Who’s going to tell them that the answer is immigration?

[SPLINE]

So you want to wave a magic wand and somehow magic up a huge pile of money to pay for the current pensioners and then all currently under pension age get a contribution based pension? How are you going to manage the increased tax to pay for that?

And it's not a 'Blair/starmer' system, it's the same system we've had since there was a state pension.

The state pension is NOT the same system it was when it started - it has been tweaked many times over the years. It was originally designed to be something you earned over a lifetime, but now it is being given away to huge numbers of people who have contributed nothing. The rot started with NI credits, which came in with the introduction of JSA in 1996 under that evil tory John Major! These credits give the same entitlement to the state pension as someone who has worked. Seriously how do you not know this?

The current trend for demonising old people is new, and is all of a piece with the idolisation of immigrants, and is where Blair (and subsequent PMs) comes in, with the population replacement programme.

 

[Brigadier]

The current trend for demonising old people is new, and is all of a piece with the idolisation of immigrants,

Any "demonising" is, in reality, a reaction to the disparity between the gilded generation and the current youth, the latter having been royally shafted by governments and codgers alike.

Sod all to do with immigrants.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

My grand-parents, of the war-hero generation, lived very modestly, ate basic food, caught the bus and had occasional UK holidays or day trips. They didn't moan much, they seemed content with their lot in life.

The next generation, the baby-boomer current crop of pensioners, seem to feel entitled to a brand new car, at least two foreign holidays, Finest food at home and a restaurant at least once a week, and moan if they don't get a massive rise in pension every year.

But they all vote as they have nothing better to do, so politicians have to keep handing the money over so they don't get hurt. I don't know whether this extreme selfishness is an age thing or a generational thing. I'd like to hope that I don't become like them when I get older.

The state pension should be about survival. It's now way beyond that and should be frozen or at least the annual rise reduced to the lesser of the triple-lock factors, not the greatest.

 

[King Billy]

The state pension is NOT the same system it was when it started -

How has it changed?

 

[noseall]

the latter having been royally shafted by governments and codgers alike.

Massively. And yet its the miserable old codgers that resent THEM.

 

[King Billy]

My grand-parents, of the war-hero generation, lived very modestly, ate basic food, caught the bus and had occasional UK holidays or day trips. They didn't moan much, they seemed content with their lot in life.

Ee you were lucky, we got up two hours before we went to bed, had a lump of coal to eat...........

and moan
I'd like to hope that I don't become like them when I get older.

You already have.

The state pension should be about survival.

It is for some. 30% of pensioners have no private pension.

 

[MNW67]

Q108/ Why must today's workers pay today's pensioners? Surely ones pension contributions should be invested for growth.

Good question. It doesn't have to be that way. But transitioning to a different system would cost a huge amount.

 

[Highway Man]

Todays pensioners were promised to be looked after if they worked and paid into a system that would provide for them in their remaining years. You cannot simply change the goalposts now they have kept their part of the bargain.

 

[MNW67]

Todays pensioners were promised to be looked after if they worked and paid into a system that would provide for them in their remaining years. You cannot simply change the goalposts now they have kept their part of the bargain.

Was that a reply to me or to SPLINE. We could transition to the model SPLINE has suggested but it is estimated to cost about £1 trillion. Would we borrow it or raise it through taxes.

 

[SPLINE]

The next generation, the baby-boomer....moan if they don't get a massive rise in pension every year.

But they all vote....The state pension should be about survival...

I agree with you Ivor, but the point you are making is not the point I am trying to make...which is that the state pension is currently paid to many who have contributed little or nothing at all, and if that wasn't the case, the scheme might not be as unsustainable as (we are told) it is. Sorting who is entitled (via sufficient lifetime contributions) would be the primary concern in any reorganisation. As for 'them all voting', those in receipt of public money without having paid in a sufficient amount at some point should not have the vote (no representation without taxation).

We could transition to the model SPLINE has suggested but it is estimated to cost about £1 trillion. Would we borrow it or raise it through taxes.

I have not suggested any 'model'. You are attributing things to me that I haven't said, which is Himmy trickery, and I thought you were better than that!

We are being fed propaganda about the state pension being unsustainable, and I want people to know the (very large) missing portion of that story - the squandering. The first dilution of the pension was 'NI credits' in 1996, which I described in an earlier post. The second was the introduction, in 2001, of the 0% NI band, by which people earning less than X amount pay no NI - but are deemed to have paid it. This is especially pernicious, because unscrupulous workers and their employers can conspire to keep a wage low.

Seriously, how do people not know about these things?

 

[Highway Man]

Was that a reply to me or to SPLINE. We could transition to the model SPLINE has suggested but it is estimated to cost about £1 trillion. Would we borrow it or raise it through taxes.

Neither, these are my thoughts on the subject. I suppose a great example of how deep thinking that I am and shows a caring side to me which might surprise some. I suppose you could say I am amazing and who would blame you.

 

[King Billy]

I agree with you Ivor, but the point you are making is not the point I am trying to make...which is that the state pension is currently paid to many who have contributed little or nothing at all, and if that wasn't the case, the scheme might not be as unsustainable as (we are told) it is. Sorting who is entitled (via sufficient lifetime contributions) would be the primary concern in any reorganisation. As for 'them all voting', those in receipt of public money without having paid in a sufficient amount at some point should not have the vote (no representation without taxation).

If you idea was implemented, who would feed, house and clothe those not in receipt of a pension?
They would die of starvation, cold, loneliness or other such deaths.
You might as well introduce euthanasia. Only make them suffer before death.

I have not suggested any 'model'. You are attributing things to me that I haven't said, which is Himmy trickery, and I thought you were better than that!

You have, you suggested just stopping any benefit to anyone who has not contributed.
So all those non-working widows, widowers or homebuilders will be left penniless.
Would you reintroduce the workhouse?

We are being fed propaganda

You are being fed extreme right-wing propaganda, and like a good little hitler, you're reformatting it to suit your own narrative.

 

[Odds]

Ivor is, of course, talking from his orifice - Britain was bankrupted by the fight against Fascism. The Labour government elected in 1945 was determined to avoid the mistakes made a generation earlier by the Lloyd George government by 'building homes for heroes' and providing universal health care. The war loans to the US were a huge dent in the economy, added to the IMF loans, the interest alone made the economy slump as Labour attempted to assuage the working man's lot.

And keep a promise to the Commonwealth men who'd fought bravely in the War.

Immigration was key to this plan as they worked for low wages and helped build Britain back on its feet. All of it went belly up in 1967 when Britain defaulted on its loans, leading to decimalisation in 1971 when the British people were ripped off overnight by a new monetary system, designed to help our economy align with the EEC, helping us enter the Common Market - which did make things brighter. Thatcher injected a booster into the system with her 'Reaganomic' deal with America, then killing off the unions to keep wages low, combatting inflation and adjusting the economy to a Free Market service model.

This has brought us to the brink of disaster several times, each time worse than the last until the UK debt became unservicable about 20 years ago, reaching 100% of gdp. Now, Fartrage and his unhinged minions expect 'Britannia Unchained' will save us as Thatcher's plan did in the 80s.

It won't end well.