Doing his best King Charles impression.

[Ivor Windybottom]

You think that UK pensioners should be left destitute and probably homeless if they haven't contributed?

Why not euthanise them humanely?

Why euthanise them? That would be cruel and unfair... to those paying for it.

Get them working. Gardening, washing cars, whatever. Contributing to society.

This concept of a 20-year state-funded package holiday named Retirement wasn't ever a right until the last 50 years. Before that people were absolutely knackered at pension age and died soon after, or they'd put enough of their own money aside to take care of themselves. Or their families looked after them.

 

[SPLINE]

So humour me. How do you think we should fund pension credit for those who have never paid in.

No Himmy - that is a secondary consideration. My point is about the morality of making people work longer to pay for people who don't work. I don't want to hear the communist side of the debate, I can hear that any time. I want to hear from the silent, working majority, and so I will have no further discussion with you on this one ta.

 

[King Billy]

Why euthanise them? That would be cruel and unfair... to those paying for it.

Get them working. Gardening, washing cars, whatever. Contributing to society.

This concept of a 20-year state-funded package holiday named Retirement wasn't ever a right until the last 50 years. Before that people were absolutely knackered at pension age and died soon after, or they'd put enough of their own money aside to take care of themselves. Or their families looked after them.

Do try to keep up Ivor. We're talking about pensioners, or children, or disabled, the people who receive funding but have never paid in.
Spineless's proposal was to deny them funding. So they'd be destitute, and probably homeless.
It's probable they'd prefer to be euthanised rather than die a slow cold hungry death on the streets.
It wasn't my proposal, it was the obvious repercussion of Spineless's idea.

 

[King Billy]

No Himmy - that is a secondary consideration.

So you have no idea how to fund the people who have never paid in, just deny them funding was your proposal. No that the reasonable repercussion of your proposal has been explained, you've been asked to provide an alternative method of funding, you're perplexed.
Which simply proves you spouted your bigoted mouth off with any thought for the repecussions.

My point is about the morality of making people work longer to pay for people who don't work.

So what is your proposal to fund their lost income?

I don't want to hear the communist side of the debate,

You prefer to keep your fingers in your ears so only your voice can be heard by you.

I want to hear from the silent, working majority,

What do you want to hear from the silent working majority? A solution to your ill-conceived and unthought-through created problem?

and so I will have no further discussion with you on this one ta.

You've been asked to elucidate on your daft idea, so you refuse to continue the debate.
What a surprise.
Not to worry, I'll be waiting for your next silly idea to explore.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

Do try to keep up Ivor. We're talking about pensioners, or children, or disabled, the people who receive funding but have never paid in.
Spineless's proposal was to deny them funding. So they'd be destitute, and probably homeless.
It's probable they'd prefer to be euthanised rather than die a slow cold hungry death on the streets.
It wasn't my proposal, it was the obvious repercussion of Spineless's idea.

They need basic shelter and food but aren't entitled to anything. There would need to be some sort of sanctuary. A House, where they'd need to Work. Not sure what you'd call it?

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

I'd put it next door to the Debtor's Prison. Another issue we forgot how to deal with.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

It's after 11am, must be getting close to King Billy's breakfast time by now.

 

[King Billy]

They need basic shelter and food but aren't entitled to anything. There would need to be some sort of sanctuary. A House, where they'd need to Work. Not sure what you'd call it?

I'd put it next door to the Debtor's Prison. Another issue we forgot how to deal with.

You appear to be of the opinion that poor people, such as pensioners, disabled, children, etc are poor through choice.
And you appear to think that they should be given poor treatment becaue of their plight?

Perhaps if they couldn't work or were incapble of working off their debt they should be 'transported' to some place faraway?
Or maybe a religious order of some kind could force them to work, maybe doing laundry or some such mundane but necessary work. And if they couldn't perhaps they'd be imprisoned im the cellar and abused by their keepers?

Have you thought about opening a children's home where you could abuse the children, or maybe a home for young unmarried mothers, where you sell their babies? How about an old people's care home where you could ill-treat the residents?
It sounds like it would be right up your street.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

Morning dear. You know the rest of the country's been up for hours, doing useful work and paying taxes?

I don't think anyone wants abuse. I'm joking about the workhouse. A punishment for debt might be a good thing though, perhaps litter-picking or something? There's no downside to being a workshy parasite in life and there needs to be. That's why the country's full of layabouts and we're heading towards bankrupcy.

There will be poverty beyond your pampered imagination once the country goes bust and there's no dole or pension money left.

 

[pete01]

According to Billy Bull's hit,

I think I know who you mean....

 

[King Billy]

I don't think anyone wants abuse.

Thank heaven for that little respite.

I'm joking about the workhouse.

Ah the old "I was joking" when your comments are explored in more depth.

A punishment for debt might be a good thing though, perhaps litter-picking or something?

Unpaid work would be a good punishment for debt?
Do you realise how ridiculous that sounds. Someone is in debt, so they must waste their time doing unpaid work when they could be doing paid work.
A little exploration of yours, and Spineless's ideas shows how little thought you put into your ideas.

There's no downside to being a workshy parasite in life and there needs to be.

You're ignoring Maslow's hierarchy of needs. We all have them.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

That's why the country's full of layabouts and we're heading towards bankrupcy.

There will be poverty beyond your pampered imagination once the country goes bust and there's no dole or pension money left.

The resort to the extreme. That's your best argument?
Looking at Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, your argument is stuck on the first and second "needs" from the bottom. You're blaming the people less fortunate than you for you failing to meet your need for Physiological Needs and Safety Needs.
Your need for Belonging (3rd from the bottom), Esteem and Self-actualisation (Top) have never been fulfilled and it's someone else's fault, not yours.
And you and Spineless want to deny the fulfillment of the first and second levels (Physiological Needs and Safety Needs) to those who, through no fault of their own, have not contributed.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

I'm familiar with the above psychobabble. It's useful, but you're missing the point that if someone wants or needs something then they themselves are required to do work to obtain it. They can't sit around and demand that everyone else provides them with their needs or wants.

Put it another way - have you ever seen inside an ant's nest or beehive? Do you see a bunch of them in one corner sat around doing nothing while eating all the food the others forage and retrieve for?

 

[IT Minion]

Most people see Dickens' stories as depicting some of the worst elements of Victorian England. Others apparently are it as a blueprint.

It's amazing how historically ignorant these people banging on about the past are.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

There's no downside to being a workshy parasite in life and there needs to be. That's why the country's full of layabouts and we're heading towards bankrupcy.

That, is about the crux of it. When I started work, in the 60's, almost everyone had a job, and worked for their living. Yes, there were exceptions, but not many, unless they had a very good reason not to be in work. There was a work ethic, which is missing in many these days. We didn't have much, but what we did have, was hard-earned. Now, working seems to be very much an option, work or not, it makes little difference, both will get the same benefits, so why bother working at all?

We now have an incredible proportion of the UK population, simply living on hand-outs - whole families living that way, and knowing no other way of life.