Disgusting Politics

[BuffetSlayer]

Is there a compelling reason why winter fuel allowance and other such benefits should /not/ be means tested?

I think simply, cost. Giving everyone WFA is probably cheaper than all of the red tape, agencies, staff, wages etc that you would have to pay in order to means test the entire pensioner population.

(I should note that is just conjecture - I have no evidence to support it)

 

[Eurofighter]

I wouldn't mind means testing pensions, but a lot of pensioners vote.

 

[Roar87]

Either way dude,

You sound a tad bit paranoid. I suggest you stop watching media brainwashing that makes Russia out to be an evil entity.

Seriously, Russia is not going to nuke the UK any time soon....

You do know we've had dozens of proxy wars with Russia since the end of WW2, the latest one's are Syria and Ukraine. You're trying to bring emotion into this, where as possessing Nuclear weapons isn't an emotional decision at all, it's a purely logical one that has stopped any major wars from occurring.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

Either way dude,

You sound a tad bit paranoid. I suggest you stop watching media brainwashing that makes Russia out to be an evil entity.

Seriously, Russia is not going to nuke the UK any time soon....

I don't think Russia is going to nuke us any time soon because they know we'd nuke them in reply. If we disarmed, I'd be far more concerned about what comes after "soon" though.

And please spare me your "brainwashing media" nonsense. You've already proven yourself grossly ignorant on this subject matter. I've no reason to believe you're any better informed on my views, nevermind the subject of geopolitics in 2015.

Hardly the UK though as he was suggesting.

Who was suggesting what?

 

[Stretch]

<snip>

TLDR: We really need to look into the pension pay out, as it is part of the Benefit systems.

It's the elephant in the room.

The comments from the taxpayers alliance might have been ham-fisted, but it's about time someone bought the debate into the public domain.

Pensions are crippling for the Exchequer.

I've read many justifications about why it's unfair to target pensions and pensioner benefit as a way of making savings, but none of them are good enough to make them completely exempt from scrutiny imo.

 

[CREATIVE!11]

I don't think Russia is going to nuke us any time soon because they know we'd nuke them in reply.

God damn dude, you sound like you think real life is like a game of command and conquer.

 

[MichaelAwkward]

I have a plan.

Keep the pension as is, but stop all benefits going to johnny foreigner until paid into system for 5 years.

Job done

Shocking to read to be honest. Is the state pension really a benefit when you have paid into for your entire workling life?

Nobody pays into anything. There is no system. There is no pot. If there were, the first generation of those to receive the state pension would have been delayed until their contributions were deemed to be sufficient.

The post-war expansion of the state pension and welfare system in general was only possible because of the expanding tax receipts of the baby boomers as they entered the workforce.

It doesn't take a genius to realise that the current system of old-age benefits is demographically incompatible with the current and future population structure of the UK.

On a side note, restricting benefits to immigrants is literally cutting off the nose to spite the face. Migrants, in the working ages, are a significant proportion of the future increase in our population to 80 million and thus pivotal in determining the affordability of benefits for everyone else. The current political class are imbeciles.

 

[Roar87]

God damn dude, you sound like you think real life is like a game of command and conquer.

I suppose it's easy to feel like there's zero possibility of a major war occurring when our generation has basically only known peace time

 

[Schlong&Stable]

God damn dude, you sound like you think real life is like a game of command and conquer.

Rather than post an innane meme, how about you explain the logic behind your statement? Are you of the opinion we would not respond to a Russian nuclear attack? Or when you said "Russia is not going to nuke the UK any time soon...." did you actually mean "ever"?

 

[campbell]

Get rid of everything and be done with it.

Its getting to the point I'm tired of hearing about it, in the press on TV and online.

 

[CREATIVE!11]

Rather than post an innane meme, how about you explain the logic behind your statement? Are you of the opinion we would not respond to a Russian nuclear attack? Or when you said "Russia is not going to nuke the UK any time soon...." did you actually mean "ever"?

Do you think if someone nukes you the best course of action is to nuke them back?

Brb lets just make ourselves extinct.

 

[Schlong&Stable]

Do you think if someone nukes you the best course of action is to nuke them back?

Brb lets just make ourselves extinct.

Yes, I do. In fact I think that if Britain was turned into a firey wasteland, we'd be doing the world a favour by destroying whichever nation were responsible for it. If Russia (for example) nuked us and we wiped them out, the rest of the world would at least be rid of the madness that is Russia.

Although as I've said many times, a limited nuclear attack is more likely. If they nuke Birmingham (hurrah) and we nuke St Petersburg in reply, well the chances are they'd want to negotiate a cease fire. If we DIDN'T reply, they'll be expecting our surrender.

