Taxpayers' Alliance: Cut Pensioner Benefits 'immediately'

[mikey4444]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34439965


Cynical, with a capital C ! Some quotes from this load of smug charmers !!!

"Many of those hit by a cut to the winter fuel allowance might "not be around" at the next election, said Alex Wild of the Taxpayers' Alliance"

"He added: "If you did it now, chances are that in 2020 someone who has had their winter fuel cut might be thinking, 'Oh I can't remember, was it this government or was it the last one? I'm not quite sure."

[Gromit]

Most of these so called benefits were actually election bribes by John Major and Tony Blair. And most of them cannot be justified. The free travel on buses and trains is completely unjustified and just makes travel even more unbearable for paying customers trying to work.

[mikey4444]

Gromit...can't agree, but even if I did, don't you find this just a little too smug ?

[Cloverjo]

I don't like the way these intentions were delivered. It's very patronising. But it's true that this needs to be looked at. Some pensioners don't need the winter fuel allowance, for example. My OH, who still works at the age of 71 because he loves it, was mildly pleased when he first got his allowance which was just given to him; he didn't apply - . "I'll spend it on wine", he said only half-jokingly.
Of course, people who need it should still get it.

[mikey4444]

By the way, the £10 Xmas bonus was introduced by Ted Heath, in 1972...a Tory PM !

[mikey4444]

Cloverjo....patronising is the polite word !

[Gromit]

What is the justification for the £10 Christmas bonus? There isn't one.
When it was introduced it was more than the state weekly pension was £6.75 (that is now £116).

[sp1814]

Even if there is a justification in looking at these benefits, the idea that it should be based on "who will be dead or senile by the time of the next election" is just jaw-dropping.

This should not be predicated on election chances, but on what is right and wrong.

[Old_Geezer]

Sure cut all pensioners additional benefits immediately, save for where a resource is simply going to waste. But before that ensure the State pension for all is increased to cover the losses, and paid at a reasonable age not pushed further and further back by evil politicians.

When I hear of a "think tank" recommending something my default state is to assume they are coming up with some utter garbage. Turns out usually to be the case. Do I not understand "think tanks" ? Are people sent there in an effort to teach them how to think ? In which case they seem to start announcing their thoughts before they've passed the final exams.


BTW Wikipedia will probably remember who made the change. And if not the Internet will retain the information just a web search away.

[Old_Geezer]

Surely the justification is that the State are not providing the pension they should and this is a sticking plaster to cover that ?

[Gromit]

Old Geezer,

'The Tax Payers Alliance' are usually referred to as a pressure group. They campaign for a low tax society. They are almost never referred to as a think-tank.

[Old_Geezer]

The BBC article refers to them as such.

[Gromit]

// the State are not providing the pension they should //

The State Pension is a bit of a Ponzi Scheme. Problem is, there are less workers to support payouts. In 1970 there were 5 workers for every pensioner. Today there are nearer only 3 workers to support each pensioner. So to pay more pension, todays workers would have to be taxed a lot more. Instead, the Government is doing the same as Greece, by borrowing the money, which is used to pay pensioners.

[Retrochic]

This is a difficult one -what is a 'Pensioner'? There are so many variables - the little old lady living on her own who relies only on her weekly pension, right up to couples with private and state pensions who are better off than a lot of working families yet still get 'extras' they don't need. My mother (86) does not need her fuel allowance and gives it to her grandchildren. Its a bit like some mothers I used to know from the prep school my youngest used to attend -they would save up there 'child allowance' and have a monthly spree at the local Spa - "massage and Bolly" (and I'm not talking spaghetti bolognese either lol!)

[Old_Geezer]

It has the appearance of a Ponzi Scheme but where it differs is that the government doesn't rely on new subscribers to pay the old. It has a pot of public money to allocate where it chooses. It makes the rules.

We need to accept different kinds of payouts from the public kitty. Some for those in need, some is as a right of being a citizen, some may have other criteria. As a citizen who has reached an age when they should not be expected to have to work, but to get out and let the younger folk contribute and make a life for themselves, the State should pay a basic minimum living wage.

We need to stop pretending this pension is a separate scheme and needs to be funded from within itself. As a rough example we don't do that for other things such as unemployment benefit, you don't need 35 years of contributions to be eligible for that.

You should get your basic needs covered plus a small amount to make life worthwhile, any additional "luxuries" you might want you will have had to arrange additional private pension during your lifetime for yourself.

Sorry this is straying away from the initial thread subject though. Make the pension something to be proud of and the benefits are then just patronising handouts and can be dispensed with. Although things like running buses full rather than empty is a daft thing to get rid of.

[Gromit]

// the government doesn't rely on new subscribers to pay the old. It has a pot of public money to allocate where it chooses. //

Where does this pot of money come from if not the taxpayer and borrowing?

[Old_Geezer]

Precisely. The taxpayer (in general) not just those contributing to a State pension.

[Noe-schitt]

Sounds a bit mercenary to me I thought David Cameron was trying to move the Conservatives away from the Nasty Party. Why not stop pensions for all those over 90 the chances are most of them won't be around at the next election

[Gromit]

OG,
National Insurance contributions rake in 21.5% of the Governent's total income. It covers the £79billion cost of state pensions.

[jno]

good thinking, Noe-schitt. Introduce pauper burials for all Labour party voters; and wouldn't unconsecrated ground be cheaper?

[mikey4444]

Gromit...Wiki calls the TPA a think tank. Good enough for me.