Peers wanting to remove pensioners' benefits

Granny 23 well said. Lots on here already get taxed on SP /OP and probably have no need for the extras.

I would however keep the free prescriptions but probably increase the age to 65 to qualify.

Okay, that makes sense. So, is it the paragraph beginning "Basically, you see" (which is the second paragraph) or "Income and wealth inequality" (which is my second paragraph)?

GGMK3

Sorry for not being totally clear, I was highlighting the second paragraph which is actually your first paragraph discounting the quote.

G23 there are no simple solutions . How would the level of a ‘reasonable’ SP be decided? What level of annual uprating? What about differential housing costs? Are you suggesting that pensioners with more income than the state pension shouldn’t have a tax allowance? Basically the fundamental problem is the low level of the SP isn’t I?

In your post GrannyGravy13, of Wed 01-May-19 14:19:36 you commented that I had "stated multiple times on this thread what you think of "people who have wealth" and it is not unfair to say that you have not a nice word to say about them."

A single post seems to be the "multiple times" you are referring to and I believe, as your complaint was about how I "think about people who have wealth" the part you are referring to specifically is "No one got to hold the wealth they do currently by being a "good" person, in whatever way you define that and no one gets to be poor by being a "bad" person."

I still believe that to be correct. It may have helped if I had added that no one becomes wealthy by being a bad person either or the word "simply" in front of "by being" but I don't think what I wrote was that misleading.

I have a feeling you were predisposed to read it as if I was saying that if you are good you will not be wealthy, suggesting that I feel wealthy people are bad people. But I hadn't said that anywhere. I wouldn't have done as I don't believe it. If that is what you made of the comment it was quite a leap from what I wrote. I really haven't been attempting to be nice or nasty about anyone. I am not the one who personalised the idea of wealth, others came in with posts about that.

I am worried about how the economy has been distorted by taking from the poor, to give to those with assets, over the last four decades. I appreciate not everyone will agree with me, but there is plenty of evidence that this is exactly what has happened and those on the right of the Conservative party have not been backward in coming forward and saying that was exactly what they intended to do.

Ditto gillybob I can't see me retiring befire I drop !

Granny23 Wed 01-May-19 16:50:24

That sounds very much like Basic Income to me. I'm just glad we will never be called upon to do the maths to make it work.

GGMK3 if I have misinterpreted your posts I apologise.

As long as it's sorted that's fine GrannyGravy13

GrannyGravy13
I entirely agree but there are some who would like everything to be equal.
I cannot conceive of a world where hard work is recognised by taking away the fruits of that Labour and giving it to people who make no contribution to society.
For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not taking about people unfortunate enough to warrant state assistance which is not brought about by their own hand.

Labour labour

taking talking

GabriellaG54. Life has never been equal and probably never will be.

I am all for helping people who cannot for whatever reason help themselves. Saying that, there must be a cut off point whereby those who are able must "get on their bike" and help themselves.

Yes Maryeliza, you have hit the nail on the head. Basically the problem in the UK is the low level of the state pension.

"I cannot conceive of a world where hard work is recognised by taking away the fruits of that Labour (sic) and giving it to people who make no contribution to society.." GabriellaG54 (Wed 01-May-19 20:21:09)

You are a true Victorian Gabriella. You do realise, I'm sure you do as a business person, that what you pay in tax was never your money. Rather, the state is what gives the stability that allows high incomes and the accrual of wealth and this has to be paid for. It is the biggest loss we have had under this Tory government. We have vastly less stability and that affects us all. This has gone hand in hand with a reduction in taxes.

