30/11 Strikes.

Biohazard said:
Where does the money come from in a weighted and growing aged population? :confused:
Click to expand...

Any government will do whatever it has to, to prevent millions of OAPs going homeless and starving and freezing to death.

Or is it your contention that they WOULD allow that to happen? Really? Does common sense tell you that?

How will future governments find the money precisely? I don't know, but when they are looking for things to cut, supporting OAPs will be the very last thing they cut.
 
dirtydog said:
But it isn't nonsense is it.

You ASSUME that there will be no state pension or other benefits in 30-40 years. But if you are wrong, then saving low amounts into a pension is utterly pointless. You would be better to spend it now, or save it as cash or in other forms. Or it will be wiped out by future means testing.

This seems to anger you but why? What I am saying is fully accurate and can be verified by anyone who wants to check out the rules and do a bit of simple arithmetic.
Click to expand...

It is, and the only person getting annoyed would appear to be you.

It is not only me who thinks there will be no state pension in several decades to come, it is unaffordable as we move forward. It's not so much an assumption as a projection, and I'm not the only person saying it.

I have never said pension funds are the only way, but making adequate provision for your retirement is essential regardless how hard you want to squirm about it. The markets aren't going anywhere in that timeframe regardless of how you view them.

Nothing you ever say is accurate really.

dirtydog said:
Do you want people to be informed or not? A pension is a big decision, I would hope that people want to make it based on correct information and weigh up all the pros and cons.
Click to expand...

Which I'm sure they would do well away from here DD.
 
There is a proposal for a flat pension payable to everyone whether or not they have contributions. It will be set at about £140 for a single person at todays rate and will mean that there are NO means tested elements at all. Everyone living in the country will get a pension with minimal qualifying criteria.

This is to simplify the process and make it fairer. It does mean that this is all you get if you have no other pension or savings.
 
nkata said:
There is a proposal for a flat pension payable to everyone whether or not they have contributions. It will be set at about £140 for a single person at todays rate and will mean that there are NO means tested elements at all. Everyone living in the country will get a pension with minimal qualifying criteria.

This is to simplify the process and make it fairer. It does mean that this is all you get if you have no other pension.
Click to expand...

Never gonna happen IMO and here's why - simply the cost of housing in different parts of the country varies so much, which is why levels of housing benefit payable varies with it.

Nobody who pays rent on a house in say London can live off £140 a week. So while they might bring in a flat £140 pension, they would IMO include the right to claim housing and council tax benefit on top of it, like you can now with the state pension.
 
The state pension is already below the Government's own povery line. Relying on that as we move forward with an aging population and a stagnating and possibly declining economy should be a great concern for everybody who has so far made no provision for supporting themself in retirement - whatever that may entail for the individual..
 
nkata said:
There is a proposal for a flat pension payable to everyone whether or not they have contributions. It will be set at about £140 for a single person at todays rate and will mean that there are NO means tested elements at all. Everyone living in the country will get a pension with minimal qualifying criteria.

This is to simplify the process and make it fairer. It does mean that this is all you get if you have no other pension.
Click to expand...

I concur with the argument of a flat rate.

DLA (Disability Living Allowance) has three rates Highest rate £73.60, Middle rate £49.30 and Lowest rate £19.55.

We did a study and concluded that if you remove all the tests to see what rate DLA claimants were entitled to you would be able to pay ALL valid claimants £93 AND reduce the footprint of the computer system it sits on and reduce staffing requirements - making further savings.
 
dirtydog said:
Never gonna happen IMO and here's why - simply the cost of housing in different parts of the country varies so much, which is why levels of housing benefit payable varies with it.

Nobody who pays rent on a house in say London can live off £140 a week. So while they might bring in a flat £140 pension, they would IMO include the right to claim housing and council tax benefit on top of it, like you can now with the state pension.
Click to expand...

It does away with all the pension credit though so people will benefit from having a little extra savings or pension of their own.
 
amigafan2003 said:
I concur with the argument of a flat rate.

