Omega Owners Forum
Chat Area => General Discussion Area => Topic started by: Field Marshal Dr. Opti on 18 March 2013, 17:40:27
-
Dispatches.......Channel 4 at eight.
I'll be watching. :y
-
Are you sure your blood pressure can take it, old boy?
-
Are you sure your blood pressure can take it, old boy?
It's about wealthy coffin dodgers such as yourself. :)
-
Just had a read...it's pensioners. Of course some of them are rich. But I hope we're not going to moot taking universal credits away...again. As Rods has already stated, if we start taking the old age pension away from 'rich' old biddies, it will be a slippery slope, and 'rich' will soon mean anyone with a few bob in the bank.
-
And anyone with their own home, and anyone with well-off kids, and.......
-
Just had a read...it's pensioners. Of course some of them are rich. But I hope we're not going to moot taking universal credits away...again. As Rods has already stated, if we start taking the old age pension away from 'rich' old biddies, it will be a slippery slope, and 'rich' will soon mean anyone with a few bob in the bank.
No. They've paid for their pensions are are fully entitled to keep them.
However, free prescriptions, free eye tests, free TV licence, £300 winter fuel payments plus an extra £25 every time the temperature drops, are hard to swallow, especially if the pensioner in question is minted.......and many are.
-
Just had a read...it's pensioners. Of course some of them are rich. But I hope we're not going to moot taking universal credits away...again. As Rods has already stated, if we start taking the old age pension away from 'rich' old biddies, it will be a slippery slope, and 'rich' will soon mean anyone with a few bob in the bank.
No. They've paid for their pensions are are fully entitled to keep them.
However, free prescriptions, free eye tests, free TV licence, £300 winter fuel payments plus an extra £25 every time the temperature drops, are hard to swallow, especially if the pensioner in question is minted.......and many are.
On that, I have to agree.
-
The best way to wind people up is to calculate how much all these things come to and say you are going to blow it on a night out. Also the trip from John O Groats to Lands End via bus pass.
-
Pretty poor programme.
Hello magazine reporting at its best. Michael Berk.
One item to pick up on is "paying winter fuel allowance to pensioners living abroad" Even Spain (where the bulk apparently live) is cold in winter and most houses don't have proper heating let alone central heating. I have seen minus 14 deg C here. We had snow only a week ago.
What people don't realise is that under EU rules the government of the expat pays the country 3,500 a year for their healthcare. Far cheaper than a pensioner costs back in the UK.
Oh and UK pensions are pretty low compared with just about everywhere else.
-
The rich pay 55% of Income tax in the UK, so what is the problem if they get a few ££££ back, the same with child benefit, it should be there for all parents or for nobody. the current system provides disincentives to middle income earners with children from taking promotion or working overtime if there is the risk of crossing the £50,000 threshold.
Personally, I would solve this problem very easily. In Hong Kong, you and your employer pay 10% of your wages, this is the equivalent of employer and employee NI, except this is in your own named personal social security fund. Young people can use some of it for a house deposit, It pays your health bills, it pay your underemployment benefits and it pays your pension. If you are unlucky or have long term illness problems, then the state backs this up in the event of the fund being depleted. When you die the fund is passed on to your offspring or relatives.
As a fully pre-funded system it is not a Ponsi scheme like our current pension system where you need more and more workers paying in as the lifespan and the number of pensioners goes up. Okay it would take 20 to 40 years to swap from the current system to a fully funded one, but the current system will require more and more workers as each generation retires and is clearly not sustainable.
It is these sort of radical market solutions that we need to get the country on its feet again, but is totally lacking with all the current incumbent political parties. >:( >:( >:( >:(
Vote UKIP. :y :y :y :y
-
For once I disagree with you Rods,up to a point.If rich pensioners have paid 55% tax and then get some of it back in benefits its not a welfare state.Its marxoid redistribution of wealth by another name.They should have paid less in tax in the first place and not had some of it returned at the discretion of the state.
Imo all benefits should be means tested to find out who actually needs them.Thats the only way the bloated "welfare state" can be shrunk to a reasonable level and we can return to welfare being given to the genuinely needy.
