Tory scum increase pension age - again!!

Moby

ermine wrote: »

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?

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 society 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.

Wow who said anything about stealing from the Hampstead set....touch a raw nerve did I:) Simplistic Tory tosh as usual...read my posts and learn something. 'Ermine' LOL suits you !

Stargazer57

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.

I haven't read the whole of this thread, but this comment is so wrong I suspect the whole thread is based on a false premise.

Indexation of the state pension has not been cut. It has been improved. Indexation used to be in line with RPI. In future it will be in line with the annual maximum of National Average Earnings, CPI or 2.5%. In other words the 'Earnings Link', which campaigners had been calling for since 1981, has been restored.

The Tories were the first to commit to doing this (in 2003) and the Lib Dems also had it in their manifesto in the 2005 Election. Turner's pension commission also wanted it to happen, but Labour would not do it. The best they would commit to was to restore the link by 2015 'if finances permitted'.

In return for the increase in indexation Turner proposed increasing the State Pension Age by a year in each of the next three decades. The Coalition have brought forward the restoration of the earnings link but have said that State Pension Age must rise sooner in order to pay for it.

The consequence of this change will be the the UK State Pension will increase in real terms. This will reduce means-testing of retirement benefits and restore incentives to save. Therefore it is a good thing.

Going4TheDream

Moby wrote: »

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.

Children admittedly are the least able to influence their situations and are at the mercy of parents to give them values, and I don't know what the answers are when that doesn't happen but I have my views. We have already agreed that throwing money at the situation is not the answer alone.

Where did the 'values' go in the first place, how were they eroded away and what caused that to happen. Until we look at and understand history we are likely to make the same mistakes again and again exasperating the problem. What I would question however is where does the government responsibility end and personal responsibility start?

ermine

who said anything about stealing from the Hampstead set

You're obviously struggling to follow the line of thought, so let me spell it out to you real slow. You said:

Waiting to have kids....totally agree but life just isn't like that for many people.

So for these who have kids before they can afford them, somebody has to pay for their benefits

Where do you think the money comes from for the government to pay benefits? Clue - the government does not have any money of their own. They take it from other people, with the threat of violence - you get sent to jail if you don't pay your taxes.

Now that's acceptable in some ways, but encouraging people to have children they can't afford means the government must take money by force from other people to pay these so-called 'parents' their benefits. I wouldn't so much mind the taking of money by force if the children were then at least not raised in the environment that fails to pass on some basic values, so we end up with clusters of endemic anti-social behaviour, which includes having children you can't afford. Obviously over the 20-years following the birth of a child things may go worng for you economically and I'm all for helping people with that, but knowingly having children you can't support should be discouraged greatly.

It's perfectly possible for poor people to be able to bring up children to have good values. My parents weren't particularly well-off, but they paid their way and didn't rely on the State for more than parents generally get from the state, like schools, healthcare etc. And it really does hack me off to see people excuse f eckless parenting by blaming 'poverty' and 'society' for all their ills.

We live in a rich Western society. The 'poverty' you're using as an excuse for these parents' lack of values would be riches only a hundred years ago. Relative poverty is not an excuse for failing to pass on values to your children or having them when you can't affrod them. What has gone wrong in Britain is that people are no longer encouraged to take responsibility for their actions. Problems are always someone or something else's fault, and until enough of us in Britain learn to stop doing that we will never sort ourselves out!

Gracchus_Babeuf

Stargazer57 wrote: »

In return for the increase in indexation Turner proposed increasing the State Pension Age by a year in each of the next three decades. The Coalition have brought forward the restoration of the earnings link but have said that State Pension Age must rise sooner in order to pay for it.

The consequence of this change will be the the UK State Pension will increase in real terms. This will reduce means-testing of retirement benefits and restore incentives to save. Therefore it is a good thing.

Not true - this is just an assumption, because the triple lock guarantee specifies the highest of: 1. CPI, 2. Earnings index, 3. 2.5%. At the moment earnings are going up 2% on average and RPI is 5.2%. This means the state pension is falling in real terms!

This exemplifies the diabolical deviousness of these Tory politicians, who make it look as if they are giving when in reality they are taking away. The simplest and best thing would have been to retain the RPI link and kept retirement age at 65, with NI contribution increases to cater for the increasing risk of longer life expectancy.

Gracchus_Babeuf

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!

A typical conservative MP always rewrites history. It's a job requirement.

"History will be kind to me, because I intend to write it!" -
Winston S Churchill

Paul_Herring

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

A typical [STRIKE]conservative[/STRIKE] MP always rewrites history. It's a job requirement.

That's better.

Gracchus_Babeuf

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.

Are you the editor of the Daily Mail? :rotfl:

It's easy to blame the government for social problems but in a democratic society people have freedom of choice. If you want to being back the cosy stiff-upper-lipped Britain of the 1950s then vote UKIP or even BNP - and see the country become an international laughing stock.

Gracchus_Babeuf

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.

Ok, so what's your model? The USA? With its massive inequalities and social problems? Or the Britain of the 1950s?

Social problems have varied and highly complex causes, many of which cannot be controlled or determined by any government. The roots go back to the social legislation of the 1960s, mass immigration, etc but it's now too late to go back in time. Britain today is a very differerent country from that of 1970, let alone 1950. Only a Cromwell-like dictator could turn the clock back, but at the cost of our civil liberties and international reputation - would you really want this?

Stargazer57

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

Not true - this is just an assumption, because the triple lock guarantee specifies the highest of: 1. CPI, 2. Earnings index, 3. 2.5%. At the moment earnings are going up 2% on average and RPI is 5.2%. This means the state pension is falling in real terms!

Do you expect RPI growth to exceed earnings growth in the long term? If so you'll be agreeing with the wacky-baccy types who keep a reserve of spam in their cellars but very few others.

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

This exemplifies the diabolical deviousness of these Tory politicians, who make it look as if they are giving when in reality they are taking away. The simplest and best thing would have been to retain the RPI link and kept retirement age at 65, with NI contribution increases to cater for the increasing risk of longer life expectancy.

And means-testing would have increased for ever more leaving most people in a position where it did not pay to save. You may think that is the best solution, but even you can't claim that would be simple.