Chicken Drumstick, Pork Pie, Glass Of...
News1 min ago
So - What Should The Government Be Doing?
48 Answers
A spin off from here :
http://
We still need (as a country) to save a few bob ... and the obvious stuff (scrap Trident, tax the rich, make companies pay their way) doesn't seem to be palatable to the current government.
So let's have some ideas from the great AB think tank.
I'll start you with:
1. Change the EU rules on benefits and healthcare. I suggest a very simple amendment :
"A person will receive the healthcare and benefits provided by his native country - regardless of where he lives"
So if we go abroad we get the free healthcare and good benefits which we have paid for, if someone from elsewhere in the EU comes here then they pay for healthcare as if at home and get whatever benefits they would get at home.
We can argue about what 'native country' means - perhaps it could be actually be based on a mixture of birthplace and where you have paid taxes recently.
2. "No person who has not regularly contributed to the tax/insurance system will ever get benefit (including the State Pension) amounting to more than (say) 50% of that which would be paid to someone with a full contributions record".
This would reward the "net contributors who have fallen on hard times" at the expense of idle scrotes of the "I'm entitled" persuasion.
Over to you ...
http://
We still need (as a country) to save a few bob ... and the obvious stuff (scrap Trident, tax the rich, make companies pay their way) doesn't seem to be palatable to the current government.
So let's have some ideas from the great AB think tank.
I'll start you with:
1. Change the EU rules on benefits and healthcare. I suggest a very simple amendment :
"A person will receive the healthcare and benefits provided by his native country - regardless of where he lives"
So if we go abroad we get the free healthcare and good benefits which we have paid for, if someone from elsewhere in the EU comes here then they pay for healthcare as if at home and get whatever benefits they would get at home.
We can argue about what 'native country' means - perhaps it could be actually be based on a mixture of birthplace and where you have paid taxes recently.
2. "No person who has not regularly contributed to the tax/insurance system will ever get benefit (including the State Pension) amounting to more than (say) 50% of that which would be paid to someone with a full contributions record".
This would reward the "net contributors who have fallen on hard times" at the expense of idle scrotes of the "I'm entitled" persuasion.
Over to you ...
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sunny-dave. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I agree with all of those- except for healthcare of native country- proving tax contributions here should be enough- or, like all other insurance- those who want to benefit from it, pay directly. Scrap HS2 as well. We've got old pubs and houses sold here to be demolished for HS2. Nobody goes to Birmingham on purpose- you certainly don't want to get there quicker! ;-)
Point 2
I can only assume from this that you are not married dave .
What about the women who have taken time out to raise a family and haven't regularly contributed to the system ?
Should they be left in poverty in later life because they don't have the requisite contributions .
I'm talking about widows here and women who have no other means of support .
Many women have only had part time work throughout their working lives due to family commitments .
I can only assume from this that you are not married dave .
What about the women who have taken time out to raise a family and haven't regularly contributed to the system ?
Should they be left in poverty in later life because they don't have the requisite contributions .
I'm talking about widows here and women who have no other means of support .
Many women have only had part time work throughout their working lives due to family commitments .
I have a friend (yes I do) who gets the princely sum of £116 or so a week - despite a full 40 years of contributions - and no other state help because he has planned for his retirement.
I have a brother-in-law (yes I bloody well do) who has made no contributions to speak of and saved *** all. So he gets a pension of £148 or £225 (via pension credit) - plus anything else he can get that is means tested.
It's just not right.
I have a brother-in-law (yes I bloody well do) who has made no contributions to speak of and saved *** all. So he gets a pension of £148 or £225 (via pension credit) - plus anything else he can get that is means tested.
It's just not right.
I agree, sd (not that you have a friend- i don't believe that;-)). Similar to how those who work hard and save have to pay for all their care and others get it free. There doesn't even seem to be a sliding scale- it's all or nothing. So many of my clients say they shouldn't have bothered saving- "spend it while you can". Is that what we want people to think?
Yes - i do agree with shaney that women, especially are at such a disadvantage. Apart from the differences in pay/childcare/maternity, there are also the problems of child off school sick, etc.etc. We don't want to penalise women any more, especially as it's beneficial for children to be with parents as much as possible, in the early years, anyway.
"So just how do you propose to slash the state pension bill then? "
Simple - agree with sunny-dave - restrict the maximum payments to those who have made full contributions (instead of the reverse as at present). Cut down the payments to those who have paid in little or nothing.
"What about the women who have taken time out to raise a family and haven't regularly contributed to the system ? "
With an exception made for widows, they will have to rely on the father of their children.
Other suggestions: Overseas Aid reduced to nil (savings £13bn pa). Withdrawal from the EU (savings £17bn contributions this year). Encourage the Scots to vote for independence (or cast them adrift if they foolishly vote otherwise). (savings roughly £17bn in subsidies p.a.). Do the same for Wales and Northern Ireland (savings unknown, but likely to be substantial).
I could go on, but that's almost £50bn saved. I'll have me dinner then I'll start on my own "bonfire of the quangos" (I've already got the paraffin ready!).
Simple - agree with sunny-dave - restrict the maximum payments to those who have made full contributions (instead of the reverse as at present). Cut down the payments to those who have paid in little or nothing.
"What about the women who have taken time out to raise a family and haven't regularly contributed to the system ? "
With an exception made for widows, they will have to rely on the father of their children.
Other suggestions: Overseas Aid reduced to nil (savings £13bn pa). Withdrawal from the EU (savings £17bn contributions this year). Encourage the Scots to vote for independence (or cast them adrift if they foolishly vote otherwise). (savings roughly £17bn in subsidies p.a.). Do the same for Wales and Northern Ireland (savings unknown, but likely to be substantial).
I could go on, but that's almost £50bn saved. I'll have me dinner then I'll start on my own "bonfire of the quangos" (I've already got the paraffin ready!).
