HeadingNorth Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 I do not think this affects the subject of bus passes etc. though. You appear to be trying to make it affect the subject, by arguing that an element of "how much have you paid in" should be considered. The current system has always consisted of today's payments funding today's pensions, so who has paid what in the past is irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gormenghast Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 We don't. If you're not actively seeking work you don't qualify. So they're all 'actively seeking work' are they? Not the ones that I stood in the queue with when I was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 You appear to be trying to make it affect the subject, by arguing that an element of "how much have you paid in" should be considered. The current system has always consisted of today's payments funding today's pensions, so who has paid what in the past is irrelevant. Sorry, but I think it is relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gormenghast Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 You appear to be trying to make it affect the subject, by arguing that an element of "how much have you paid in" should be considered. The current system has always consisted of today's payments funding today's pensions, so who has paid what in the past is irrelevant. If it wasn't for what was paid in the past you might not have been here HN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 Sorry, but I think it is relevant. It doesn't much matter what you or I think. Under the current system, nobody provides for their own future; that is a fact and not arguable. Consequently what anybody paid in is completely irrelevant to how much they will get out. If you're arguing that this should be changed, well I agree with you; but if you're arguing that it is already the case, you are quite simply wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marshlad Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 No they shouldn't. They should stop the benefits of people who have never worked and have no intention of ever working. They are the reason that that people will have to work till 70 because they are taking all the money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 No they shouldn't. They should stop the benefits of people who have never worked and have no intention of ever working. They are the reason that that people will have to work till 70 because they are taking all the money. There's the dilemma of benefits and the workshy or unable to work in the simplest terms. What do you do with all those people? Leave them to die in the street or steal from your mum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artisan Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 The ones who still work are the ones least in need of free travel. They're earning a wage! No one should have to pay to go to work, it is criminal IMO. And then parking charges on top, on which you have to pay VAT. When I was running my own business, I could claim my fuel costs etc against tax, also meals at work etc. But if you work for the man, you have to pay your own way. It is not right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted June 25, 2010 Share Posted June 25, 2010 No one should have to pay to go to work, it is criminal IMO. And then parking charges on top, on which you have to pay VAT. When I was running my own business, I could claim my fuel costs etc against tax, also meals at work etc. But if you work for the man, you have to pay your own way. It is not right. You should sack your accountant artisan. You could only claim some of the things you mentioned and employees can claim exactly the same. There is only one set of allowances for everyone - Parliamentarians excepted of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greybeard Posted June 25, 2010 Author Share Posted June 25, 2010 To get back on topic..... Linking the winter fuel allowance to pension credit might seem like a good idea but given that thousands of pensioners don't claim the pension credit they're entitled to (thereby voluntarily reducing the annual deficit by an estimated £5billion a year), the outcome could well be even more pensioner poverty and a large increase in the number of winter deaths due to hypothermia. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/5640830/Pensioners-pride-blamed-for-record-in-unclaimed-benefits.html In the past I have helped a few struggling pensioners with their pension credit claims and my experience wasn't that pride got in the way. Rather it was the complexity of the forms they had to fill in and the requirement to divulge the amount of their savings. A lot of pensioners seemed to feel guilty about having savings, some even believed they would be forced to spend all their savings first before receiving any help, so it wasn't worth bothering to apply until they were flat broke. In fact one of the major stupidities of the pension credit scheme was that savings over £6k were deemed to earn a notional interest of 10% p.a. when calculating income, which is patently ridiculous and very unfair; whoever attached that condition to the scheme lives in cloud-cuckoo land. There was talk of raising this threshold to £10k but I don't know if it was ever implemented. And as long as the govt. are saving £5billion a year I can't see them doing much to correct the situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.