Retired people could work for pensions..

PaulF81

dzug1 wrote: »

But surely in our ideal society that Bureau would be run by G4S or similar, not the state?

Oh sorry I forgot. In our ideal society there won't be a state pension anyway.

There would be, but there would be an understanding for all UK citizens that there it comes with a contract of personal responsibility and the level of reward is directly corellated to the effort put in to the UK community. THat goes for all.

PaulF81

xylophone wrote: »

On very senior officers' pensions and with the CHOICE as to whether or not they do this work....

No different to senior civil servant pensions or a CEO gold plated private sector pension.

Dont forget, you too could have been one of these people. All it would have taken was exceptionally hard work, self sacrifice, sacrifice of personal time, going above and beyond and exceptional levels of skill.

As I said earlier, no one can complain, they should have worked harder at school instead of whining about their lot in life. Want to prioritise having 6 kids and having free sky on the state? Not my problem.

xylophone

I'm not complaining, I am leaving that to you.;)

CLAPTON

PaulF81 wrote: »

There would be, but there would be an understanding for all UK citizens that there it comes with a contract of personal responsibility and the level of reward is directly corellated to the effort put in to the UK community. THat goes for all.

I'm a little shocked at the overt socialism here. Are you really saying equal reward for equal EFFORT rather than neural effectiveness and value to the UK economy?
Next you'll be saying from each acording to their ability and to each according to their needs. (but if you do support this please note by abilities are modest and my needs extensive (and expensive)).

PaulF81

THose that took their skills forward would probably be on a decent private sector pension anyhow.

I support each according to their ability, their needs are a personal choice in the main. This is where new labour went wrong, they confused those with genuine need with those that like to complain a lot. Of course, the fact that the great unwashed kept on voting in them in had nothing to do with it did it?

GeorgeHowell

PaulF81 wrote: »

You didnt need to be a rocket scientist to figure out the levels of expenditure, particularly during the new labour years, were not going to be sustainable. In particular, this:



you might want to check this link in to see who voted them in.

http://www.britishpollingcouncil.org/nick-moon.pdf

It wasnt the younger generations. As for the birth rate, thats why I am all for cuts to child benefit past the first child, reductions in benefit for those not contributing to the system and generally making it as difficult as possible for those unable to have children to have them. Its really not the state, or more to the point, the tax payers problem. I use this phrase regularly on here - reverse darwinism. I do not use it tongue in cheek; that is exactly what I think of ALL socialist programmes, it supports those that actually are acting as a drag for the entire society and prevents progression of the country in a global sphere. We are currently getting trounced by the bric countries, due to the lack of socialist programmes in those countries. We are killing our nation as a result of socialism and its only when their work ethic is forced on later UK generations will we all wake up and realise the complete ride we have been taken for. How many poor union leaders do you meet?

Ironically, it could be the birth rate that bails out the boomers; without growth levels we have seen, their pensions WOULD have been cut as there simply would not have been the tax take to budget their pensions.

Despite being in the top 5% of earners, we have elected to only have 2 kids. Whilst I see the schemes used in china to control birth rate dispicable, it is not the states job to do the opposite - support the great unwashed to breed like rabbits and completely skew the work ethic of a nation. I dont see how retrievers and chelsea tractors affect the pensions issue, unless you are suggesting rediculous levels of taxation further reducing the level of my disposable income even further than it already is? If the families work hard for this lifestyle, they earn the cash, its their choice on what they spend it on. That includes fat cat traders on multi milion pound bonuses. If they use a skill to generate long term stable income, Why not? The flip side of the coin is the fred goodwin scenario, who was paid off for not only destroying a bank but also the nations finances. Its the same for him as those who chain smoke and have a full sky package on benefits, its down to personal responsibility and accountabilty. Those who shun both need throwing to the wolves.

Back to the OP, how would I administer a pensioners to work scheme? I would have a points based system, whereby the level of means testing and taxation on pensions (including private sector) depended on the contribution to your local community. I am not talking about sweeping the streets here. If an individual has the mental faculty to use skills and training they have perfected during a lifetime of work, why not use those skills to benefit the local community? Schemes such as voluntary childcare (increases state tax take through reduced maternity pay and increased income tax), teaching assistance in schools (cutting the state liabilities to ta pay and benefits), assistance and advice to local businesses (non-liable financial advice etc). There are an absolute raft of things that could be done, all which will keep pensioners active and bring communities closer together. I really dont see where the objections to such a scheme to could come from.

More scattergun -- that was a very tedious and boring, unfocussed thought-dump. Now you're on about NHS expenditure. I thought it was pensions and housing that were the bug-bear.

CLAPTON

PaulF81 wrote: »

THose that took their skills forward would probably be on a decent private sector pension anyhow.

I support each according to their ability, their needs are a personal choice in the main. This is where new labour went wrong, they confused those with genuine need with those that like to complain a lot. Of course, the fact that the great unwashed kept on voting in them in had nothing to do with it did it?

The problem here is that the coalition is so incompetent that it makes Brown look like a model of efficiency and prudence.

PaulF81

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

More scattergun -- that was a very tedious and boring, unfocussed thought-dump. Now you're on about NHS expenditure. I thought it was pensions and housing that were the bug-bear.

What a great well thought out response, with plenty of evidence base and thought on policy. Well done. Go give yourself a tea cake.

PaulF81

CLAPTON wrote: »

The problem here is that the coalition is so incompetent that it makes Brown look like a model of efficiency and prudence.

The Delta in the structural deficit since the coalition came to power says otherwise.

I'm a little shocked at the overt socialism here. Are you really saying equal reward for equal EFFORT rather than neural effectiveness and value to the UK economy?

The savings for the UK economy from reduced tax take would be huge. We workers might even have a little disposable income for a change and you know, help with the recovery.

CLAPTON

PaulF81 wrote: »

The Delta in the structural deficit since the coalition came to power says otherwise.

You never did say whether or not you are still blaming the over 85s for fighting the WW2 and incurring that 250% debt to gdp what was left to their children and grandchildren to pay back (some of whom are often called babyboomers).