-
For once I disagree with you Rods,up to a point.If rich pensioners have paid 55% tax and then get some of it back in benefits its not a welfare state.Its marxoid redistribution of wealth by another name.They should have paid less in tax in the first place and not had some of it returned at the discretion of the state.
Imo all benefits should be means tested to find out who actually needs them.Thats the only way the bloated "welfare state" can be shrunk to a reasonable level and we can return to welfare being given to the genuinely needy.
:y :y :y :y :y :y :y :y :y :y :y
-
For once I disagree with you Rods,up to a point.If rich pensioners have paid 55% tax and then get some of it back in benefits its not a welfare state.Its marxoid redistribution of wealth by another name.They should have paid less in tax in the first place and not had some of it returned at the discretion of the state.
Imo all benefits should be means tested to find out who actually needs them.Thats the only way the bloated "welfare state" can be shrunk to a reasonable level and we can return to welfare being given to the genuinely needy.
Agreed in principle, but you need to make sure the means testing doesn't end up costing you more than you save. Cutting everything off at the higher rate tax threshold wouldn't be a bad idea, IMHO. HMRC already know who qualifies and who doesn't and I don't see anyone earning 32k plus really needing extra help. The benefits could be clawed back as a tax adjustment for higher rate tax payers at very little cost.
The thing you have to ask, though, is how much it would impact the overall welfare bill, and at what cost at the ballot box? ::)
-
For once I disagree with you Rods,up to a point.If rich pensioners have paid 55% tax and then get some of it back in benefits its not a welfare state.Its marxoid redistribution of wealth by another name.They should have paid less in tax in the first place and not had some of it returned at the discretion of the state.
Imo all benefits should be means tested to find out who actually needs them.Thats the only way the bloated "welfare state" can be shrunk to a reasonable level and we can return to welfare being given to the genuinely needy.
That will never happen, right or wrong. The grey vote is too powerful and someone will always promise to keep all of the benefits to stay/get into government.
Wait up.....isn't that exactly what Cameron did?
-
I believe that the benefits system has lost it's way in this country.
Payment of benefits should be all about " NEED"
If somebody genuinely NEEDS financial help then they should get it. Age is wholly irrelevant because people can NEED help at any age. Young...middle aged ...or elderly.
We clearly have a significant rump of wealthy pensioners in this country, and in my opinion they should not be entitled to benefits. The money could be used for those who genuinely NEED it.
But as Albs and Rods have said, Cameron wouldn't dare take them on. It would be political suicide.
-
Interesting comments ... and could someone please define, for me, a "wealthy pensioner" ??
I am a pensioner, I don't consider myself "wealthy" but I do have some savings/investments which others might deem "significant". I also have a rather nice house with no mortgage.
This is simply because I knew that at some point in time I would leave the services and have to live off my military pension for several years before the OAP kicked in to supplement it. The chances of getting a job at 60 odd are not good, so we made plans ...
We saved. When we finished paying the mortgage we didn't buy a new car or go on a cruise, we took the monthly payments that were going to the BS and put them into savings. If we couldn't pay for something we didn't buy it until we could, so we have no debts.
Having paid "In" to the system for 38 years, are folks now saying that because we did not spend the money years ago, but tried to plan for the future, that we should be penalised ?? and only those who threw money down the drain and have made no plans should be considered ??
I worked, paid my taxes, and saved for my future, if that means I'm treated as "wealthy" then I can soon become "Needy" if the system demands it ... :(
-
This country and attitudes makes me mad. >:(
We were always taught, that if you want something, you must work hard for it and you will better yourself. I did just that, worked all hours ( as did wife), was part of a 5 person managemnt that started a company trading £66,000 first year till 18 years later, turning over £12,000,000. Due to the main shareholders selling out to a big group, which eventually went down dragging us down with them, I ended up with nothing. But I started my own decorating business and earnt to live. We have paid off our loans, and the mortgage.....but because we have retired, own a £300,000 home, get our state pensions and a couple of small private pensions, with nothing in the bank, I might add....we are now considered the 'elderly rich', and in some opinions, (not least the governments), and despised because we made our way independantly, I should now forfeit all I have worked for to fund my life, where I can now do what I want to do, for whatever years I have left.
