Quote:
Originally Posted by Livia
Most people on the state pension now didn't earn enough to save for a pension. And they didn't think they'd have to because they paid their tax and National Insurance. I think it's kind of hard-hearted to say ******* 'em, they should have sorted themselves out and they're expensive to keep. People arrive in this country every day and have access to benefits of all kinds without ever paying a penny into the system. It's a big no-no to say anything about that because you're deemed as being a racist. Some people go for years without working and live quite comfortably off the system, but if anyone criticises them there's a while litany of excuses why their benefits shouldn't be touched. So who is fair game for criticism? Oh yeah, the generation of people who've worked their whole life and paid into the system, and who are now seen as a burden. This country could learn a lot from other cultures who take care of, and respect their elderly. If you want to see how much respect this country has for its elderly, take a look at the care system.
|
The thing is though, most of our generation will have paid in for decades and will get nothing. And a lot of todays people dont earn enough to save for a private pension either.
And many claiming out of work benefits have paid in enough to get them..loads are on contributions based but are still tarred with the same brush as those who have never worked.
On the same note, I know of quite a few pensioners who have never worked, or worked very little. My father in laws mate..has had one job in his whole life, and that lasted a few months. He gets something called pension credit though, which is different from the state pension..but still the same amount (I believe). Edit - 2.5m pensioners (3m+ if including partners) get pension credit rather than state pension..meaning they havent worked enough to get an actual pension..
I dont think anyone wants to see them chopping away at pensions (and pension related benefits) however..if they continually add pensions to the welfare bill when 'justifying' why they need to reduce the bill..then its only fair that they also reduce pensions, no? If they arent going to touch them then remove them from the welfare bill and let people see just how much actually goes on working age people. Its at least half of the figures that the government continually spout. Most people have no problem with disabled people claiming either and wouldnt want to see THEIR benefits cut..so remove those people too. Result would be that JSA (working age, and able to work people) is only 3%..which is around 6billion. From a total bill of around 200b. Not much really.
Of course the unemployed who are claiming housing benefit and council tax benefit would need to be added to that..but there doesnt seem to be any figures for how much of the HB bill goes on the unemployed but able to work. The majority of new claims though..are from employed people. Which is also a problem :S
TLDR ; If no-one wants pensions touched, or doesnt see them as welfare..then they should be seperate from the welfare bill. Otherwise its unfair on everyone except the government peddling dodgy figures to do what they wish with the smallest uproar possible.