Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

Dispatches.......Channel 4 at eight.

I'll be watching.

[STMO123]

Are you sure your blood pressure can take it, old boy?

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

Are you sure your blood pressure can take it, old boy?

It's about wealthy coffin dodgers such as yourself.

[STMO123]

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.

[STMO123]

And anyone with their own home, and anyone with well-off kids, and.......

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

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.

[STMO123]

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.

[pscocoa]

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.

[Varche]

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.

[Rods2]

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. 

[albitz]

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.

[ozzycat]

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.

[Kevin Wood]

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?

[STMO123]

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?

[Field Marshal Dr. Opti]

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.