Whilst all the lazy b******s who have had it plonked on a plate in front of them for doing absolutely bugger all, get full state funding to the end. >:(
Yeah, right !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Interesting comments ... and could someone please define, for me, a "wealthy pensioner" ??
I am a pensioner, I don't consider myself "wealthy" but I do have some savings/investments which others might deem "significant". I also have a rather nice house with no mortgage.
This is simply because I knew that at some point in time I would leave the services and have to live off my military pension for several years before the OAP kicked in to supplement it. The chances of getting a job at 60 odd are not good, so we made plans ...
We saved. When we finished paying the mortgage we didn't buy a new car or go on a cruise, we took the monthly payments that were going to the BS and put them into savings. If we couldn't pay for something we didn't buy it until we could, so we have no debts.
Having paid "In" to the system for 38 years, are folks now saying that because we did not spend the money years ago, but tried to plan for the future, that we should be penalised ?? and only those who threw money down the drain and have made no plans should be considered ??
I worked, paid my taxes, and saved for my future, if that means I'm treated as "wealthy" then I can soon become "Needy" if the system demands it ... :(
No, Mr Entwood. But neither should you be unnecessarily rewarded. :y
-
Interesting comments ... and could someone please define, for me, a "wealthy pensioner" ??
I am a pensioner, I don't consider myself "wealthy" but I do have some savings/investments which others might deem "significant". I also have a rather nice house with no mortgage.
This is simply because I knew that at some point in time I would leave the services and have to live off my military pension for several years before the OAP kicked in to supplement it. The chances of getting a job at 60 odd are not good, so we made plans ...
We saved. When we finished paying the mortgage we didn't buy a new car or go on a cruise, we took the monthly payments that were going to the BS and put them into savings. If we couldn't pay for something we didn't buy it until we could, so we have no debts.
Having paid "In" to the system for 38 years, are folks now saying that because we did not spend the money years ago, but tried to plan for the future, that we should be penalised ?? and only those who threw money down the drain and have made no plans should be considered ??
I worked, paid my taxes, and saved for my future, if that means I'm treated as "wealthy" then I can soon become "Needy" if the system demands it ... :(
No, Mr Entwood. But neither should you be unnecessarily rewarded. :y
Is being treated "equally" seen as a reward then ??
Any form of "means test" that seeks to limit a payment will "reward" those who get it, and "penalise" those who don't. Thus "rewarding" the profligate and "penalising" the frugal.
The only way to equality is either not to means test a benefit and pay it to all, or not to pay it to anyone thus encouraging self-sufficiency and reducing the burden on everyone.
-
Interesting comments ... and could someone please define, for me, a "wealthy pensioner" ??
I am a pensioner, I don't consider myself "wealthy" but I do have some savings/investments which others might deem "significant". I also have a rather nice house with no mortgage.
This is simply because I knew that at some point in time I would leave the services and have to live off my military pension for several years before the OAP kicked in to supplement it. The chances of getting a job at 60 odd are not good, so we made plans ...
We saved. When we finished paying the mortgage we didn't buy a new car or go on a cruise, we took the monthly payments that were going to the BS and put them into savings. If we couldn't pay for something we didn't buy it until we could, so we have no debts.
Having paid "In" to the system for 38 years, are folks now saying that because we did not spend the money years ago, but tried to plan for the future, that we should be penalised ?? and only those who threw money down the drain and have made no plans should be considered ??
I worked, paid my taxes, and saved for my future, if that means I'm treated as "wealthy" then I can soon become "Needy" if the system demands it ... :(
I agree with you Nigel entirely :y :y :y
The trouble is nowadays people are encouraged not to save; not to put themselves out and make provision for the future, like a pension. They expect the state / others to pay for their needs from cradle to grave. What a nonsense! ::) ::) ::) ::)
-
This country and attitudes makes me mad. >:(
We were always taught, that if you want something, you must work hard for it and you will better yourself. I did just that, worked all hours ( as did wife), was part of a 5 person managemnt that started a company trading £66,000 first year till 18 years later, turning over £12,000,000. Due to the main shareholders selling out to a big group, which eventually went down dragging us down with them, I ended up with nothing. But I started my own decorating business and earnt to live. We have paid off our loans, and the mortgage.....but because we have retired, own a £300,000 home, get our state pensions and a couple of small private pensions, with nothing in the bank, I might add....we are now considered the 'elderly rich', and in some opinions, (not least the governments), and despised because we made our way independantly, I should now forfeit all I have worked for to fund my life, where I can now do what I want to do, for whatever years I have left.
