Tradescanthia Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 So your situation is hardly simple or common... You pretty much are retired by the sound of it, so what were you really saying? "Let me claim my statement pension early"? As a way of saving the government money... Yes it would save them money. I would only get the bare minimum pension, no top ups and some young guy struggling to get by and bring up a family would be off benefits and into work.......and paying a lot more tax than I pay. Simples. Cases should be taken on merit, there is no 'one size fits all' thats why the system is in a mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 They can't invent money What do you mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 What do you mean? That the government cannot make money appear out of nothing. They have a budget to spend, if they increase spending on one thing, they must reduce spending on something else, it's obvious really. Of course they can print money, but what they're actually doing then is devaluing the entire currency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 Yes it would save them money. I would only get the bare minimum pension, no top ups and some young guy struggling to get by and bring up a family would be off benefits and into work.......and paying a lot more tax than I pay. Simples. Cases should be taken on merit, there is no 'one size fits all' thats why the system is in a mess. If he just took on the hours that you were leaving then he'd pay the same tax wouldn't he. And working only part time on a low wage he'd still get lots of benefits, I doubt that it would benefit the government at all, whilst in less unusual situations than your own it would harm the interests of the person forced to retire early. You can of course retire early anyway, let the guy take your job and wait until you're 65 to get your state pension. That's what my Dad will be doing when he retires in the near future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 That the government cannot make money appear out of nothing. They have a budget to spend, if they increase spending on one thing, they must reduce spending on something else, it's obvious really. Of course they can print money, but what they're actually doing then is devaluing the entire currency. - Print it - Borrow it (record low rates) - Spend on effective infrastructure may delive unity in terms of effectiveness and long-term economic benefits - More effective tax collection - Stimulate economic growth to increase tax revenues Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted November 26, 2011 Share Posted November 26, 2011 They can't invent money, so any spending has to be cut from other areas, unless you're suggesting that an increase in taxation would be a good idea.[/QUOTE] my bold pity cameron cant see that when he lets the rich get away with paying as little as possible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tradescanthia Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 If he just took on the hours that you were leaving then he'd pay the same tax wouldn't he. And working only part time on a low wage he'd still get lots of benefits, I doubt that it would benefit the government at all, whilst in less unusual situations than your own it would harm the interests of the person forced to retire early. You can of course retire early anyway, let the guy take your job and wait until you're 65 to get your state pension. That's what my Dad will be doing when he retires in the near future. You dont read the entire posts. I reduced my own hours, anyone taking my job would automatically work full time. Also I've got pretty high chances of NOT reaching 65, if that happens HM Govt keeps my pension. If my private pensions were high enough I would fully retire tomorrow, but while I am alive I need a few quid a week 'pocket money'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 I've read everyone of these posts, from start to finish. If you've reduced your hours then to replace you it would take someone on part time hours. Unless you're saying that there's actually a current shortfall and all the work isn't done, and a surplus in the wage pot since they now pay your pro rata, and that they didn't think of hiring someone else part time to solve both those issues. That's unfortunate of course, but I'm not sure how it would actually save anyone any money to give you your state pension early. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tradescanthia Posted November 27, 2011 Share Posted November 27, 2011 I've read everyone of these posts, from start to finish. If you've reduced your hours then to replace you it would take someone on part time hours. Unless you're saying that there's actually a current shortfall and all the work isn't done, and a surplus in the wage pot since they now pay your pro rata, and that they didn't think of hiring someone else part time to solve both those issues. That's unfortunate of course, but I'm not sure how it would actually save anyone any money to give you your state pension early. For starters the hours I dont work are usually covered by others on overtime rates i.e. time and a half. The overtime saved would be 2 hours a day less wages. As I say, i would settle for basic pension, no extras, 'cos I wouldn't qualify for any and a family man recieving jobseekers topped up with council tax paid plus mortgage/rent assistance/free school meals and all the other perks would have my job, work fulltime and save the DWP a small fortune. In other words it would be cheaper for ME to be unemployed than for a family to be kept by the state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted November 28, 2011 Share Posted November 28, 2011 If that's true then the company should have already hired someone at standard rate to cover that time shouldn't they. What makes you think that when you leave they won't just continue using overtime to cover the hours? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.