I have never heard anyone suggest that they "would like everything to be equal". That is just newspaper nonsense. We are all aware that we can only make society less unequal. You, it appears, think we can have a stable society with vast inequality but that has never been shown to be true so why would it be now? You, it appears, don't mind the starving children, the homeless and those who go without care. You can simply mark them down as "undeserving". You, it appears, think your treasure, laid up away from all others even if you earned it with their unseen help, will protect you from an unstable society and, apparently, the devil take the hindmost.

people unfortunate enough to warrant state assistance which is not brought about by their own hand.

but how do you decide who or who not is deserving? I know someone who has effectively been unemployed for most of his life, large lumbering, overweight, badly dressed and brusque in manner and often rude, he rarely lasted in a job more than a few months.

He was in his 50s before he had a nervous breakdown and it was then discovered that he had Aspergers and OCD.

If the structure and civility of the state did not exist, along with its physical manifestations of roads, schools, police etc etc, none of us would have the lives we have now.

You only have to look to parts of the middle east and Africa to see what happens when governments fail and control falls into the hands of local, and soon warring chiefs.

I pay my taxes willingly for the order provided for my peaceful living. I may not agree with everything ordained by government, but then why should every thing go my way all the time? No system is perfect and of course, some will get benefits (in the broadest meaning) that they do not deserve and indeed others deprived of what they are entitled to. In the meanwhile I will continue to willingly pay my dues.

The system may not be perfect, but it is a lot better than many.

Thank you M0nica. I feel a little sanity returning

There really is only so much money any individual needs. I always wonder what it is you could do with 50-100 million that you couldn't do with say 5 or 10 ?

I know we can't all be equal (of course we can't ) but it worries me that the divide between the richest and the poorest in society is getting wider and wider.

Me too gillybob. Even if you are not compassionate enough to worry about the people involved, how can you not worry about society? We have enough history to tell us what happens in societies where there is extreme inequality.

I'm referring to people who can work, have no disabilities (visible or invisible) which would render them incapable of safely working at some sort of employment, but choose to make themselves unemployable by feigning illnesses they don't have and which cannit readily be disproved. There are also some addicts who go through life relying on their addiction as a barrier to work, those who do not want help to get 'clean'.
There are also women who carry in having children who rely on the state to pay for and provide accommodation and all that goes with looking after both child and parent.
We're in 2019. No need to get pregnant if you can't afford to keep and care for a child.
I've been quite clear that I do not want to support (by way of extra taxation) those who make no effort to be a contributing member of society.
I am happy to and do contribute time, effort and money to charities who support the more vulnerable among us. Crisis, Shelter and the Salvation Army.
To those who want to pay more tax than they need to, that's very laudable but I'm quite content to pay no more than I'm required to do.

When the government/NHS pulls it's socks up and decides how to recoup the massive amounts owed by 'health visitors' to the UK, when gov decides to pull the plug on HS2 and the numerous projects which have wasted billions, we might then be able to trim the ship.

cannit cannot
in on

M0nica
I was taking about me not wanting to pay more tax so that others who make no contribution (but could) can be paid more.
I have previously stated that, IMV, to penalise those who have worked hard to get into a better position financially, is not a good move and does nothing to encourage improvement.
If you think differently...that's Ok. We have different views. Who's arguing?

taking talking

Gabriella
The point is how can you tell whether the reason someone isn't working is because they are just deliberately bolshie and difficult or have a condition that causes this if it is not diagnosed?

The person I am talking about was over 50 before his problems were diagnosed. He is intelligent with a good degree and always wanted to work. It was his failure to do so that caused his breakdown. Yet between 21 and 50 plus he could well have been described among the ^ people who can work, have no disabilities (visible or invisible) which would render them incapable of safely working at some sort of employment^

Friends of mine did devoted an immense amount of time to him when he was around 40 to try and help him have an insight into how his rude manner made him difficult to work with and to help him get work. His later diagnosis explained their failure.

M0nica
I did read your first post about his not being diagnosed until he hit 50 so the point didn't go unnoticed.
There will always be one ( or a few/) person(s) whose situation(s) can be quoted to rebut a comment but they are few.
There are many more who have the view that they receive more in benefits than in work so why work when they can please themselves all day at home.