[Burgerman]

Goku, on 20 April 2025 - 06:41 AM, said:

https://fullfact.org...y-torsten-bell/

We will *only* be paying an extra £31 billion quid on state pension thanks to the triple lock by the end of parliament.

When will people admit this is a massive Ponzi scheme?

(I’ve realised this is my Ian thing)

Don’t cry too hard. Can’t wait to be raking it in with all my other pensions.

[Wooden Spoon]

Goku, on 20 April 2025 - 06:41 AM, said:

https://fullfact.org...y-torsten-bell/

We will *only* be paying an extra £31 billion quid on state pension thanks to the triple lock by the end of parliament.

When will people admit this is a massive Ponzi scheme?

(I’ve realised this is my Ian thing)

Raise NI on the under 40s to pay for it.

After a lifetime of contributions to the state it’s worth every penny.

[Goku]

Burgerman, on 20 April 2025 - 06:56 AM, said:

Don’t cry too hard. Can’t wait to be raking it in with all my other pensions.

Why do you despise the young? Your ageism is sickening. I suppose this is just you being satirical? 😉

This post has been edited by Goku: 20 April 2025 - 07:11 AM

[Goku]

Wooden Spoon, on 20 April 2025 - 07:07 AM, said:

Raise NI on the under 40s to pay for it.

After a lifetime of contributions to the state it’s worth every penny.

It’ll kill this country as wealth is funnelled from the squeezed middle to line the pockets of the decrepit. Everyone wants the Ponzi scheme to continue so there’s no political will to figure out a solution, thus the country’s death spiral will continue.

Would be funny if I didn’t have kids. DWP’s budget is 10% of our GDP ffs.

This post has been edited by Goku: 20 April 2025 - 07:20 AM

[Burgerman]

Goku, on 20 April 2025 - 07:10 AM, said:

Why do you despise the young? Your ageism is sickening. I suppose this is just you being satirical? 😉

Au contraire mon ami, I’m forever grateful they will be working hard to keep me in the luxury I’m accustomed too.

[Goku]

Burgerman, on 20 April 2025 - 07:44 AM, said:

Au contraire mon ami, I’m forever grateful they will be working hard to keep me in the luxury I’m accustomed too.

I’ve genuinely no doubt you deserve to, and I wish everyone else could! But not at the cost of our country’s finances. It’s an astronomical sum.

[Wooden Spoon]

#satire


HB is well and truly in the keep net with that one

[Wooden Spoon]

Seriously though, once the hooks been removed you do raise a valid point of debate.

When the beverage welfare reforms post WW2 were introduced it was a huge step forward for the working class of the UK.


It meant there was a safety net that meant you weren’t thrown in the streets to starve if made unemployed and provided for your old age

At the beginning of the century, life expectancy was around 45 years for men and 49 for women, but by the end of the century, it had increased to around 78 for men and 82 for women, according to the UK Parliament.

The pension system hasn’t evolved to keep pace with this. 65 was chosen back in the late 40s because that’s how long you were expected to live.

“The dole” wasn’t an alternative to work it was a means tested safety net to keep you from being homeless and hungry until you found work - it wasn’t a long term alternative to work. It wasn’t there to keep you if you felt anxiety about having to get a job.


1 in 6 working age people are on benefits of some sort or other. The idea of full employment and providing jobs a fair wage for a fair days work hasn’t been government policy since the early 1980’s. And it should be. Full employment should be an aim for government, it should be cornerstone of economic policy. If some industries need to be taken in house for their strategic and social benefits then so be it.

People go on about state subsidised industry and how bad it is - but is state funding whole towns decimated by closure of industry and the culture that develops and the loss of social cohesion any better?

Scunthorpe for example - how much would it cost to fund that whole town if the steel works and the associated industries closed? The deprivation crime and drug abuse, the cost in rents and council tax being paid, the loss of a strategic economic asset? None of that is factored into the running cost of the plant itself

Thatchers legacy has penetrated deep hasn’t it even 35 years on.


I’d suggest that is a bigger problem than pensions BTW. Those who should be working and contributing are not but taking out rather than those too old to work?

The ethics and pride of earning a living?

This post has been edited by Wooden Spoon: 20 April 2025 - 08:55 AM

[isleaiw1]

Wooden Spoon, on 20 April 2025 - 08:31 AM, said:

Seriously though, once the hooks been removed you do raise a valid point of debate.

When the beverage welfare reforms post WW2 were introduced it was a huge step forward for the working class of the UK.


It meant there was a safety net that meant you weren’t thrown in the streets to starve if made unemployed and provided for your old age

At the beginning of the century, life expectancy was around 45 years for men and 49 for women, but by the end of the century, it had increased to around 78 for men and 82 for women, according to the UK Parliament.

The pension system hasn’t evolved to keep pace with this. 65 was chosen back in the late 40s because that’s how long you were expected to live.

“The dole” wasn’t an alternative to work it was a means tested safety net to keep you from being homeless and hungry until you found work - it wasn’t a long term alternative to work. It wasn’t there to keep you if you felt anxiety about having to get a job.


1 in 6 working age people are on benefits of some sort or other. The idea of full employment and providing jobs a fair wage for a fair days work hasn’t been government policy since the early 1980’s. And it should be. Full employment should be an aim for government, it should be cornerstone of economic policy. If some industries need to be taken in house for their strategic and social benefits then so be it.

