Blue Labour 2

N1AK

Rinoa wrote: »

Yeah, as long as they give us 30/40 years notice. Telling us when we're in our 30's is fair enough, telling us the rules are changing when you're already 60+ isn't acceptable.

I shouldn't be allowed to vote in a party which promises me a state provided mansion, 10 sports cars and 10 man-servants in return for £5 a month in NI payments and expect the next generation to honour that agreement.

That's the issue with saying that the rules can't be changed for today's pensioners. The people actually paying for their retirement DIDN'T agree to the terms and can see that they won't get anything nearly as comfortable when/if they get to retire.

grizzly1911

N1AK wrote: »

. The people actually paying for their retirement DIDN'T agree to the terms and can see that they won't get anything nearly as comfortable when/if they get to retire.

I presume you mean "there retirement".

State pension is still many moons away for me personally.

When I became eligible to vote I didn't vote for any parties on the basis of what my future pension might be and I am sure millions didn't either. It was just accepted that we paid tax an NI, to provide for the then current pensions and welfare and that some form of BASIC state pension would be payable when we reached that point.

Luckily I had access to a good employer scheme in the private sector to top it up.

The basic state pension for a single person isn't exactly generous.

The fact that all sorts of benefits have mushroomed around that basic pension is another matter. the fact that the basic pension hasn't really kept pace with most of the things that pensioners consume isn't really the fault of the pensioner.

Rinoa

N1AK wrote: »

I shouldn't be allowed to vote in a party which promises me a state provided mansion, 10 sports cars and 10 man-servants in return for £5 a month in NI payments and expect the next generation to honour that agreement.

£5 per month? Have a good look at your pay slip.

PaulF81

michaels wrote: »

Means tested state pension is coming We have already seen the end of the state second pension. Makes me wonder why I am paying in to a pension at all as any provision I make for myself is likely to be clawed back when I have retired

Emigrate and pay ni. It's the way forward.:D

PaulF81

Rinoa wrote: »

Yeah, as long as they give us 30/40 years notice. Telling us when we're in our 30's is fair enough, telling us the rules are changing when you're already 60+ isn't acceptable.

Suck it up. I was within 5 years of receiving my public sector pension and it was destroyed. State pension or the full range of NHs treatment. We can afford one for old people, not both.

Sampong

Speaking of Ed Balls here is a picture I found of him wearing a Nazi uniform;

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2211486/The-Nazi-uniform-It-just-laugh-Balls-brushes-university-prank-saying-embarrassed-photo.html

This proves conclusively that;

1) Ed Balls is a Nazi
2) Therefore all Labour Politicians are Nazi's
3) And all Labour voters are closet Nazi's - despite not being aware of this before.

chewmylegoff

lemonjelly wrote: »

If anyone really wants to address welfare spending, this really has to be the way to go to make savings of any impact.

i agree, although it's a strange policy from the party who were so outraged about the so-called "granny tax".

in any event, i really cannot see why we need to pay a state pension to rich old people. they can argue that they paid "national insurance" all they like, but anyone with a calculator and google can work out in about 5 minutes that total national insurance contributions inwards are dwarfed by all the things that they allegedly cover.

there's a name for an insurer whose liabilities exceed its premiums, i think it's: "oh look that insurance company has gone bust".

it doesn't matter how many world wars someone's granddad fought in to save us from the nazis - if his income is £100,000pa he doesn't need a state pension and we cannot afford to pay it to him. paying a pension to someone in that situation is exactly the same as paying working tax credits to a banker on £100,000pa (this particular banker only works one day a week, natch).

TruckerT

chewmylegoff wrote: »

i agree, although it's a strange policy from the party who were so outraged about the so-called "granny tax".

in any event, i really cannot see why we need to pay a state pension to rich old people. they can argue that they paid "national insurance" all they like, but anyone with a calculator and google can work out in about 5 minutes that total national insurance contributions inwards are dwarfed by all the things that they allegedly cover.

there's a name for an insurer whose liabilities exceed its premiums, i think it's: "oh look that insurance company has gone bust".

it doesn't matter how many world wars someone's granddad fought in to save us from the nazis - if his income is £100,000pa he doesn't need a state pension and we cannot afford to pay it to him. paying a pension to someone in that situation is exactly the same as paying working tax credits to a banker on £100,000pa (this particular banker only works one day a week, natch).

I guess National Insurance was a socialist notion which failed to predict that the working classes could/would eventually become self-supporting.

The socialists failed to predict the dissolution of the class divide, even though it was probably their main objective.

Economics is a 'social science' - it attempts to explain human behaviour.

Times change, but animal hierarchies are genetically essential.

All animal species are dominated by a strong minority - humans are no different, and the study of economics will make no difference to the general principle.

TruckerT

Thrugelmir

michaels wrote: »

Means tested state pension is coming We have already seen the end of the state second pension. Makes me wonder why I am paying in to a pension at all as any provision I make for myself is likely to be clawed back when I have retired

Means testing will too expensive to administer. Everything is heading in the direction of simplification.

A pension is a highly effective way of building and having an income in retirement.

CLAPTON

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Means testing will too expensive to administer. Everything is heading in the direction of simplification.

A pension is a highly effective way of building and having an income in retirement.

Do you have any examples supporting the idea that means testing is more expensive than the correspeonding universal benefit?


Would you really describe the claw back of personal allowance at 100k or the 45% tax band or the clawback of child benefit at 50k per person or capping of benefits as 'simplification' ?