Tory scum increase pension age - again!!

atush

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

Sentimental twaddle. At 95 you've had a good innings - end of story. The NHS has to make difficult decisions, and yes, if it means the very oldest get served last then so be it.



People over 80 shouldn't be driving anyway, in my opinion. They are a danger on the roads as their reflexes are not good enough. The police have had to deal with plenty of situations in which elderly drivers have caused avoidable serious injuries and deaths.



A completely moronic statement based on bitterness and ignorance, not logic. Many people that age have had perfectly healthy lives yet still have serious diseases. And you cannot make subjective moral judgements as acceptable criteria for treating the ill - the only logical criteria is age. Once you start using subjective moral criteria then you are on the slippery slope towards social engineering - the Nazis wanted exactly that.

you can't have it both ways, you make your own moral judgements about whose life is worth more- a 90 yr old teetotaller who lead a blameless life or a hard drinking 60 yr old with liver disease.

Either treat them all equally, or ration on life choices.

People over 80 shouldn't be driving anyway, in my opinion.

You can be in a RTA without being behind the wheel you complete numpty.

You are such a sorry loser.

atush

ffacoffipawb wrote: »

Can we start with you then?

I second that one lol:j

Gracchus_Babeuf

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

Still not getting it: you can currently receive your state pension at 65 (and you indicated you are now aged 65. How old are you?).

But apart from that, I'm not getting why the Tory scum are responsible for your having to drawdown £50-£60k over two years from your private pension to make up for (even) £7500 of state pension including additional bits per annum. You would be drawing down the £20-£25k per annum (ie £40-£50k) anyway, regardless of who was in power, for your pension. So to make up the State Pension 'loss' is, simply, the state pension 'loss'.

What have I not understood here?

I'm 44 and would be claiming my pension at 66 until Ian Duncan bald git made this announcement today. Now I am losing out by another year, not that I was happy with 66 to start with. It means I will have to make the potential c.£7,500 loss (in today's money) from my own private pension arangements.

ffacoffipawb

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

Not much in London? You mean the City? The rest of London earns nowhere near this kind of money. I earn £60k a year in a managerial job just outside the M25 and I am 44 years old.

Typical lefty hypocrite - wants high penal taxes as long as they don't affect him. What a Knob.

Can't be much of a company that employs him if someone of such low intellect gets a £60k a year job. I wouldn't want someone as thick as this as a manager.

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

I'm 44 and would be claiming my pension at 66 until Ian Duncan bald git made this announcement today. Now I am losing out by another year, not that I was happy with 66 to start with. It means I will have to make the potential c.£7,500 loss (in today's money) from my own private pension arangements.

It's alright for others to lose out. As long as it isn't him.

Just go away you sad loser.

Iain Duncan Smith may have no hair, but you have no brain. I know which one I prefer to be.

Now, where's that guillotine?

Aegis

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

Lower the 50% income tax rate threshold to £80k a year for starters, then introduce much higher council tax rates for those with huge and/or very expensive houses. At present the 50% rate only affects the top 1% of earners, and of those an even smaller number actually earn very substantially above that threshold.

And how much of the £70-85 billion per year required by your suggestions do you think that would raise? How much revenue would also be lost by driving out more middle earners to better tax locations?

Gracchus_Babeuf

atush wrote: »

you can't have it both ways, you make your own moral judgements about whose life is worth more- a 90 yr old teetotaller who lead a blameless life or a hard drinking 60 yr old with liver disease.

Yes, treat them equally if you can. But you seem to ignore that operating on a 90something person has a high risk of killing that person anwyay, so if you could use the surgeon's time on another critical operation that could save someone's life and has a much better chance of success, what would you do? This is about risk management and ensuring the best outcome, not making moralistic judgements.

Gracchus_Babeuf

Aegis wrote: »

And how much of the £70-85 billion per year required by your suggestions do you think that would raise? How much revenue would also be lost by driving out more middle earners to better tax locations?

Driving middle income earners to better tax locations? Oh yeah. So all the IT experts, lawyers, surveyors, architects, engineers and accountants will suddenly sell up and move to Saudi Arabia, will they? :rotfl:I can already picture the flood of 4X4s bumper to bumper on the motorways.

Utter twaddle.

nearlyrich

I started thinking about when I plan to retire when I was 28 and I am still on track for 55 (just turned 50) I have seen my state pension age rise from 60 to 67 (I think) but that is only a small part of my pension income, I have taken advantage of the free money tax allowances over the years to build a pension pot and ISA's every year. I had to budget to do this in the beginning I was a single parent on the same wage as the benefit I would have been entitled to if I hadn't got a job, I didn't smoke or drink much, I didn't have flash holidays etc it was just a matter of priorities.

Blame the Tories if you must but at least they are not spending money we don't have anymore which Labour did for years.

Gracchus_Babeuf

ffacoffipawb wrote: »

Typical lefty hypocrite - wants high penal taxes as long as they don't affect him. What a Knob.

Can't be much of a company that employs him if someone of such low intellect gets a £60k a year job. I wouldn't want someone as thick as this as a manager.

Totally moronic reply - speaks for itself in its utter stupidity. The vast majority of people earn less than £80k a year, and even if I was affected I would be very willing to pay (as I said in an earlier post) as long as I have the guarantee of a good state pension in retirement. I would be buying security, as opposed to have to waste a huge portion of my salary gambling on the stockmarket in a private pension.[/QUOTE]

ffacoffipawb wrote: »

It's alright for others to lose out. As long as it isn't him.

Just go away you sad loser.

Iain Duncan Smith may have no hair, but you have no brain. I know which one I prefer to be.

Now, where's that guillotine?

Over 90% of the population would not lose out under my proposals, and if you do, tough !!!!.

zagfles

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

Exercise your few brain cells. Because I have a private pension that I am targeting to give me around £20-22k a year, so that figure is the income I'm seeking, and the state pension (which, including, S2P would be closer to £7,500 than £5,000) would be part of this total.

So the changes speculated in the article would cost you about £7500. not £50k.

Tough, the Tories said they'd increase the state pension age before the election, They got voted in, and now they're doing what they said they'd do. Don't like it? Start a revolution or find somewhere else to live.