Tory scum increase pension age - again!!

Gracchus_Babeuf

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

The amount being [legally] claimed for this particular benefit (State Pension) has become astronomical and absolutely untenable. This is due primarily to (a) the 'boom' in numbers claiming it compared to the number of taxpayers in the younger generations, and (b) the vastly increased longevity. Anyone who does not accept this is probably too stupid to accept any argument anyway.

'Astronomical and untenable'? Why? Other countries manage to pay higher state pension than us - how come? Do they magic money out of thin air? And don't give the BS about bankruptcy, because many of these countries are far from bankrupt. 'Vastly increased longevity' is a myth - people are living longer due to lower smoking rates and better drugs which help to prolong life. It does not mean that we are witnessing everyone living to 100 and running the marathon at 90 (with some exceptions). Life expectancy forecasts are projections, nothing else, and projections are often proved wrong.

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

They can either reduce the amount paid, or raise the age at which it is paid. Actually they have done both. The first by reducing the indexation from RPI to CPI, the second by announcing the thrust of the changes well in advance. I simply do no know what else they could have done - other than be even more 'realistic' and put the age up a bit sooner (less notice) and also up to age 70.

They could have asked the taxpayer to fork out more - that's what they could have done. And before you scream in agony, bear in mind that a private pension requires a massive personal contribution to bear any worthwhile fruit.

dunstonh

Other countries manage to pay higher state pension than us - how come?

They have less that the taxpayer covers in other areas.

Do they magic money out of thin air?

No. You are thinking of what the last Labour government did.

Moby

dunstonh wrote: »

No. You are thinking of what the last Labour government did.

They used the money to provide vast improvements in health provision, much better school infra structure, the EMA, benefits for single parents, family tax credit.....but you carry on re-writing history!

atush

They used the money to provide vast improvements in health provision, much better school infra structure, the EMA, benefits for single parents

The NHS is in a worse state. the schools are in a mess and single parents!! Don't get us started.

A single parent of one or more children who is bereaved, or abandoned is one thing. Give them support and help mum back into work. Chase the deadbeat dad. All for it.

Paying the work shy to sit at home (in a home we pay for) and popping out baby after baby by different men from the age of 16 is what is populating the underclass in britain. Paid for by single parent benefits.

There has to be a limit and some sort of filter.

Lokolo

Moby wrote: »

They used the money to provide vast improvements in health provision, much better school infra structure, the EMA, benefits for single parents, family tax credit.....but you carry on re-writing history!

But do you understand what the deficit is?

I am all for making people's lives easier, but only if it's affordable.

Moby

atush wrote: »

The NHS is in a worse state. the schools are in a mess and single parents!! Don't get us started.

A single parent of one or more children who is bereaved, or abandoned is one thing. Give them support and help mum back into work. Chase the deadbeat dad. All for it.

Paying the work shy to sit at home (in a home we pay for) and popping out baby after baby by different men from the age of 16 is what is populating the underclass in britain. Paid for by single parent benefits.

There has to be a limit and some sort of filter.

There we go again atush straight out of the daily mail with your diatribe against the 'work shy' and 'deadbeat dad' and 'single parents'. You then talk about the 'underclass'. I could write your own script for you.

This underclass exists because of poverty, lack of opportunity/life chances, poor education etc. People don't choose this lifestyle; they know no different because they have not had the life chances/opportunities/education available to the middle/upper classes. A child born to a single parent in Tottenham and one born to a middle class family in Hampstead, (a few miles away) are highly likely (not always I know ...always exceptions) to have completely different lives and values. There is no equality of opportunity in the UK and your comments are just highlighting the plight of the disadvantaged and pointing the finger of blame. Very judgemental in my view!

Going4TheDream

Moby wrote: »

There we go again atush straight out of the daily mail with your diatribe against the 'work shy' and 'deadbeat dad' and 'single parents'. You then talk about the 'underclass'. I could write your own script for you.

This underclass exists because of poverty, lack of opportunity/life chances, poor education etc. People don't choose this lifestyle; they know no different because they have not had the life chances/opportunities/education available to the middle/upper classes. A child born to a single parent in Tottenham and one born to a middle class family in Hampstead, (a few miles away) are highly likely (not always I know ...always exceptions) to have completely different lives and values. There is no equality of opportunity in the UK and your comments are just highlighting the plight of the disadvantaged and pointing the finger of blame. Very judgemental in my view!