Whilst all the lazy b******s who have had it plonked on a plate in front of them for doing absolutely bugger all, get full state funding to the end. >:(
Yeah, right !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I agree with you terbert, and would make the same comment as I have in Entwood's thread :y :y :y
-
Interesting comments ... and could someone please define, for me, a "wealthy pensioner" ??
I am a pensioner, I don't consider myself "wealthy" but I do have some savings/investments which others might deem "significant". I also have a rather nice house with no mortgage.
This is simply because I knew that at some point in time I would leave the services and have to live off my military pension for several years before the OAP kicked in to supplement it. The chances of getting a job at 60 odd are not good, so we made plans ...
We saved. When we finished paying the mortgage we didn't buy a new car or go on a cruise, we took the monthly payments that were going to the BS and put them into savings. If we couldn't pay for something we didn't buy it until we could, so we have no debts.
Having paid "In" to the system for 38 years, are folks now saying that because we did not spend the money years ago, but tried to plan for the future, that we should be penalised ?? and only those who threw money down the drain and have made no plans should be considered ??
I worked, paid my taxes, and saved for my future, if that means I'm treated as "wealthy" then I can soon become "Needy" if the system demands it ... :(
Is that all ;D if I get to retire at 65 (fat chance) I will have contributed for 49 years. I am 47 now and have worked since the age of 16.
So after so many years of contributing more than you will I receive more ?
Only joking not really looking for a reply :y
-
I agree with you Nigel entirely :y :y :y
The trouble is nowadays people are encouraged not to save; not to put themselves out and make provision for the future, like a pension. They expect the state / others to pay for their needs from cradle to grave. What a nonsense! ::) ::) ::) ::)
That is a sad fact of life. I know plenty of people in my age range (early 40's) who live from pay packet to pay packet, pi$$ing everything they earn up the wall, with interest only mortgages and buying everything substantial on the drip. There's little incentive for them to change their ways in an age where savings simply depreciate before your eyes in the bank. By the time they retire the welfare state will simply have to support them somehow if we don't want to see them sleeping rough.
-
Interesting comments ... and could someone please define, for me, a "wealthy pensioner" ??
I am a pensioner, I don't consider myself "wealthy" but I do have some savings/investments which others might deem "significant". I also have a rather nice house with no mortgage.
This is simply because I knew that at some point in time I would leave the services and have to live off my military pension for several years before the OAP kicked in to supplement it. The chances of getting a job at 60 odd are not good, so we made plans ...
We saved. When we finished paying the mortgage we didn't buy a new car or go on a cruise, we took the monthly payments that were going to the BS and put them into savings. If we couldn't pay for something we didn't buy it until we could, so we have no debts.
Having paid "In" to the system for 38 years, are folks now saying that because we did not spend the money years ago, but tried to plan for the future, that we should be penalised ?? and only those who threw money down the drain and have made no plans should be considered ??
I worked, paid my taxes, and saved for my future, if that means I'm treated as "wealthy" then I can soon become "Needy" if the system demands it ... :(
I agree with you Nigel entirely :y :y :y
The trouble is nowadays people are encouraged not to save; not to put themselves out and make provision for the future, like a pension. They expect the state / others to pay for their needs from cradle to grave. What a nonsense! ::) ::) ::) ::)
Many people in low wage jobs are simply unable to save, Lizzie. There are millions in this country who can barely make ends meet, these often hard working individuals constantly lurch from one crisis to another, taking one step forward then two steps back.
