Should automatic benefits be cut for those who "don't need them"?

Skinto_7

N1AK wrote: »

That was my mistake Skinto. I misunderstood your comment


I'm sorry but if you can't see the link between previous taxation and current finances then I'm not wasting my time debating this. Greece has massively increased taxation since the start of their crisis, yet somehow they are still in trouble. Why? Because previous taxation and spending have a much greater effect on an economy than current taxation and spending.

Apology accepted N1AK.

In respect of me not being able to see the link between previous taxation and current finances, im slightly confused, im pretty sure if you check my last post it was me that raised the issue of their obvioulsy being a link, this was prompted by your previous argument which hinted that historical tax payments had no link to current benefit payments.

N1AK

McKneff wrote: »

And to you sir I say 'Thank you very much'

Touchè :rotfl:maybe there's something to keeping my cash hidden in the mattress after all.

N1AK

Skinto_7 wrote: »

In respect of me not being able to see the link between previous taxation and current finances, im slightly confused, im pretty sure if you check my last post it was me that raised the issue of their obvioulsy being a link.

I am, it seems, a complete moron :eek: I can only hope that having picked the minority side on this debate that I have seen all responses as being opposite to my own position

Historical tax payments could be said to indirectly relate to current benefit payments. More tax, if spending was unaltered, would make funding payments easier etc. That said we have never operated a funded pension scheme which is a shame because it makes the shortfall obvious.

My opinion, and I believe the data strongly supports it is that budgets throughout the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s didn't account for the ongoing increases in life expectancy and healthcare. Even ignoring that they still didn't account for the clear demographic shifts that had already begun.

Skinto_7

N1AK wrote: »

I am, it seems, a complete moron :eek: I can only hope that having picked the minority side on this debate that I have seen all responses as being opposite to my own position

Historical tax payments could be said to indirectly relate to current benefit payments. More tax, if spending was unaltered, would make funding payments easier etc. That said we have never operated a funded pension scheme which is a shame because it makes the shortfall obvious.

My opinion, and I believe the data strongly supports it is that budgets throughout the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s didn't account for the ongoing increases in life expectancy and healthcare. Even ignoring that they still didn't account for the clear demographic shifts that had already begun.

Its cool, i have been known do the same when in full argument mode!!

Despite our stormy start it appears we might actually agree on something, your last paragraph is spot on, who would have thought it :rotfl:

N1AK

Skinto_7 wrote: »

Despite our stormy start it appears we might actually agree on something, your last paragraph is spot on, who would have thought it :rotfl:

Contrary to popular opinion, and pqrdef's recent revelation that I am in fact an alien, I don't campaign for forced termination at 50 in my spare time :beer:
Thanks for being very polite in the face of some nonsensical, and impolite, posts.

McKneff

N1AK wrote: »

Contrary to popular opinion, and pqrdef's recent revelation that I am in fact an alien, I don't campaign for forced termination at 50 in my spare time :beer:
Thanks for being very polite in the face of some nonsensical, and impolite, posts.

Ha Ha, funny you should say that, My husband in his younger days, many years ago used to say they should shoot people when they get to 65.

He's 68 now and so glad his campaign got nowhere:D

homelessskilledworker

I can think of a handful of welfare payments that should be untouchable, number one concern with me is the elderly, should be spoilt rotten in their twilight years.
But when it comes to a lot of the so called unemployment over recent years with some of these people breeding dozens of kids I would like to see welfare hammered.
Our welfare bill is over £200 billion a year, crazy!!

grizzly1911

N1AK wrote: »

My opinion, and I believe the data strongly supports it is that budgets throughout the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s didn't account for the ongoing increases in life expectancy and healthcare. Even ignoring that they still didn't account for the clear demographic shifts that had already begun.

I doubt they did, tax to day pays for today.

Through the 60/70s we had "growth" following WWII.

At the end of the 70s and from then on we started selling off assets and remortgaging the state and individuals in order to generate cash flow without any underlying profitability.

We have got to the point now where we are borrowing way into the future just to pay for today -student fees for example - these could be accommodated within the balance sheet now they are being placed out of the balance sheet just to keep it looking healthier.

Politicians of what ever calling are only bothered in keeping the plates spinning for their time. The extra "pension provision" being taken from the public sector is only a tax for now to help with the balance sheet now/short term. 5 years down the line it will be rehashed once more. Increasing the retirement age has been the biggest factor in stabilizing/reducing long term liabilities..

I am positive that had the electorate had the full facts of where we are now, 30/40 years ago, different outcomes would have been voted for . The electorate then could only vote on the options available and presented to them at that time.

As time moves on things change and the cheese keeps moving.

We are making plans now that may be successful but in reality the odds are stacked against us as individuals. Everybody ones a piece of us whether it be the state or capitalism.

grizzly1911

wotsthat wrote: »

Another example of why we live in such an entitlement culture.

Borrowed money being used to pay perks to people that would manage perfectly well without them.

I wonder how many higher rate tax pensioners there are?

Means testing for all would make those "not entitled" a costly exercise.

ukcarper

N1AK wrote: »

Contrary to popular opinion, and pqrdef's recent revelation that I am in fact an alien, I don't campaign for forced termination at 50 in my spare time :beer:
Thanks for being very polite in the face of some nonsensical, and impolite, posts.

What do you suggest should be done about state pensions and universal benefits paid to pensioners.