Ian Duncan Smith Says Wealthy should not claim pensions

[Ms Macbeth]

That's the million dollar question, isn't it. It would all depend on the size of the income received via the private pens, if it's deemed enough to live off then a state pension should not be claimed.

 

How much is enough?

 

I'd like to see some actual figures from politicians showing the suggested cut off level for removing the universal benefits like bus passes; free prescriptions; winter fuel allowances. To remove those from people who are only a few ££ over the pension credit qualifying limit would be really unfair. Especially as many of those pensioners didn't earn megabucks, but thought by being thrifty they'd benefit in old age.

[PRESLEY]

Not in the post I quoted you didn't

 

 

 

 

Most people who work away from home do claim expenses...

 

Everyone who catches a bus or uses a train or drives a car to work should be able to claim the Expense, remember Cameron says we are all in it together, him and his parties slogan should be I'm alright Jack. Everyone can see what they are all about and that's why after this term they will not be in power again for a very long time, at least until generations in the future who haven't been persecuted by them won't remember these times. End Of.

[truman]

Everyone who catches a bus or uses a train or drives a car to work should be able to claim the Expense, remember Cameron says we are all in it together, him and his parties slogan should be I'm alright Jack. Everyone can see what they are all about and that's why after this term they will not be in power again for a very long time, at least until generations in the future who haven't been persecuted by them won't remember these times. End Of.

 

"End of" doesn't work here I'm afraid..People who work away from home usually get some expenses..why should it be different for MP's? If expenses aren't paid then only the rich will be able to afford to stand for parliament...is that what you want?

[PRESLEY]

"End of" doesn't work here I'm afraid..People who work away from home usually get some expenses..why should it be different for MP's? If expenses aren't paid then only the rich will be able to afford to stand for parliament...is that what you want?

 

Put some different reading glasses on when you read my post, I repeat! millionaire MP'S should give up their right to claim expenses just like they are asking wealthy pensioners to give up their benefits, oh! and again, I said everyone in work should be able to claim expenses, savvy, NOW End Off.

[truman]

Put some different reading glasses on when you read my post, I repeat! millionaire MP'S should give up their right to claim expenses just like they are asking wealthy pensioners to give up their benefits, oh! and again, I said everyone in work should be able to claim expenses, savvy, NOW End Off.

 

People who work away from home (as the MP's do) can usually claim expenses..no matter what they earn...I don't think it should be any different for MP's....your turn...

[Mister M]

Iain Duncan Smith now says he is NOT asking wealthy pensioners to hand back their benefits.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/29/iain-duncan-smith-benefits?INTCMP=SRCH

 

I wonder if Iain Duncan Smith will tiptoe around the disabled and unemployed in the same way?

No of course not. So much easier to punch downwards than upwards.

There's probably a political calculation that the unemployed and disabled are less likely to vote than the pensioners, and pensioners are more likely to vote Tory

 

---------- Post added 30-04-2013 at 11:42 ----------

 

Not in the post I quoted you didn't

 

 

 

 

Most people who work away from home do claim expenses...

 

If I had a breakfast at £40 a throw and handed the reciept back to my boss saying I want that on expenses my boss would tell me to **** off!

Yet that is exactly what Duncan Smith did, and claimed money back from taxpayer. He wouldn't be able to have those kinds of breakfasts if he was living on £53 quid a week.

 

Not that he's different from many other MPs, though there are some more principled ones in that respect.

[Agent Orange]

How much is enough?

 

I'd like to see some actual figures from politicians showing the suggested cut off level for removing the universal benefits like bus passes; free prescriptions; winter fuel allowances. To remove those from people who are only a few ££ over the pension credit qualifying limit would be really unfair. Especially as many of those pensioners didn't earn megabucks, but thought by being thrifty they'd benefit in old age.

 

That's it, the line has to be drawn somewhere, the question is where. In principle, I agree with this only as long as it targets those who can comfortably live without a state pension and not those who are on the breadline.

[WeX]

Yet pension costs are over 10 times more than out of work benefits

 

I see your point but there is two issues you have not looked at.

 

1 - Pensioners have contributed to a system on the express purpose of getting a pension out at the end. If they did not contribute enough, they get less.

 

2 - Out of work benefits do not require you to contribute, they are universal by nature and you can contribute diddly squat and still take out the same as a person who has paid in all their life.

[Mecky]

I see your point but there is two issues you have not looked at.

 

1 - Pensioners have contributed to a system on the express purpose of getting a pension out at the end. If they did not contribute enough, they get less.

2 - Out of work benefits do not require you to contribute, they are universal by nature and you can contribute diddly squat and still take out the same as a person who has paid in all their life.

 

That doesn't stop some people wanting to shoot them dead as one or two people on may have expressed in the past.

[*_ash_*]

Tory boys decided to include pensions in with benefits as part of their propoganda campaign to make the benefits bill / welfare state seem enormous, and to therefore turn everyone against 'welfare scroungers' (when actually I believe unemployment benefit only accounts for 3% of the total.)

 

The DWP has been all together for years. I can't remember how long, but it was a good idea (not sure whose idea but Labour brought it in I think). What's the point in having them separate?

 

So there you have it, now pensioners are seen as scroungers too. Lovely. And judging by the responses of some on SF, it won't be long before compulsory euthanasia will be seen as the way forward...

 

This is off the scale for you. You managed to start with one faulty argument - pensioners are now scroungers, then bring in a compulsory euthanasia part too. Even by your standards that is poor. I think you're learning off ricgem

 

Even Mecky's at it in this one with the last post before mine.