These are the very people the benefits system was designed to protect. :y
Of course, as Kevin said, there's always a few lazy breakless bastard's who take advantage of the system. :(
-
I did not type breakless. I typed reckless...... but with an F
Word filter needs some fine tuning.....methinks. ;)
-
I did not type breakless. I typed reckless...... but with an F
Word filter needs some fine tuning.....methinks. ;)
Well...they stopped me saying the f word, so I started saying the f e c k word. They stopped that too :'(
Fickin idiots. ;D
-
I did not type breakless. I typed reckless...... but with an F
Word filter needs some fine tuning.....methinks. ;)
Well...they stopped me saying the f word, so I started saying the f e c k word. They stopped that too :'(
Fickin idiots. ;D
Yes. But f e c k is a rude word ;D ;D.......f e c k l e s s is not.
-
We have to have a system which rewards those who have made genuine input during their lives such that there is a differentiation in the output as against those who have done little to prepare for the future recognising that for some they will have just not been fortunate in life and others will indeed have p****d it against a wall.
From my all too frequent visits to care homes to see family members and knowing that I fight tooth and nail to minimise the amounts my parents contribute I would say that a system that provides a higher quality in the "accomodation" standards of care to those who have worked hard against those who have not would at least be something I could live with rather than knowing that if my parents had never bothered they would be in exactly the same place at no cost to them because they had nothing. In this way there would be less incentive for all the schemes that have to be devised to distribute money from the elderly to their families before the state gets hold of it.
I know differentiation goes against the grain for many but you at least then have better choices and therefore an incentive for people to aspire to prepare for old age. I suppose what I have said translates into a contribution from the state to the top up fees to go to a better quality home once you have had the usual rules applied to your income and savings rather than have to dip in even more as is the case today. So a system of care home credits builds up which can be transferred/inherited (in whole or in part) into the pot of your kids.
I may have lost the plot of course...
-
Interesting comments ... and could someone please define, for me, a "wealthy pensioner" ??
I am a pensioner, I don't consider myself "wealthy" but I do have some savings/investments which others might deem "significant". I also have a rather nice house with no mortgage.
This is simply because I knew that at some point in time I would leave the services and have to live off my military pension for several years before the OAP kicked in to supplement it. The chances of getting a job at 60 odd are not good, so we made plans ...
We saved. When we finished paying the mortgage we didn't buy a new car or go on a cruise, we took the monthly payments that were going to the BS and put them into savings. If we couldn't pay for something we didn't buy it until we could, so we have no debts.
Having paid "In" to the system for 38 years, are folks now saying that because we did not spend the money years ago, but tried to plan for the future, that we should be penalised ?? and only those who threw money down the drain and have made no plans should be considered ??
I worked, paid my taxes, and saved for my future, if that means I'm treated as "wealthy" then I can soon become "Needy" if the system demands it ... :(
I agree with you Nigel entirely :y :y :y
The trouble is nowadays people are encouraged not to save; not to put themselves out and make provision for the future, like a pension. They expect the state / others to pay for their needs from cradle to grave. What a nonsense! ::) ::) ::) ::)
Many people in low wage jobs are simply unable to save, Lizzie. There are millions in this country who can barely make ends meet, these often hard working individuals constantly lurch from one crisis to another, taking one step forward then two steps back.
These are the very people the benefits system was designed to protect. :y
Of course, as Kevin said, there's always a few lazy breakless bastard's who take advantage of the system. :(
Yes, but so was my ex and I but we still paid a small amount into a pension scheme. We made sacrifices on holidays and such luxuries, whilst giving the best to our kids. It was a struggle but I knew no one would support us in old age, a pension scheme was the best idea.
We gradually, independently, worked very hard, long hours, to gain promotion and addition salary and find the extra for our company pension schemes. This is what I can benefit from this year at the age of 60. I do not see why I should be penalised by taking away any state "benefits" due to other pensioners when we worked hard to gain our "benefits".
Fact of life is you get what you put in. That is your due. :y
-
What seems to escape peoples attention, is that we who are 'well off' ha ha.....have,mainly like me, worked for 50years paying in all that is due. and to get where we are today, we went through hard times, scraping the breadline, being out of work...did I seek benefits, no. Pride would not let me. There were times when we had to go on bended knees to parents to borrow some money to pay the bills. To be frank, its not been pleasant at times getting through to today. We have been through 3 day weeks, strikes, etc etc.
