Man dies over disabled parking space

schrodie

tokenfield wrote: »

1. Pensioners take 20% of the national budget.

2. The NHS takes 18% of the national budget.

You also forgot to add that pensioners take over 40% of the welfare budget!!

Vectis

schrodie wrote: »

It's because for the purposes for certain BB criteria THEY ARE.

Andy I really do suggest you take the time to read (and understand) the government BB consolation AND the government's response to the consolation then HOPEFULLY you understand!!

You do really need to do some homework on this matter as you're looking very silly.

I'm not saying you're right or wrong in your argument but shouting (as you've done in at least a couple of posts in this thread) seems to indicate that you may have lost the argument. Or, at best, people are going to stop listening to you.

schrodie

Vectis wrote: »

I'm not saying you're right or wrong in your argument but shouting (as you've done in at least a couple of posts in this thread) seems to indicate that you may have lost the argument. Or, at best, people are going to stop listening to you.

It's a case of trying to get through to someone who fails to understand the bleeding obvious :wall: it's NOT a matter of shouting.

tokenfield

schrodie wrote: »

You also forgot to add that pensioners take over 40% of the welfare budget!!

.......which in total is 16% of the national budget.

If you then lump the total money that pensioners get it amounts to 20%(pensions) + 40% of 16%(welfare other than pensions) which equates to a grand total of 27% of the whole national budget - disgusting!!!

How long can this country keep on paying out that amount to just one sector of society!! I wouldn't be all that bad if they contributed something in return!

cheesemelts

This is awful, whatever differences in life surely we can reconcile without this.....

Parva

Don't rise to the trolling schrodue.

Brassedoff

Irrespective of whether paying pensioners a guaranteed sum each week and pegging that to the RPI is right or wrong, it's going to happen for this Parliament. The Government has said so.

As the younger generation will find out to their cost, the nation got its sums wrong when it came to Pensioners and their life expectancy in some sections of society.

There's arguments for and against the status quo. How can they continue to pay so much without means testing? But means testing costs a great deal for every pound saved.

Raising the pension age to 67, 68 , whilst sounds correct in the south east of England appears fine, but it's not fine in some parts of Glasgow where life expectancy of males is 63. The rest of Scotland is 71 years. Yet England has 86-87.

One thing is certain, it's the youth & those under 40 who are left to pay for the mistakes by those now looking to have a better lifestyle than those who are on other benefits.

As the wartime generation have nearly gone, it's the baby boomers who are now into pension age, the debt of honour to the wartime generation is nearly gone. You could ask why the workers of today have to bare the burden of those who didn't put enough aside, despite being those according to McMillian as "never having it so good"?

The annoying thing is why on earth can anyone expect a return of £160 as a "Government pension" per week when only £14.75 a week (in today's terms) was set aside? The sums were wrong, the government gave plenty of tax breaks to the working generation starting out in employment in the 60's, 70's to put money aside for their own pensions. They even had the benefit of the superannuation schemes. Pensions that today's youth can only dream of!

One thing that is for certain, the systems broke. The socialist standpoints is to pay supporting benefits, be they grow or not. No thought or discussion of curtailing them if a section have no real need.

And it's not just pensions.

Our society is advanced enough that no one, and I mean no one should be in poverty. If they government stopped exporting 4% of GDP in foreign aid, we might not have to cut one brass penny of anyone's benefit in this country!!!

schrodie

tokenfield wrote: »

.......which in total is 16% of the national budget.

If you then lump the total money that pensioners get it amounts to 20%(pensions) + 40% of 16%(welfare other than pensions) which equates to a grand total of 27% of the whole national budget - disgusting!!!

Any [official] data (figures) to back this assertion up?

markmarkmark

Brassedoff wrote: »

If they government stopped exporting 4% of GDP in foreign aid, we might not have to cut one brass penny of anyone's benefit in this country!!!

I absolutely agree, it seems an enormous amount of money to countries that can afford a space program and Mirage fighters... from a country in the worst "austerity" since the war, and should never have been ring-fenced as an ego trip for politicians. I do sometimes wonder how much goes in "grease" to help along export contracts for the governments' favoured companies and is that maybe a secret reason?

tokenfield

Brassedoff wrote: »

Irrespective of whether paying pensioners a guaranteed sum each week and pegging that to the RPI is right or wrong, it's going to happen for this Parliament. The Government has said so.

As the younger generation will find out to their cost, the nation got its sums wrong when it came to Pensioners and their life expectancy in some sections of society.

There's arguments for and against the status quo. How can they continue to pay so much without means testing? But means testing costs a great deal for every pound saved.

Raising the pension age to 67, 68 , whilst sounds correct in the south east of England appears fine, but it's not fine in some parts of Glasgow where life expectancy of males is 63. The rest of Scotland is 71 years. Yet England has 86-87.

One thing is certain, it's the youth & those under 40 who are left to pay for the mistakes by those now looking to have a better lifestyle than those who are on other benefits.

As the wartime generation have nearly gone, it's the baby boomers who are now into pension age, the debt of honour to the wartime generation is nearly gone. You could ask why the workers of today have to bare the burden of those who didn't put enough aside, despite being those according to McMillian as "never having it so good"?

The annoying thing is why on earth can anyone expect a return of £160 as a "Government pension" per week when only £14.75 a week (in today's terms) was set aside? The sums were wrong, the government gave plenty of tax breaks to the working generation starting out in employment in the 60's, 70's to put money aside for their own pensions. They even had the benefit of the superannuation schemes. Pensions that today's youth can only dream of!

One thing that is for certain, the systems broke. The socialist standpoints is to pay supporting benefits, be they grow or not. No thought or discussion of curtailing them if a section have no real need.

And it's not just pensions.

Our society is advanced enough that no one, and I mean no one should be in poverty. If they government stopped exporting 4% of GDP in foreign aid, we might not have to cut one brass penny of anyone's benefit in this country!!!

I'm with you all the way!!!