|
|
Post by Fletchsmile on Nov 22, 2015 14:35:29 GMT 7
Agreed with rgs2001uk ,the fact is that it is a matter of principle as opposed to necessity The very fact that certain persons are penalized due to the fact of where they have chosen to live for whatever reasons is wrong. Laws against racial, religious and gender discrimination are all enshrined in the U.K. statute book(s). There is no problem in paying incarcerated convicted criminals an allowances each week along with the cost of supporting their families whilst those convicted prisoners are serving their sentences and no doubt in many cases after they have been released and unable or unwilling to find employment. Those people have contributed nothing to society and are not likely to do so either yet those who have paid their way in full and as said chosen to reside in certain other countries are penalized for that fact. That's one of the key things that has gone wrong with the welfare system. It should be there to protect people who need it. Another thing is the way the world has developed. The essence of the U.K. welfare system was to protect those in need in the UK. As travel is now more common place people move more. I don't think it was ever designed to support people long time outside the UK. Reciprocal agreements started springing up within say the Commonwealth which sort of had mutual benefits but then it spiraled. Also supporting UK citizens in the UK benefits UK society not just pensioners. Sending money overseas benefits only the pensioners. It's better to have a system where things go round and work together in synergy as a system not just payments out. The argument Smokie makes about should be allowed to take it wherever is a strong one. For me though it goes away from the original intentions of supporting UK citizens in the UK or mutual benefit exchanges in other countries where they look after hours if we look after theirs. Another problem with it is where we draw the line. What about the guy who gets made redundant after 35 years of contributing NI is it fair he has to remain in UK to claim unemployment benefit/income support if a pensioner doesn't? A pensioner now needs only 30 years of NI for full pension. Then we have the other end of the scale like SP mentions of the hangers on who have never worked and never contributed always living on benefits? The ones who fly off on holidays abroad and spend it. Some of those would no doubt feel they are entitled to receive it living overseas before they "retire" let alone after. Why should they have to remain in the UK to get benefits/entitlements? you can see them asking or should I say demanding  Yes the fact that UK supports criminals as well as those who have never contributed anything makes all these things even worse. All gets very complicated  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2015 14:43:30 GMT 7
I don't see a complication re the guy being made unemployed.
We have a clear system where you have to be available for work till a certain age, then that requirement is dropped. I think that's fine the way it is.
I do think that the 30 year rule was nonsense - to only have contributed for 30 our of 50 years ( most folk having left school at 15 ) set the bar too low.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2015 14:47:17 GMT 7
I also disagree with any forms of means testing for pensions - the real scandal in UK pensions is the amount of people denied any help because their small company pension lifts them above the limit.
By the time they pay full rent ( if applicable ) and council tax they end up worse off than if they had no company pension at all. Now, that's a genuine grievance.
|
|
siampolee
Detective
Alive alive O
Posts: 14,463 
Likes: 9,309
|
Post by siampolee on Nov 22, 2015 15:25:44 GMT 7
Now if you took the time to read and inwardly digest that which I wrote you would have seen I did not make any suggestion or imply that those offenders pensions should be attacked.
Now stick to that which you plainly excel at, selling carpets and rugs, and respect that others too have opinions
The discrimination is wrong.
As said it is not the money it is the principle of the issue.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2015 15:30:03 GMT 7
Now if you took the time to read and inwardly digest that which I wrote you would have seen I did not make any suggestion or imply that those offenders pensions should be attacked. Now stick to that which you plainly excel at, selling carpets and rugs, and respect that others too have opinions The discrimination is wrong. As said it is not the money it is the principle of the issue. Sophistry. You brought up the prisoners issue. You can wriggle upon the hook of your own making. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2015 15:32:48 GMT 7
By the way, one of my laminate fitting teams earned £2,420 last week.