People go on about state subsidised industry and how bad it is - but is state funding whole towns decimated by closure of industry and the culture that develops and the loss of social cohesion any better?

Scunthorpe for example - how much would it cost to fund that whole town if the steel works and the associated industries closed? The deprivation crime and drug abuse, the cost in rents and council tax being paid, the loss of a strategic economic asset? None of that is factored into the running cost of the plant itself

Thatchers legacy has penetrated deep hasn’t it even 35 years on.


I’d suggest that is a bigger problem than pensions BTW. Those who should be working and contributing are not but taking out rather than those too old to work?

The ethics and pride of earning a living?

Pension isn't a benefit, it's something you have paid in for so its a challenge to find a solution. More people working would be good - but between elongated education, forced early finish (ageism is well and truly rife) and those who milk the system / don't pay their fair share, we are heading only one way.

There are a few key areas to look to save the govts money... but as we don't seem to want to equalise public sector pension provision with the private sector (funny that!) then I cant see why taking anything from all pensioners is a fair deal.

[Wooden Spoon]

isleaiw1, on 20 April 2025 - 11:50 AM, said:

Pension isn't a benefit, it's something you have paid in for so its a challenge to find a solution. More people working would be good - but between elongated education, forced early finish (ageism is well and truly rife) and those who milk the system / don't pay their fair share, we are heading only one way.

There are a few key areas to look to save the govts money... but as we don't seem to want to equalise public sector pension provision with the private sector (funny that!) then I cant see why taking anything from all pensioners is a fair deal.

I pay much more into my work pension in this scheme than I have in other previous schemes so don’t make out it’s all at the expense of the employer

[Bonnyman]

Wooden Spoon, on 20 April 2025 - 04:04 PM, said:

I pay much more into my work pension in this scheme than I have in other previous schemes so don’t make out it’s all at the expense of the employer

Just as you thought it could not get worse for Starmer the rumour mill is gathering steam about footage of him in a compromising position with Pakistani fund provider Lord Ali at his penthouse suite

[isleaiw1]

Wooden Spoon, on 20 April 2025 - 04:04 PM, said:

I pay much more into my work pension in this scheme than I have in other previous schemes so don’t make out it’s all at the expense of the employer

The highest private sector pension contribution my employer has made is 15%. Most public sector pensions cost at least 30% "employer" contribution (not allowing for any other top ups needed later..)

My pension contribution (personal) at my last job was 27%... are you paying that? You still got more back for your contribution (relative to wage!) than i was...

So yes, it's a great deal at the taxpayers expense. Just Google how much ot costs the taxpayer... and what the debt is that is currently unfunded. Which is of course the problem, can't stop these schemes as then the money wouldn't be coming in to pay the liabilities as they fall due.
Edit... Read this to get a view...
https://iea.org.uk/m...w-iea-research/

This post has been edited by isleaiw1: 21 April 2025 - 08:40 AM

[Wooden Spoon]

isleaiw1, on 21 April 2025 - 08:20 AM, said:

The highest private sector pension contribution my employer has made is 15%. Most public sector pensions cost at least 30% "employer" contribution (not allowing for any other top ups needed later..)

My pension contribution (personal) at my last job was 27%... are you paying that? You still got more back for your contribution (relative to wage!) than i was...

So yes, it's a great deal at the taxpayers expense. Just Google how much ot costs the taxpayer... and what the debt is that is currently unfunded. Which is of course the problem, can't stop these schemes as then the money wouldn't be coming in to pay the liabilities as they fall due.
Edit... Read this to get a view...
https://iea.org.uk/m...w-iea-research/

I assume when you’re talking about funded by the tax payer you’re talking about NHS, police, fireman etc?

[Misnomer]

Bonnyman, on 21 April 2025 - 04:57 AM, said:

Just as you thought it could not get worse for Starmer the rumour mill is gathering steam about footage of him in a compromising position with Pakistani fund provider Lord Ali at his penthouse suite

Towd Jim D reckons he's seen the actual footage and that KS's wife has started divorce proceedings.

[s42blue]

Misnomer, on 21 April 2025 - 10:24 AM, said:

Towd Jim D reckons he's seen the actual footage and that KS's wife has started divorce proceedings.

Jim Diamond?

I should have known better….. (one from the 80s)

[Mr Mercury]

Misnomer, on 21 April 2025 - 10:24 AM, said:

Towd Jim D reckons he's seen the actual footage and that KS's wife has started divorce proceedings.

Surely Starmer will sue?

[calvin plummers socks]

Amazing to think that in the whole UK this video has only been seen by disgraced nonce and friend of Gary Glitter Jim Davidson isn’t it - it’s almost as though he’s made it up

[Burgerman]

calvin plummers socks, on 21 April 2025 - 10:44 AM, said:

Amazing to think that in the whole UK this video has only been seen by disgraced nonce and friend of Gary Glitter Jim Davidson isn’t it - it’s almost as though he’s made it up

Is Davidson a convicted nonce? Well everyday is a learning day, I never knew that.

[isleaiw1]

Wooden Spoon, on 21 April 2025 - 08:43 AM, said:

I assume when you’re talking about funded by the tax payer you’re talking about NHS, police, fireman etc?

I am, because they are - if they weren't public funded they would have been scrapped years ago...

[Johnnyspireite7]

isleaiw1, on 21 April 2025 - 12:08 PM, said:

I am, because they are - if they weren't public funded they would have been scrapped years ago...

And replaced with what? Grabs popcorn waiting for this one!