Poverty is not relieved by money alone, as proven in many reports, it is about promoting education and changing family values.The previous government may well have spent millions on 'bettering schools', 'the education system' etc but they cannot change the 'values' of families. If children are not encouraged by their families to go to school and make the most of the free education when they do go, leading to the opening up of opportunities that this may well provide, then whose fault is that. Hardly the middle class families who choose to encourage their children to attend and hardly the government.

Paul_Herring

Moby wrote: »

They used the money to provide vast improvements in health provision, much better school infra structure, the EMA, benefits for single parents, family tax credit.....!

Which country are you living in? I'd like to move there.

Meanwhile, in the UK, health provision is demonstrably not vastly improved (unless you consider the vast increase in middle management to no obvious effect on the front line "improvement",) the general standard of education of those leaving school is poorer than it was in the 80s, EMA is a waste of money (paying kids to go to school? Who's daft idea was that?) and benefits for "single parents" and "family tax credit" - what happened to waiting until you could afford to have kids before, you know, actually having them?

The last two are essentially paying people to have kids at the expense of the tax payer.

Moby wrote: »

This underclass exists because of poverty, lack of opportunity/life chances, poor education etc. [...]

But, but, but... you said in your other post....

You can't have it both ways you know.

Moby

Going4TheDream wrote: »

Poverty is not relieved by money alone, as proven in many reports, it is about promoting education and changing family values.The previous government may well have spent millions on 'bettering schools', 'the education system' etc but they cannot change the 'values' of families. If children are not encouraged by their families to go to school and make the most of the free education when they do go, leading to the opening up of opportunities that this may well provide, then whose fault is that. Hardly the middle class families who choose to encourage their children to attend and hardly the government.

Totally agree....but where do families get their 'values' from. It has to start with opportunity etc. Values don't just appear and what about children brought up in families in which they are not encouraged to go to school etc.....do we let them go by the wayside....There are whole generations of people in this country who are an underclass ignored by many and blamed for societies ills by others. Sitting in judgement is not going to make them go away.

The best Government this country ever had was the 1945 Labour Government because it brought in huge social changes at a stroke that altered millions of working class peoples lives forever eg housing, pensions, social welfare, education, NHS etc. We need a 'new deal' like this again in my view because the gap between rich and poor has hugely increased in recent years and this will cause all sorts of social problems if untackled.

Meanwhile, in the UK, health provision is demonstrably not vastly improved (unless you consider the vast increase in middle management to no obvious effect on the front line "improvement",) the general standard of education of those leaving school is poorer than it was in the 80s, EMA is a waste of money (paying kids to go to school? Who's daft idea was that?) and benefits for "single parents" and "family tax credit" - what happened to waiting until you could afford to have kids before, you know, actually having them?

The last two are essentially paying people to have kids at the expense of the tax payer.

Have to disagree....people have such short memories. I remember the state of schools, huge waiting lists in the NHS etc. in the 80's and 90's There have been huge improvements in these areas. EMA ....'a waste of money'....many working class kids depended on that to get to school and to stay in education.....now of course they can look forward to not going to university or coughing up 50k for the privilege. Waiting to have kids....totally agree but life just isn't like that for many people. You see again its about life opportunities and education!

ermine

A child born to a single parent in Tottenham and one born to a middle class family in Hampstead, (a few miles away) are highly likely (not always I know ...always exceptions) to have completely different lives and values. There is no equality of opportunity in the UK

And your solution to the inequality of opportunity is to steal money from the Hampstead lot to give to the Tottenham lot? Instead of suggesting to the Tottenham parent they use contraception until they can afford to have children? !!!!!! what is wrong with you. There isn't equality of opportunity in the world. Your idea of cutting down the trees to fertilise the forest floor will leave us all in poverty. Why should I go out to work to pay for the Tottenham single parent to have kids and repeat the cycle?

Values don't just appear and what about children brought up in families in which they are not encouraged to go to school etc.....do we let them go by the wayside....

That is why in the past when a family was shown to be unfit to bring up children without abnormal State support they were taken into care, precisely to break this cycle. Some people are unfit to raise children. When other people are required to chip in to raise the offspring, those people should get a say in how it's done, to break the cycle. This used to be prevalent in the past, and my county is attempting some of the same within the current environment by fostering children from unfit parents.