SINGLE OAP PENSION

[spilldig]

3 hours ago, Cyclone said:

You realise that the minimum wage doesn't somehow guarantee that you can work 40 hours a week though... It guarantees minimum pay for an hours work.  So OAPs should be paid that minimum for every hour that they spend working.  It's totally unrelated to pensions though.

Yes I know how it works, and hopefully how it should work. So first we have a minimum which, to my mind, means that to live properly you should have just that. If a working person needs that amount then so does an OAP and therefore it should apply to pensions.  Ok, so the next thing is how can an amount to live on be based on an hourly amount ? It's nonsensical.   Are they saying that someone who works 30 hours has enough, or 20 hours or one hour earning  £8.21 is enough to live on ?

Obviously whatever amount they set should be based on a weekly wage, If someone gets below that minimum then it's no a minimum.

[Mossway]

Remember the earnings of so called OAP’s on  minimum wage is a tad enhanced because they don’t pay NI Contributions

[Cyclone]

10 hours ago, Mossway said:

Remember the earnings of so called OAP’s on  minimum wage is a tad enhanced because they don’t pay NI Contributions

And ideally they shouldn't be raising a family, they should hopefully own their own house, they get a free bus pass, and generally have lower outgoings.

Also people should be saving for their retirement, the state pension hasn't for a long time been enough for a comfortable retirement.

[spilldig]

17 hours ago, Mossway said:

Remember the earnings of so called OAP’s on  minimum wage is a tad enhanced because they don’t pay NI Contributions

I'm sure that if OAP's  got £328 per week they wouldn't mind paying the same stoppages as everyone else.

[spilldig]

7 hours ago, Cyclone said:

And ideally they shouldn't be raising a family, they should hopefully own their own house, they get a free bus pass, and generally have lower outgoings.

Also people should be saving for their retirement, the state pension hasn't for a long time been enough for a comfortable retirement.

So, on that basis, a working person who is single would  receive less pay than a working person with a family ?  Any working person who is fortunate enough to own their property should receive less pay for the same job as a co-worker who rents their property ?  As for free bus passes, with strings attached , the government should hang their heads in shame for treating elderly people like second class citizens rather than paying a state pension commensurate  with a civilized  country.

 

 

[ez8004]

Pensioners should not be totally reliant on the state for providing for them in retirement. 

 

You reap what you sow. So if you plan for the minimum, do you really deserve more?

 

[hackey lad]

16 minutes ago, ez8004 said:

Pensioners should not be totally reliant on the state for providing for them in retirement. 

 

You reap what you sow. So if you plan for the minimum, do you really deserve more?

 

Some people are not in the fortunate position to plan , even for the minimum

[Cyclone]

23 hours ago, spilldig said:

So, on that basis, a working person who is single would  receive less pay than a working person with a family ?  Any working person who is fortunate enough to own their property should receive less pay for the same job as a co-worker who rents their property ?  As for free bus passes, with strings attached , the government should hang their heads in shame for treating elderly people like second class citizens rather than paying a state pension commensurate  with a civilized  country.

 

 

I've no idea how you managed to come to those conclusions from what I said.

 

Why don't you take a look at how much of government expenditure is on pension payments and then consider whether bankrupting the country would be worth it to achieve what you want.

55 minutes ago, hackey lad said:

Some people are not in the fortunate position to plan , even for the minimum

Which is why a social safety net exists.  It's supposed to be a safety net, not provide a retirement of living the life of riley.

[spilldig]

4 hours ago, Cyclone said:

I've no idea how you managed to come to those conclusions from what I said.

 

Why don't you take a look at how much of government expenditure is on pension payments and then consider whether bankrupting the country would be worth it to achieve what you want.

Which is why a social safety net exists.  It's supposed to be a safety net, not provide a retirement of living the life of riley.

In post number 33 . 

[Cyclone]

Still don't know how you came to those conclusions.

But why don't you take a look at how much of government expenditure is on pension payments 

Edited April 18, 2019 by Cyclone