So I think we are entitled to what we have, without being chastised by others, who have still got a lifetime of toil in front of them (should they wish to get off their backsides and do what we did) >:(
-
I'm expecting my pension in five years, but I won't hold my breath.
-
What seems to escape peoples attention, is that we who are 'well off' ha ha.....have,mainly like me, worked for 50years paying in all that is due. and to get where we are today, we went through hard times, scraping the breadline, being out of work...did I seek benefits, no. Pride would not let me. There were times when we had to go on bended knees to parents to borrow some money to pay the bills. To be frank, its not been pleasant at times getting through to today. We have been through 3 day weeks, strikes, etc etc.
So I think we are entitled to what we have, without being chastised by others, who have still got a lifetime of toil in front of them (should they wish to get off their backsides and do what we did) >:(
:y :y :y :y :y :y
-
I think I may have been a tad misunderstood here.I am in no way promoting rewarding the workshy and penalising the hard working and frugal.
I believe that the countries top priority should be to build an economy which provides work for those who are willing and able to do so.
I believe that those who are not willing to work should be starved into work.
I also believe that there will always be some people who fall through the net and end up in hardship through no particular fault of their own.
Imo,those people should be given vouchers at taxpayers expense to keep a roof over their heads,food in the fridge,a reasonable amount of electricity/gas etc. and clothes from Tesco/ASDA etc.
Problem solved.Welfare state brought back to its originally intended purpose.Many billions of pounds per annum available to be left in the pay packets of the people who earned it.And reliance on the state almost eradicated in one move.
The state is far to big and shouldnt be involved in most of the areas of our lives and finances (including pensions)it involves itself in.To reduce it to a sensible level would involve turkeys voting for christmas unfortunately.
-
The fat bloke on the bus rubbed it in a bit saying he spends his winter fuel allowance on a nice bottle of claret :( And those people who dont want any benefits and try and give it back but cant ??? A lot of pensioners are helping out there own children struggling to pay the bills and eat :(
-
For once I disagree with you Rods,up to a point.If rich pensioners have paid 55% tax and then get some of it back in benefits its not a welfare state.Its marxoid redistribution of wealth by another name.They should have paid less in tax in the first place and not had some of it returned at the discretion of the state.
Imo all benefits should be means tested to find out who actually needs them.Thats the only way the bloated "welfare state" can be shrunk to a reasonable level and we can return to welfare being given to the genuinely needy.
If you read the rest of what I wrote, you would see we wouldn't be where we are, with the market system I suggest.
I agree with Kevin if you are going to have the stupid expensive system of taking money off people in tax, only to give it back again, then keep the administration cost as simple as possible. If I was a higher rate tax payer, but used an off-shore trust to keep me at a lower level, would this count or would you have to add yet another 1000 pages to Tolley's 17,000 page tax guide as of last year, to cover it. :o :o :o :o
A good example of this is where on expensive houses this and the last Government increased stamp duty to the current 7%. Oversea's people got round this by buying in a limited company. To stop this there are now a whole raft of new regulations on price, BTL, as BTL what you can and can't do etc etc. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Anyway in a few years time when the UK has run out of people to borrow from, then the state pension will only be a nominal amount. All Ponzi schemes eventually collapse, where there are not enough new entrants to feed the existing members. Personally I expect this to happen anytime from 2014 to 2017.
Now if we each had our own personal funds like in Hong Kong, the Government running out of money would not be such a disaster.
-
I watched it and thought a thoroughly misleading and imbalanced programme.
What a remarkable selection of people the three featured groups were, pious pontificating ex politicians , affluant ,fit and healthy Sudbury private club golfers and a group of black inner city yoofs.
FFS where were the normal pensioners who saved and played the game all their lives and now with some money in the bank and a mortgage free lifestyle they could be considered wealthy but take away their rightful entitlement and it would have an enormous impact on them.
How wealthy is wealthy ? If you look at the facts and figures displayed in the programme it told a different story to the thrust of the programme . The cost of withdrawing all the many benefits from the featured golfers and their ilk would far outway the savings made and definatly affect other more entitled pensioners.
It left me thinking that it was at best mischievious even a mite sinister being shown on the week of the budget.