DLA (Disability Living Allowance) has three rates Highest rate £73.60, Middle rate £49.30 and Lowest rate £19.55.

We did a study and concluded that if you remove all the tests to see what rate DLA claimants were entitled to you would be able to pay ALL valid claimants £93 AND reduce the footprint of the computer system it sits on and reduce staffing requirements - making further savings.
Click to expand...

Do you mean to remove the testing entirely?
 
Biohazard said:
If it isn't tested how can you ensure validity of the claim?
Click to expand...

I didn't mean testing the validy of a DLA claim, I meant testing for the appropriate level of award once a claim for DLA has been validated.

There are two stages to a DLA claim- applying for DLA then figuiring out what level of DLA award you are entitled to. The point was that if yu stop worrying (and spending resources) about what someone is entitled to if they have a valid claim then you could pay them more than the highest award under the current system.

Does that make sense? I probably didn't explain it very well.
 
amigafan2003 said:
Does that make sense?
Click to expand...

Yes. :)

Unfortunately I can see the political desire for a staggered rate depending on the severity of the condition. Would it be right that someone on the lower end of the spectrum gets the same as someone with more problems?

[I'm not trying to defend the overheads here I would add!]
 
Option 2; a £140-a-week flat rate, single-tier pension set above the level of the pension credit standard minimum guarantee, effective from 2015.

Respondents overwhelmingly backed option two. Pensions minister Steve Webb said: ‘A simple, decent state pension, that is easy to understand would give people more clarity and certainty about what they will get from the state. It is this clarity and firm foundation that will help people make decisions about saving for retirement – a crucial step as we prepare to enrol 10 million people into workplace savings from 2012.’

Respondents included businesses, defined benefit schemes, pensions administrators and trustees, the voluntary sector and the public.
 
nkata said:
Option 2; a £140-a-week flat rate, single-tier pension set above the level of the pension credit standard minimum guarantee, effective from 2015.

Respondents overwhelmingly backed option two. Pensions minister Steve Webb said: ‘A simple, decent state pension, that is easy to understand would give people more clarity and certainty about what they will get from the state. It is this clarity and firm foundation that will help people make decisions about saving for retirement – a crucial step as we prepare to enrol 10 million people into workplace savings from 2012.’

Respondents included businesses, defined benefit schemes, pensions administrators and trustees, the voluntary sector and the public.
Click to expand...

Hey, I agree with you!
 
Biohazard said:
Yes. :)

Unfortunately I can see the political desire for a staggered rate depending on the severity of the condition. Would it be right that someone on the lower end of the spectrum gets the same as someone with more problems?

[I'm not trying to defend the overheads here I would add!]
Click to expand...

Thank you Bio - you basically said what I was trying not to - i.e. the multitiered benefit approach is simply political, pandering to what people percieve as "fair" when "fairness" is generally a matter of perspective.
 
amigafan2003 said:
Thank you Bio - you basically said what I was trying not to - i.e. the multitiered benefit approach is simply political, pandering to what people percieve as "fair" when "fairness" is generally a matter of perspective.
Click to expand...

So someone with a major ailment should get the same as someone with a minor one? That's fair is it? I don't think so.
 
dirtydog said:
So someone with a major ailment should get the same as someone with a minor one? That's fair is it? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

I think you turned it round,

a person with a minor ailment would get the same as a person with a major ailment.

is that fair?

But yes with flat tax, flat pension and flat benefits, half the civil service could disappear. :D
 
Last edited:
nkata said:
I think you turned it round,

a person with a minor ailment would get the same as a person with a major ailment.

is that fair?
Click to expand...

:confused: turning it round doesn't change the equation. And no I don't consider it to be fair and I doubt many people would.

Anyway I think we've veered off topic somewhat? Strikes?
 
I still haven't got a response. Annoyingly, there are now pictures posted representing the student body at the march in Glasgow. Sigh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom