Restoration of the age related allowance

margaretclare

'Perspectionism' - now, that's a new word.

I think that one of the things that made a huge difference for my generation was that our expectations were not high. If you left school and got a job, that was just about all that was expected of me as a teenager. And brought some of your earnings home to 'help out' and - as a girl - didn't 'get yourself into trouble', one of those euphemisms that no longer exists. On the plus side, there were plenty of jobs of all kinds. For a teenage boy, national service loomed, although some did well and enjoyed that experience, some hated it and some were sent to post-colonial wars and never came home. Few young people expected to be pop stars, film stars, models or sporting heroes, although that did happen, rarely. There is almost no comparison with the state of things now, and I feel desperately sorry for the young folks, who've been brought up to expect great things which haven't materialised. For myself and DH (who escaped national service because of (a) his apprenticeship and (b) a badly-damaged knee) we live simply but comfortably. I can't make comparisons because the world has changed.

mgdavid

Daniel_Elkington wrote: »

Please don't quote me and put words in my mouth. It's rude and offensive.

to you maybe but not to other readers; you are falling into your own trap of thinking that your perspective is the only one that counts.

Daniel_Elkington wrote: »

Therefore he applies that live now.

could you translate that please.

Daniel_Elkington wrote: »

....as you are the avatar of your own experience.

may I share some of what you are smoking?

Daniel_Elkington wrote: »

...... but I fail to see why the retired now should be protected from this catastrophic turn of events by their sons and daughters, surely it's your job to look after your children.

you seem to have a very immature and myopic view of the family unit; have you travelled at all, in the east for instance?

Daniel_Elkington wrote: »

.... The government is simplifying the state pension to make most of the poor and vulnerable retirees better off. I'd rather spend the money getting pensioners out of poverty.

please explain the difference .

jamesd

mgdavid wrote: »

please explain the difference .

The £140 will apply to everyone (except some wrinkles related to contracting out and transitional protection), not just those who end up with too little money. Pension Credit is means tested and applies to only those who end up needing the money. This £140 is to be paid for by taking money from the average and higher earners and giving it to those on lower earnings via NI and income tax. Even if those lower earners will have enough money in retirement anyway.

harz99

jamesd wrote: »

The £140 will apply to everyone (except some wrinkles related to contracting out and transitional protection), not just those who end up with too little money.

Not everyone! Only those first qualifying for State Pension on/after the implementation date. All existing pensioners will be left on their old rates, thus creating two different sets of pensioners - one set (the £140 ones) getting more for what can be many less years of contributions.

boozercruiser

mgdavid wrote: »

to you maybe but not to other readers; you are falling into your own trap of thinking that your perspective is the only one that counts.


could you translate that please.


may I share some of what you are smoking?


you seem to have a very immature and myopic view of the family unit; have you travelled at all, in the east for instance?


please explain the difference .

"Never argue with idiots - they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience".

I just love your signature there M8

I shall have to remember that!:D

MonkeyMad

You will be talking to a brick wall as you have made no cogent argument, and like everyone else arguing for the restoration you only quote the figures you like to support you case. Like the enormous amount of money the rich will gain from their tax cut. And the fixed income pensioners have (like almost all others on a salary). Without mentioning the increases that have been given in the pension.

Basically the richest pensioners are being asked to help by contributing a little more and the don't like it. Don't kid us this is a crusade about helping out the poorest, since the poorest pensioners don't even notice this.

margaretclare

I agree with MonkeyMad. The 'poorest pensioners' pay no tax at all since all their income is means-tested - poverty by definition.

zygurat789

MonkeyMad wrote: »

You will be talking to a brick wall as you have made no cogent argument, and like everyone else arguing for the restoration you only quote the figures you like to support you case. Like the enormous amount of money the rich will gain from their tax cut. And the fixed income pensioners have (like almost all others on a salary). Without mentioning the increases that have been given in the pension.

Basically the richest pensioners are being asked to help by contributing a little more and the don't like it. Don't kid us this is a crusade about helping out the poorest, since the poorest pensioners don't even notice this.

So a pensioner on basic pension who has saved a bit (as advocated by most posters to this board) has been penalised by this, not the richest pensioners who will pay NO more unless their income is over £100,000.
Now the same pensioner have a lower income than new pensioners despite having paid more over a longer period. This is doubly unfair to this income group.
I would agree with your self-description

zygurat789

margaretclare wrote: »

I agree with MonkeyMad. The 'poorest pensioners' pay no tax at all since all their income is means-tested - poverty by definition.

These two sentences are totally unconnected and are not really relevant to the discussion

zygurat789

I see they have pulled the thread about boozecruise's web site.
Probably because it contained such a load of rubbish from some who have posted on this thread.