Elderly Relative Benefits?

baza52

Moody_Mare wrote: »

Excuse me if I take offence at that remark but he worked from 15 to 67. He is a decorated war veteran and not once in his working life ever claimed for housing benefit, tax credits, council tax reductions or anything else! His wife was ill for many years and housebound yet he looked after her with no handouts or help while bringing up my mother, he even gave my mothers child benefit to the local Barnados each month as he always said there were children far worse off that my mother. I am maybe wrong but I thought he paid into the system all those years plus the interest accured so that he could have a pension. I do not consider a state pension a handout in his situation or a meagre war pension, when you have been blown up during war time and still have the shrapnell imbedded into your body causing life long pain!

Benefits are benefits.
Noone said he wasnt entitled to claim.
You are the one that said he never claimed anything and watched others claim it all.....
Yes hes one of the lucky ones. My grandad was killed during the war (WW1) and my father also fought in WW2 if it makes you feel better.

maxmycardagain

If you pay INTO a scheme that guarantees to pay OUT is that a benefit?

The welfare system (pensions) had no money on "Day 1", so what was paid in was paid out, ergo whats paid in today is also paid out, many say "well he only paid £1 a week in tax back then" thinking todays contributors are saving (via the DWP) for THIER retirement, they arent, they are paying TODAYS pensioners who paid thier generations claimants.

qwertyuiop12345

maxmycardagain wrote: »

If you pay INTO a scheme that guarantees to pay OUT is that a benefit?

The welfare system (pensions) had no money on "Day 1", so what was paid in was paid out, ergo whats paid in today is also paid out, many say "well he only paid £1 a week in tax back then" thinking todays contributors are saving (via the DWP) for THIER retirement, they arent, they are paying TODAYS pensioners who paid thier generations claimants.

By that logic do you not consider incapacity benefit to be a benefit either as this is also a contribution benefit funded by national insurance contributions and only given to those who have the correct previous NI record?

This is a silly argument. What do the semantics matter?

dmg24

qwertyuiop12345 wrote: »

By that logic do you not consider incapacity benefit to be a benefit either as this is also a contribution benefit funded by national insurance contributions and only given to those who have the correct previous NI record?

This is a silly argument. What do the semantics matter?

I would not expect a lot of sense from maxmycardagain!

baza52

maxmycardagain wrote: »

If you pay INTO a scheme that guarantees to pay OUT is that a benefit?

The welfare system (pensions) had no money on "Day 1", so what was paid in was paid out, ergo whats paid in today is also paid out, many say "well he only paid £1 a week in tax back then" thinking todays contributors are saving (via the DWP) for THIER retirement, they arent, they are paying TODAYS pensioners who paid thier generations claimants.

Of course its a benefit.
As you say, its todays workers that pay for the state pension.
You wouldnt say someone who is on JSA contribution based is not on a benefit would you. That also gaurantees to pay out based on contributions.

ERICS_MUM

baza52 wrote: »

im not disputing if he is entitled to it.
Im just saying 25+ years of pension IS a benefit.

How many people come on here saying all i get is x ammount per week and then when questioned if they get tax credits, child benefit, housing benefit etc etc say oh yes i do claim other things.

I wouldn't describe the old-age pension as a benefit in terms of a discretionary payment based on certain criteria - which might or might not be the claimant's "fault" (or non-existent in rare cases that hit the headlines).

I regard the pension as the "consideration" of the contract that individuals enter into when they start paying income tax and national insurance. Tax payers contribute to these costs for older generations, and in turn our pension and healthcare costs are paid by later generations. To me, this is the fundamental purpose of the welfare state.

Linda

dmg24

ERICS_MUM wrote: »

" of the contract that individuals enter into when they start paying income tax and national insurance. Tax payers contribute to these costs for older generations, and in turn our pension and healthcare costs are paid by later generations. To me, this is the fundamental purpose of the welfare state.

Linda

I'm not sure whether I agree with it or not, but that is an interesting description - I have never thought of it in terms of consideration before!

ERICS_MUM

dmg24 wrote: »

I'm not sure whether I agree with it or not, but that is an interesting description - I have never thought of it in terms of consideration before!

I meant "consideration" in the contract law sense, the gist being:

"Consideration is the requirement of reciprocal obligations on the parties to a contract. Both parties must receive valuable consideration for performance of their side of the contract"

Pensions are a very simple application of contract consideration (in my simple view !), in which Party A gives "value" to the state for x years and then receives value from the state after an agreed period of time or event.

I do not think that "benefits" are contractual considerations in this sense.

Anyway as another poster said, this might just be semantics, and I acknowledge that it certainly does not help the OP with her grandad.

Linda

dmg24

ERICS_MUM wrote: »

I meant "consideration" in the contract law sense, the gist being:

"Consideration is the requirement of reciprocal obligations on the parties to a contract. Both parties must receive valuable consideration for performance of their side of the contract"

Pensions are a very simple application of contract consideration (in my simple view !), in which Party A gives "value" to the state for x years and then receives value from the state after an agreed period of time or event.

I do not think that "benefits" are contractual considerations in this sense.

Anyway as another poster said, this might just be semantics, and I acknowledge that it certainly does not help the OP with her grandad.

Linda

Yep, I knew what you meant, Law is my area. I can see arguments for and against consideration being applicable, but then if I couldn't see both sides I really should resign!

ERICS_MUM

dmg24 wrote: »

Yep, I knew what you meant, Law is my area. I can see arguments for and against consideration being applicable, but then if I couldn't see both sides I really should resign!

Sorry to give you a lecture on contract law !! (I'm an amateur, having touched on this subject as part of my banking exams).

Linda xx:j