Bassman62 Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 Why not pay all benefits and allowances at a proportion of what that individual has paid into the system ? . So can you number the post that you claim this is a quote from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Macbeth Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 So can you number the post that you claim this is a quote from? It originally came from this poster: http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7702823&postcount=207 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted May 30, 2011 Share Posted May 30, 2011 I think you've missed the point (once again). The suggestion that you are supporting is that benefits be proportional to contributions, the example I gave would have made no contributions yet and so would get nothing. It isn't about contributions to NI. So can you number the post that you claim this is a quote from? Two things Bassman. First I didn't claim anything was a quote, do you see the word quote in what I wrote? I don't. And second, yes I could, but alternatively you could try actually reading the thread for yourself. Unfortunately Ms Macbeth has already taken pity on you and given you your answer. #207 Why not pay all benefits and allowances at a proportion of what that individual has paid into the system ? Obviously special cases such as the ill who have been unable to work and contribute would be paid using a different criteria. #208 Cyclone Because that doesn't actually achieve the objective of being a safety net for those in need does it. Bassman62 #209 If you are certified ill or unable to work you are credited with contributions. You even quoted Post 207 in your reply at 209... Why quote it if you haven't actually read it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassman62 Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 Two things Bassman. First I didn't claim anything was a quote, do you see the word quote in what I wrote? I don't. Taken from post #212 by Cyclone where he names me in one quote and replies followed by the quote below without naming the actual poster therefor it implies it is also quoting a post by me. Quote Why not pay all benefits and allowances at a proportion of what that individual has paid into the system ? So typical of the misquoting and mischief making that some posters resort to. So why when you posted the second quote didn't you name the poster if you weren't trying to give people the impression that I had posted it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassman62 Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 It originally came from this poster: http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7702823&postcount=207 Exactly but not from me as Cyclones post implied when he posted it as a quote with me being the only member named anywhere in his post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassman62 Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 Two things Bassman. First I didn't claim anything was a quote, do you see the word quote in what I wrote? I don't. Sugest you refresh your poor memory and test your failing eyesight by attempting to read your own post #212, the quote is just a tigy wee bit above the box on the left side. And second, yes I could, but alternatively you could try actually reading the thread for yourself. Unfortunately Ms Macbeth has already taken pity on you and given you your answer. No she's proven you're either a liar or your memory has gone along with common sense and decorum. I visited the post and there for all to see was the word quote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassman62 Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 It originally came from this poster: http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7702823&postcount=207 Strange isn't it but understandable why Cyclone was reluctant to show this as it proves what a mischief maker he is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 Many old people, even those who have rarely worked are entitled to full sate pension £137.35 per week, plus £250.00 every winter and £10 for every day it is below freezing, along with priority for social housing, full housing benefit for any almost size property, and many other benefits such as free travel, lunch clubs, free prescriptions, priority dental care, TV License and so on... Yet the average young person is demonized as a no good scrounger, now if they're unfortunate to be unemployed they only receive a fraction of what an old person in same circumstances does, £46.85 per week, no HB unless it's in a shared house which are rarely even suitable for one human, no help with energy costs, no free travel, no free lunch clubs, TV license, prescriptions etc. now before you start ranting, I'm not saying old people do not deserve this level of income and support, but compared to other age groups and immigrants they do use a lot of resources and receive a very good standard of living. With care homes for the elderly now costing an average of £2,000 a month, I think it's more a case of who's bleeding old people dry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassman62 Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 With care homes for the elderly now costing an average of £2,000 a month, I think it's more a case of who's bleeding old people dry. The care home industry was championed by Maggie Thatcher as just another way of businessmen/women making more money. Anywhere that there was potential profit to be made was targeted/set up. We couldn't get £2,000 per month when my late mother-in-law became infirm they expected my wife to do it for £39 per week for 35 hours (£1.11 per hour) and to pay ourselves for any other carers coming in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted May 31, 2011 Share Posted May 31, 2011 Taken from post #212 by Cyclone where he names me in one quote and replies followed by the quote below without naming the actual poster therefor it implies it is also quoting a post by me. It's a requote of the idea that is 5 posts previous, that you have stated in your typical fashion that you've already answered with "See reply #209" when in fact you hadn't actually understood what had been said. You hadn't understood it to the point of not recognising the idea you were supporting, despite it being 5 posts previously, with two of them being yours. So typical of the misquoting and mischief making that some posters resort to. It's typical of me assuming that I'm discussing the topic with people who a) have a memory, b) are using the memory having read the thread when they've jumped in in the middle and declared that they've answered a point. It's not my fault that you claim to 'answer' something from post #207 in post #209, and have forgotten post 207 entirely by the time you reach post #212. So why when you posted the second quote didn't you name the poster if you weren't trying to give people the impression that I had posted it? Because I copied it and pasted it by hand, rather than using the 'quote' function which automatically adds the name of the person you're quoting. Why didn't you read back, or just remember the previous few posts and the point you were supporting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.