Joined: Jun 19 2002 Posts: 14970 Location: Campaigning for a deep attacking line
TrinityIHC wrote:No, state pension cannot be used as an alternative lifestyle choice to working so not an issue. The woman we have been discussing is clearly spending the (extortionate amount of) money she receives for her childrens welfare, on luxury items - and being given a 400k house to live in I might add. A man could work his hands to the bone all his life and not be able to afford that.
Of course it can. If £70 a week JSA can be used as an alternative lifestyle choice then why can't £104 a week pension be? Other people slave away and provide for a pension themselves whilst others just rely upon the state pension? Surely the state pension is there to provide the basics for people who reach a certain age? If pensioners are spending their benefits on M&S products, garden centres and tour holidays then surely that is just as much a waste of taxpayers money as frivolously wasting money on children through child benefit?
Joined: Jun 28 2002 Posts: 4961 Location: Outside your remit
The difference is that old folk are not in a position to earn money themselves. I don't care what they spend theirs on - most of them have earned it anway, through years of putting into the system. If they haven't then it's just £34 extra on top of JSA they will have been receiving anyway.
Joined: Jun 19 2002 Posts: 14970 Location: Campaigning for a deep attacking line
TrinityIHC wrote:The difference is that old folk are not in a position to earn money themselves. I don't care what they spend theirs on - most of them have earned it anway, through years of putting into the system. If they haven't then it's just £34 extra on top of JSA they will have been receiving anyway.
Really? So pensioners can't work or receive income on investments? Most people on JSA and other benefits have paid into the system too. If its not going on basics why are taxpayers funding pensioners lavish lifestyles?
Joined: Feb 17 2002 Posts: 28357 Location: MACS0647-JD
Him wrote:No, plenty of state pension recipients are capable of work, and I didn't realise it was supposed to be a disincentive I thought it was supposed to ensure benefits were spent on appropriate things. If a state pension isn't being spent on basic things like food, heating etc then surely it's not necessary.
I don't know any pensioner who doesn't buy food, or pay for heating. Do you?
Is that it, then? A pensioner is to be provided with nothing except sufficient for the basics of food, heating "etc" until they die? Subsistence kind of thing? Perhaps a temperature regulator with a maximum of say 60F should be compulsorily fitted, and vouchers for calories of no more than 2000 a day food should be obligatory.
A radio costs a penny or two a day electric to run. Is that a basic thing, or should their pension leave them unable to afford the luxury?
Can they have an extra pound per month above subsistence / basics, so they may share a glass of stout, or is that OTT for the public purse?
Last edited by Ferocious Aardvark on stardate Jun 26, 3013 11:27 am, edited 48,562,867,458,300,023 times in total
Him wrote:No, plenty of state pension recipients are capable of work, and I didn't realise it was supposed to be a disincentive I thought it was supposed to ensure benefits were spent on appropriate things. If a state pension isn't being spent on basic things like food, heating etc then surely it's not necessary.
I don't know any pensioner who doesn't buy food, or pay for heating. Do you?
Is that it, then? A pensioner is to be provided with nothing except sufficient for the basics of food, heating "etc" until they die? Subsistence kind of thing? Perhaps a temperature regulator with a maximum of say 60F should be compulsorily fitted, and vouchers for calories of no more than 2000 a day food should be obligatory.
A radio costs a penny or two a day electric to run. Is that a basic thing, or should their pension leave them unable to afford the luxury?
Can they have an extra pound per month above subsistence / basics, so they may share a glass of stout, or is that OTT for the public purse?
I think you may have misunderstood.
Christianity: because you're so awful you made God kill himself.
Joined: Jun 28 2002 Posts: 4961 Location: Outside your remit
Rock God X wrote:I think you may have misunderstood.
I'm not surprised, Him's point is very obtuse. I have called for tighter controls on what people spend their CHILD benefit on - ie their kids. He's trying to draw a comparison with the state pension, which is a totally different animal altogether.
Joined: Jul 31 2003 Posts: 36786 Location: Leafy Worcester, home of the Black Pear
TrinityIHC wrote:I'm not surprised, Him's point is very obtuse. I have called for tighter controls on what people spend their CHILD benefit on - ie their kids. He's trying to draw a comparison with the state pension, which is a totally different animal altogether.
Why? Both are payments from the public purse, so if the taxpayer gets a say in how one is spent why not the other?
Hold on to me baby, his bony hands will do you no harm It said in the cards, we lost our souls to the Nameless One
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 107 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
