12 years as an example. I would do what the government is doing now, start raising the state pension age (but faster) - and make it affect the baby boomers, as they have had their cake and eaten it and taken bites out of several other peoples too so have no cause to whinge if they haven't bothered to save for the future.

Knee jerk reactions won't work. The issue needs to be studied in depth before any one of us can come up with definite solutions.

marklv

bendix wrote: »

Which, roughly translated in marklv-speak, means . . . ummm, I can't address those issues.

Interesting that for the first time you mentioned immigrant families on benefits mark. Careful, your slip is showing . . . . for the first time, we're seeing the real you - a petty bourgeois junior manager (at 42 - and doesnt that speak volumes!) from a lower middle class family complete with all the accompanying principles and prejudices, which - in your case - include some kind of airy-fairy liberal sense of people's rights, so long as they aren't immigrants.

It's all becoming very clear.


Edited to add: As it's past 5 oclock, marklv will have gone home now. It's the public sector, after all.

You are funny!! :rotfl:

roddydogs

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.

The Small minority" being David Camerons rich friends.

Empty_pockets

Why is it we still have such a difference in the retirement age between men and women? In this age of equality in every section of life I wonder if there is an actual reason for this.

Oldernotwiser

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

And also don't forget that the very elderly were brought up with the notion that it was not necessary to provide for their pensions separately from the State as they would pay their NI and then the State would provide all their needs in old age - the 'cradle-to-grave' philosphy -:

I'm not sure that this is totally true. My parents were born during WW1, working class with little education and no financial savvy and they were well aware of the importance of not relying on the state pension.

My dad was a postman and when I (as a tactless teenager) asked why he didn't get a better paid job, I was always told that the GPO was a very good job because it was secure and had a pension with it.