Decent money that.
|
|
siampolee
Detective
Alive alive O
Posts: 14,463
Likes: 9,309
|
Post by siampolee on Nov 22, 2015 15:57:48 GMT 7
Now what does that statement above have to do do with the current topic? We can be assured that that income is declared in full for taxation purpose by all involved can't we ? No rerun of the infamous building industry lump scenario I hope that led to the stashing of large wads cash under shag pile and deep pile carpets?   |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2015 16:35:22 GMT 7
Now what does that statement above have to do do with the current topic? We can be assured that that income is declared in full for taxation purpose by all involved can't we ? No rerun of the infamous building industry lump scenario I hope that led to the stashing of large wads cash under shag pile and deep pile carpets? It was your good self reminding me that I sell carpets and rugs that inspired it. I thought I would spread some good cheer as to the improving state of the British economy. |
|
|
|
Post by Fletchsmile on Nov 22, 2015 16:52:08 GMT 7
Is that a gerbil crept into this thread?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2015 17:04:20 GMT 7
Is that a gerbil crept into this thread? Specsavers for you sir - that's a wee carpet fitting mutt |
|
smokie36
Vigilante
Posts: 15,840
Likes: 9,222
|
Post by smokie36 on Nov 22, 2015 18:40:32 GMT 7
I don't see a complication re the guy being made unemployed. We have a clear system where you have to be available for work till a certain age, then that requirement is dropped. I think that's fine the way it is. I do think that the 30 year rule was nonsense - to only have contributed for 30 our of 50 years ( most folk having left school at 15 ) set the bar too low. Aren't NI contributions paid to those on benefits in any case? Therefore those living the life of long term Jeremy Kyle and three shellsuits for a tenner will receive their full pensions whilst those who leave the UK at 50, taking advantage of Thailand's over 50's retirement visa, having worked over 30 years paying full whack will not under your "bar raising" scheme. As Fletch mentioned....its very complicated.  |
|
buhi
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 4,846
Likes: 1,431
|
Post by buhi on Nov 22, 2015 18:56:25 GMT 7
Just kill me; old decrepit, will die whereever.Money,Money, Money.
Yea I have it, most do not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 22, 2015 21:03:50 GMT 7
I don't see a complication re the guy being made unemployed. We have a clear system where you have to be available for work till a certain age, then that requirement is dropped. I think that's fine the way it is. I do think that the 30 year rule was nonsense - to only have contributed for 30 our of 50 years ( most folk having left school at 15 ) set the bar too low. Aren't NI contributions paid to those on benefits in any case? Therefore those living the life of long term Jeremy Kyle and three shellsuits for a tenner will receive their full pensions whilst those who leave the UK at 50, taking advantage of Thailand's over 50's retirement visa, having worked over 30 years paying full whack will not under your "bar raising" scheme. As Fletch mentioned....its very complicated. Is not complicated. Impose a maximum five years over a lifetime of on NI contributions when unemployed. For those among us that feel they can afford to retire at 50, feel free - knowing that you haven't hit the maximum contribution period of 35 years ( or plus ). It's all about choices. .......................................................................... By the way - tired of people justifying their position compared to the lower end of British society. Many of these people have been failed by governments and their fellow Brits. |
|
smokie36
Vigilante
Posts: 15,840
Likes: 9,222
|
Post by smokie36 on Nov 22, 2015 21:43:57 GMT 7
Aren't NI contributions paid to those on benefits in any case? Therefore those living the life of long term Jeremy Kyle and three shellsuits for a tenner will receive their full pensions whilst those who leave the UK at 50, taking advantage of Thailand's over 50's retirement visa, having worked over 30 years paying full whack will not under your "bar raising" scheme. As Fletch mentioned....its very complicated. Is not complicated. Impose a maximum five years over a lifetime of on NI contributions when unemployed. For those among us that feel they can afford to retire at 50, feel free - knowing that you haven't hit the maximum contribution period of 35 years ( or plus ). It's all about choices. .......................................................................... By the way - tired of people justifying their position compared to the lower end of British society. Many of these people have been failed by governments and their fellow Brits. I'm quite entertained by the thought of the hopeless wasters getting to 67 and then begging on the streets. I must be getting heartless these days....or perhaps i hanker for a bit of Victorian Britain! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2015 3:44:57 GMT 7
^^ We'll all be the  by that. The trick is to ensure that they are better off working - and to ensure that there are jobs for them to do. I blame Labour for creating a client state - disabling the working class through stupid policies. |
|
