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.