We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Over 65 year olds to pay NI?
Comments
-
What do you mean by 'wealthy'? I quite agree that bus passes, winter-fuel payments and free TV licences should be withdrawn from the 'wealthy' – let's say someone who has an income of more than £26,000 (though that is not actually 'wealthy'). However, contrary to what you would like to believe, many pensioners cannot be defined as wealthy and have an income below that.
Also note that many pensioners have put into the system for 40–50 years, paying for other peoples' sprogs for one thing, even if they have had no children of their own. Many of them have been prudent throughout their lives – unlike the individuals who squandered millions during the last 15 years and are now in severe debt. Do you really believe pensioners deserve to have what they've worked hard for during their lives taken away? (I suppose you will believe anything that will be to your advantage.:cool:)
I have to ask at this point (to the bold part)...and?
People before them paid in to the system, people after them pay into the system. It isn't somehow unique that current pensioners have paid into the system.
I note your last comment, and that puts it into perspective to me. You appear to be arguing that pensioners shoudl be treated differently to anyone else, even those coming up behind them who will also have paid into a system for x amount of years....I find it baffling you then accuse me of wanting this for my advantage, when everything you suggest is for your advantage, at the cost of others.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »Yer, removing bus passes and token winter fuel payments from the wealthy. Looking at getting them paying the same tax as every other employed person.
Quite some assault. Let's forget the promise to RAISE pensions to £140. Let's forget the higher tax thresholds implemented.
Let's not muddy a good, leftie snipe by reading and addressing the whole post before pitching in ....No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
You calling me a leftie?0
-
Older people have the advantage of having been young once. Young people cannot have any real idea what it's like to be older.
Today's young are tomorrow's pensioners. If the ageism and disdain for the older generation displayed by some, and I stress some, of the younger generation continues apace then God help them when they are old and retired. Perhaps the next younger generation will introduce compulsory euthanasia at 60, so that they can sell their parents' houses, grab their cash -- and have it all now, mum.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »You calling me a leftie?
I called the post leftie -- I can't resist it when I see 'wealthy' applied to anyone self-supporting and thus with a deservedly reasonably comfortable standard of living.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »I called the post leftie -- I can't resist it when I see 'wealthy' applied to anyone self-supporting and thus with a deservedly reasonably comfortable standard of living.
I just said wealthy.
You applied the parameters.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »I just said wealthy.
You applied the parameters.
"Wealthy", like "poor", has no generally recognised definition. In my experience the left's definition tends to include at least all those in the upper quartiles of income and/or net asset value, or in some cases even the top 50%. Their definition of poor tends to be the mirror image of that.
How wealthy does a pensioner need to be before they should lose all their benefits ? If my assumption that the left believes it is anyone self-supporting and self-responsible who thus deservedly enjoys a reasonably comfortable standard of living in retirement is an incorrect one, then we need a quantified answer in order to progress the discussion sensibly.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »/...If the ageism and disdain for the older generation displayed by some, and I stress some, of the younger generation continues apace then God help them when they are old and retired. Perhaps the next younger generation will introduce compulsory euthanasia at 60, so that they can sell their parents' houses, grab their cash -- and have it all now, mum.
pff.
'slippery slope' arguments are so tedious that, well, it's very easily possible to characterise the noblest thing ever as the first step on a slipper slope to Hades.
the only sensible thing to do in this situation is to apply a simple test to the fact that all over 65's don't pay 65:
1 - is it affordable?; and
2 - is it fair?
2 obviously gets into hopelessly subjective territory but it's easily possible to have a reasoned debate without using the dreaded 'slippery slope' line of argument.FACT.0 -
the_flying_pig wrote: »pff.
'slippery slope' arguments are so tedious that, well, it's very easily possible to characterise the noblest thing ever as the first step on a slipper slope to Hades.
the only sensible thing to do in this situation is to apply a simple test to the fact that all over 65's don't pay 65:
1 - is it affordable?; and
2 - is it fair?
2 obviously gets into hopelessly subjective territory but it's easily possible to have a reasoned debate without using the dreaded 'slippery slope' line of argument.
So called 'slippery slope' arguments, much derided at the time, have often been proved correct in predicting disasters or declines -- here are some examples :-
- Unpreparedness for inevitable war due to appeasement of the Nazis, in the 1930s
- Dumbing down of education due to comprehensive schools, in the 1960s
- Disruption and economic decline due to failure to tackle trade union power, in the 1970s
- Deterioration of consumer value for money due to privatisation of natural monopolies, in the 1980s
- Social conflict due to multiculturalism, in the 1990s
- Financial crash due to light touch regulation of the financial sector, in the 2000sNo-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards