MSE News: MPs vote to limit benefit rises to 1%

princessdon

clemmatis wrote: »

So you agree with SandraScarlett's objection to receiving less by way of an old age pension alone than she paid in, and less than someone who paid the same would receive were they disabled?

(And you think children should receive nothing?)

No - the way the system has to work is that some will be net contributors and others won't, income is the only way to do this.

What I disagree with is the insurance part - it doesn't work like insurance where the higher your premiums the higher benefits.

It's a tax based on income - pure and simple

I beleive Sandra was initially replying to a poster who said everyone would get more than they paid in via pension. That isn't true and most of us won't get a pension. Someone paying in for 50 years gets a lower or equal to pension (inc credits) than a none worker especially if have a small pension.

In short its an income tax and not really insurance - times evolved from when that was the case.

clemmatis

princessdon wrote: »

No - the way the system has to work is that some will be net contributors and others won't, income is the only way to do this.

Quite.

I beleive Sandra was initially replying to a poster who said everyone would get more than they paid in via pension.

No, Morlock did not say everybody would get more than they paid in via pension. But if he had, isn't there a better reply than SandraScarlett's "I paid X I got X/2 in pension where's my money going Hmmmm?".

In short its an income tax and not really insurance - times evolved from when that was the case.

The sense in which it is an insurance is this: we do not expect to get back what we paid in, as it provides for eventualities we hope will not come to pass.

zoominatorone

dori2o wrote: »

Like I said, because you cannot physically see wheelchairs, scooters, walking sticks, ramps, hand rails, hoists etc etc it does not mean that there are no extra costs. Many, just like some disabilities are hidden.

As for those with ADHD, there are of course additional expenses with transport, diet, carers, medical tests/treatment (some of which are not available on the NHS), counselling/play therapy etc (most of which is not available on the NHS), clothing (kids with ADHD tend to go through many more clothes than normal kids), medications, repairs to home (many kids with behaviour problems tend to also have anger issues and cause a lot of damage to doors, walls etc etc, all of which requires funds to repair them), respite care (most of which is not available on the NHS).

To claim there are no additional costs shows you cannot distingush the truth from behind your bigotted views.

As for those with Asthma, yes I believe some kids do get DLA in exceptional circumstances where round the clock, or a significant amount of care is required. For a kid with mild asthma they would be unlikely to meet the conditions for either the mobility or the care component.

I'm yet to meet an alcoholic who gets DLA and I know a few, one being my BIL who's been an alcoholic/Drug Addict for the past 25 years and has never been awarded DLA, neither have any of the people he hangs around with.

You are yet to meet an alcoholic who gets DLA are you? There was a thread this week where someone was chuffed to bit their violent alcoholic mother had just had the DLA reinstated. More money for drink in my opinion:mad:

zoominatorone

plum2002 wrote: »

It's ok, we all understand, women must pay. The blokes that shag and run must be left to live their lives in peace, the women are the reason the UK is broke, they should have all benefits removed and be publicly flogged, their children must go to the workhouse.

Dear god, the reason benefits are paid is so that the children do not go without, and we need the young to keep on popping out babies, to support the older generation, of whom there are too many to support! Who pays for their pensions?

Do you honestly think the 3 or four kids a benefit-career single mother pops out are going to grow up and work:rotfl::rotfl: to pay for pensions for the older generation?

dori2o

zoominatorone wrote: »

You are yet to meet an alcoholic who gets DLA are you? There was a thread this week where someone was chuffed to bit their violent alcoholic mother had just had the DLA reinstated. More money for drink in my opinion:mad:

Was there really? I've still never met them.

dori2o

zoominatorone wrote: »

Do you honestly think the 3 or four kids a benefit-career single mother pops out are going to grow up and work:rotfl::rotfl: to pay for pensions for the older generation?

Unlike you some of us are not complete morons.

zoominatorone

dori2o wrote: »

Unlike you some of us are not complete morons.

perhaps you could clarify what you are talking about?

Kids growing up and working after watching their mothers on benefit all their lives will be rarer than hen's teeth. Too many single parents see being on benefits as a career choice and have never ever worked, and never ever want to.

SandraScarlett

clemmatis wrote: »

So you agree with SandraScarlett's objection to receiving less by way of an old age pension alone than she paid in, and less than someone who paid the same would receive were they disabled?

(And you think children should receive nothing?)

Oh dear - another poster who misquotes things.

princessdon wrote: »

No - the way the system has to work is that some will be net contributors and others won't, income is the only way to do this.

What I disagree with is the insurance part - it doesn't work like insurance where the higher your premiums the higher benefits.

It's a tax based on income - pure and simple

I beleive Sandra was initially replying to a poster who said everyone would get more than they paid in via pension. That isn't true and most of us won't get a pension. Someone paying in for 50 years gets a lower or equal to pension (inc credits) than a none worker especially if have a small pension.

In short its an income tax and not really insurance - times evolved from when that was the case.

That's exactly what I was doing, princess. Clemmatis,
if you're going to refer to my post, then at least be accurate. Morlock said the average paid in was £blah and that, in 25 years retirement, SRP and HB came to more than that.

And my response was that if you didn't get HB, it was nowhere near this figure. And then I quoted my own figures. Is that OK? Where did I mention "the disabled"? If you don't agree with what I'm saying, fine, but I thought you were more intelligent than to say, and I quote:

So you agree with SandraScarlett's objection to receiving less by way of an old age pension alone than she paid in, and less than someone who paid the same would receive were they disabled?

Sadly, I was wrong.

Furthermore, no I haven't ever claimed sickness benefit, but you seem to think I don't understand the concept of the word "insurance". I have house insurance, contents insurance and car insurance. But I can't claim, should I need to, for any of these, unless I've paid insurance contributions.

And if you are quoting my post, why not show all of it. The first part showed me replying to another poster who said:

Dear god, the reason benefits are paid is so that the children do not go without, and we need the young to keep on popping out babies, to support the older generation, of whom there are too many to support! Who pays for their pensions?

To which I replied

The babies that are "popped out" will only support the older generation if they have jobs, and pay taxes etc, not if they do the same as previous generations.

And how would you suggest you solve the problem of the fact that there are too many of the older generation to support? Should we go to the workhouse?

I then replied to Morlock's claim about how much I would get. So, if you'd read it properly, and quoted it in its entirety, it would have been obvious that my "Hmm ...." remark was directed at the babies that are "popped out" - the poster's phrase, not mine - and the disabled were never mentioned. Were they. Except by you.

xx

clemmatis

SandraScarlett wrote: »

Oh dear - another poster who misquotes things.

I misquoted you in my #290? Really?

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=58539705&postcount=290

Clemmatis,
if you're going to refer to my post, then at least be accurate.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=58539705&postcount=290

Morlock said the average paid in was £blah and that, in 25 years retirement, SRP and HB came to more than that.

And my response was that if you didn't get HB, it was nowhere near this figure. And then I quoted my own figures.

I quote, accurately (bold added)

SandraScarlett wrote: »

But if you don't get housing benefit, then what would you receive? I get just under £80 a week SRP, because I didn't have the necessary 39 years of contributions (30 now), and I have a private pension, that I paid into - not the State.

If I multiply £80 x 52 x 25 I get a figure of £104,000 and, that is only 36% of what I've paid in. So who's getting the other 64%? Hmmm ...... I wonder.

xx

Is that OK?

Not really, I'd like to know why, if all you wanted to do was say you didn't get housing benefit and so, potentially, anyway, received less than someone who did, you added

and, that is only 36% of what I've paid in. So who's getting the other 64%? Hmmm ...... I wonder.

(though I think I have now worked it out; see below).

Now to your

SandraScarlett wrote: »

Where did I mention "the disabled"? If you don't agree with what I'm saying, fine, but I thought you were more intelligent than to say, and I quote:

So you agree with SandraScarlett's objection to receiving less by way of an old age pension alone than she paid in, and less than someone who paid the same would receive were they disabled?

Sadly, I was wrong.

I sense reading comprehension and inference are not your forte. Your

SandraScarlett wrote:

hat is only 36% of what I've paid in. So who's getting the other 64%? Hmmm ...... I wonder.

xx

seemed to me to imply that you objected to your receiving -- as you think -- less than you paid in. Who might have paid in the same as you but receive more during their retirement? (Well, someone disabled might.)

Furthermore, no I haven't ever claimed sickness benefit,

or used the NHS or received maternity benefits?

but you seem to think I don't understand the concept of the word "insurance". I have house insurance, contents insurance and car insurance. But I can't claim, should I need to, for any of these, unless I've paid insurance contributions.

It is still though the case, and this is my point, that it is not open to you to complain that a neighbour who paid the same premium, or even possibly a lower one, has received more following claims than you have, unless the claims were identical.

And if you are quoting my post, why not show all of it.

Because that really does not help readers of the thread and because I was addressing your reply to Morlock and specifically your

, that is only 36% of what I've paid in. So who's getting the other 64%? Hmmm ...... I wonder.

But I do now see that your real objection is to paying for children's welfare.

Morlock

SandraScarlett wrote: »

Morlock said the average paid in was £blah and that, in 25 years retirement, SRP and HB came to more than that.

I included housing benefit as OAPs are the largest percentage of housing benefit recipients, so it seemed relevant. I neglected to include free prescriptions, free travel, heating allowance, attendance allowance, council tax benefit, disability living allowance, free dental care, NHS care etc.

The point was that the majority of people will pay in far less than the amount they receive in related benefits over a lifetime.