Peers wanting to remove pensioners' benefits

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.

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

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.

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?

GGMK3

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

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)?

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.

GGMK3 in my post of 15.13 today I indicated one of your posts referring to wealth.

Sorry I am a technophobe have absolutely no idea how to cut and paste on an iPad, if I could I would.

It seems simple to me. Everyone reaching the retirement age should have a statepension that is enough to live on in reasonable comfort. Those who have untold riches or even a fair bit more would be taxed on the state pension along with their other income, those who only had SP would pay no tax.

Once this was in place there would be no need for Pension Credit, Winter Fuel or any other top ups, which would create a big saving in admin costs which would help to fund the overall increase.

Now, why would you not try and be helpful?

No need to copy and paste just read your posts up thread.

Could you copy and paste please GrannyGravy13? (Wed 01-May-19 15:18:41). I would like to know exactly what I am being accused of.

GabriellaG54. I can answer that immediately NO NO NO!!

Legitimate businesses and owners / shareholders (private company) are taxed enough. Corporation Tax, Business Rates (on top of which we still have to pay for our rubbish to be collected), NI on all employees, and heaven help if you happen to make a profit, makes us wonder some days is it worth it?

2nd paragraph your post 10.33 today is one GGMK3

GGMK3 not at all, there are good and bad people in all walks of life. GrannyGravy13 (Wed 01-May-19 14:19:36)
That is exactly what I have been saying. Having wealth is not a measure of morality.

You have 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.
GrannyGravy13 (Wed 01-May-19 14:19:36)
Having accused me, would you like to produce a quote that evidences this?

There are, one supposes given the breadth of it's reach, some reasonably wealthy people on GN.
Published authors and bigger business owners for instance.
It might be a good idea to ask those people how they feel about paying more tax and to which areas/sectors they would prefer those monies to be distributed.

GGMK3 not at all, there are good and bad people in all walks of life.

You have 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.

GrannyGravy13 (Wed 01-May-19 13:03:22) What you are saying is that a person can be described as 'good' simply because of the possession of wealth.

Goodness defined by the possession of wealth cannot be true. Would you ascribe goodness to all people who possess a gerbil? It is no different.

It is not possible to ascribe a moral virtue, either good or bad, to the possession of wealth. Equally the lack of wealth cannot define the person as 'bad' although noticeably many of our mainstream news and a few people on this forum seem to try to do this too.

GGMK3 you actually said "No one got to hold the wealth they do currently by being a "good person". in your post today at 10.33.

Sorry but you must meet /know some very "dodgey" folks?

EllanVannin you might find reading the thread interesting. It has covered this and you may have something to add to what has already been said.

Gabriella, you seem to be moving into the realms of grammar. If you like I will apply all the corrections my software shows.

This is my lovely, new software, which hopefully (although not guaranteed) gets my thoughts down as an understandable post, without my weird misspellings or the clunky sentences my slowness used to give. However, it seems to flag up the errors in the bits I quote too.

Instead of removing these " benefits " across the board why not a means-testing programme ? That goes for a few other things too !

GrannyGravy13

In your post of Wed 01-May-19 10:47:51 you say "If you think all people who have managed to put some money in their bank account, pay off their mortgage, keep their business going and thereby employ others are not “good people" ..."

Let me make it clear. I did not say or infer any such thing.

In answer to the question your post poses, on whether people doing what you describe are 'good people' - how can I know? The morality could only lie, as far as I can see, in the way the money was acquired or in how it is used not in the very fact of having acquired it which is all we know about these people.

You are expressing what is a personal preference, for people who acquire wealth, as a moral judgement. That is being judgemental which is something I cannot see as helpful in any way.

GracesGranMK3
No need for 'sic' as the word bettered is in any dictionary.

mire more