 

[CREATIVE!11]

Yes, I do. In fact I think that if Britain was turned into a firey wasteland, we'd be doing the world a favour by destroying whichever nation were responsible for it. If Russia (for example) nuked us and we wiped them out, the rest of the world would at least be rid of the madness that is Russia.

Although as I've said many times, a limited nuclear attack is more likely. If they nuke Birmingham (hurrah) and we nuke St Petersburg in reply, well the chances are they'd want to negotiate a cease fire. If we DIDN'T reply, they'll be expecting our surrender.

I for one welcome our Russian overlords.

 

[FortuitousFluke]

Rather than post an innane meme, how about you explain the logic behind your statement? Are you of the opinion we would not respond to a Russian nuclear attack? Or when you said "Russia is not going to nuke the UK any time soon...." did you actually mean "ever"?

It really depends on the circumstances, I don't think a nuclear response is guaranteed. As an example, in a situation where the CandC structure is completely decimated I believe individual sub captains have the final say on whether or not to retaliate, I'm not sure how many people would sanction the strike given that we would have already been effectively wiped out, what's the point?

Equally if we're talking a single strategic strike, is there a benefit to retaliatory launches if the likely response is all out Armageddon? Could it be better to take the hit? You could argue that it undermines the deterrent but what use is a deterrent when you're dead?

It's an interesting thing really, we have a weapons platform capable of unleashing untold destruction but it becomes completely useless as soon as the criteria for its use are fulfilled. If there are 1000 missiles in the air what's the point of throwing up ours?

I'm not saying we wouldn't launch, I'm just saying it's not clear cut, it would take a more stoic (and possible stubbornly pigheaded) person than myself to be able to make that call.

 

[RDM]

Do you think if someone nukes you the best course of action is to nuke them back?

Brb lets just make ourselves extinct.

That is effectively how the MAD doctrine works.

 

[Buddy]

I just had to double check I clicked on the right thread

 

[Roar87]

Do you think if someone nukes you the best course of action is to nuke them back?

Brb lets just make ourselves extinct.

The fact that we can nuke them back ensures we won't ever have to. I mean this is pretty simple stuff

It really depends on the circumstances, I don't think a nuclear response is guaranteed. As an example, in a situation where the CandC structure is completely decimated I believe individual sub captains have the final say on whether or not to retaliate, I'm not sure how many people would sanction the strike given that we would have already been effectively wiped out, what's the point?

Equally if we're talking a single strategic strike, is there a benefit to retaliatory launches if the likely response is all out Armageddon? Could it be better to take the hit? You could argue that it undermines the deterrent but what use is a deterrent when you're dead?

It's an interesting thing really, we have a weapons platform capable of unleashing untold destruction but it becomes completely useless as soon as the criteria for its use are fulfilled. If there are 1000 missiles in the air what's the point of throwing up ours?

I'm not saying we wouldn't launch, I'm just saying it's not clear cut, it would take a more stoic (and possible stubbornly pigheaded) person than myself to be able to make that call.

That Submarine Captains entire country, family and friends have been vapourised, along with the friends and relatives of everyone else on that ship. I think they might hit back

 

[Nix]

Why is a thread about pensions being pointlessly derailed into a nuclear policy debate?

If you want to talk about all things nukes, make another thread.

 

[lafemmefatale]

Nobody pays into anything. There is no system. There is no pot. If there were, the first generation of those to receive the state pension would have been delayed until their contributions were deemed to be sufficient.

The post-war expansion of the state pension and welfare system in general was only possible because of the expanding tax receipts of the baby boomers as they entered the workforce.

It doesn't take a genius to realise that the current system of old-age benefits is demographically incompatible with the current and future population structure of the UK.

On a side note, restricting benefits to immigrants is literally cutting off the nose to spite the face. Migrants, in the working ages, are a significant proportion of the future increase in our population to 80 million and thus pivotal in determining the affordability of benefits for everyone else. The current political class are imbeciles.

Woohoo! My bingo card is full.

 

[FortuitousFluke]

The fact that we can nuke them back ensures we won't ever have to. I mean this is pretty simple stuff



That Submarine Captains entire country, family and friends have been vapourised, along with the friends and relatives of everyone else on that ship. I think they might hit back

I'm not saying they wouldn't retaliate, I'm just saying that the introduction of a human element means that you can't be certain, you can't even be close to certain. Remember that a retaliation isn't just taking out the military commanders who ordered the initial strike, it's likely going to wipe out vast numbers of civilians. Given the choice between retaliation and joining an allied nation, thus removing the responsibility, I can't say what the preferred option would be.

Hand on heart, in that situation, as the man I am now (accepted with no military training at all), I don't think I'd order the strike. Even in the circumstances you've laid out, I still don't think I'd do it. Then again in the real situation, who knows?

I'll leave it there, we've drifted massively off topic with this one.