... [url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20044862the benefit in question being the pension.[/url

Was just going to post similar: www.express.co.uk/posts/view/354 ... e-pensions A short step to the workhouse.

Was just going to post similar: www.express.co.uk/posts/view/354 ... e-pensions A short step to the workhouse.

As I have been saying for some years, the general trend with governments, and an accelerating one at that, is to understand that however outrageous the proposition, and however unfair the result, they can in fact pretty much get away with anything, and so at an accelerating rate, they do, and will.

I have long believed that as years roll by, people would have less and less chance of ever actual reaching pension age and if they did, of ever actually receiving anything like a liveable pension, and this is just more of the same, even if despicably greatly more.

Someone retiring at 68 might well have spent 50 years "contributing" to the state and it is absolutely unforgivable to unambiguously claim that anyone of pension age who is not working is "a burden on the state". He should be shot for even coming out with that.

Nevertheless it is part of the package that people over 65 are, [ide facto[/i seen as a burden on the state at many and increasing turns. For example, a hospital is a very dangerous place to be, with great risk of not being resuscitated etc if you are seen as "elderly". And of course if you are not hospitalised but have to be in what is often risibly described as a "care" home then the government has long hankered after selling off all your wordly goods to "pay for" what is increasingly likely to be an abysmal level of "care", and may even in very many cases be a form of abuse.

Quite how Bichard has the sheer effrontery to talk about this is what I find most amazing. Bichard retired from the civil service aged 53 on an index-linked pension in excess of £120,000. Burden on the state? [url=http://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2012/10/24/peer-who-wants-the-retired-to-work-for-their-pensions-is-a-sir-humphrey-retired-on-120k-a-year/He should fscking know[/url.

Is this the guy who spent all his career scrounging off the state in so called "public service" Does he get a hefty publicy funded pension? If so, let's hope he donates that back to the community and then lives off the state pension whilst sweeping up. If he doesn't he's just another hypoctical windbag in my opinion.

He's back-peddling today, unsurprisingly, has refused to be interviewed in live media and is now re-wording his previous statements to include words like "encouraged to do voluntary work".

Its fairly obvious that this is how government works these days and I agree with the FA (above) in that they are continuously "trying it on", wheeling out otherwise unknown faces to publish the next phase of outrageous policy to see what the public reaction is - if its muted then do it, if the reaction is outrage then drop it like a hot stone.

The ePetition thing was probably the biggest mistake that any government ever made, putting control firmly into the hands of the plebs rather than the faceless bureaucrats with severe politically influenced opinions, Sir Humphrey would never have approved.

Agree with everyone above.

What's step 2 of this? You don't have to do the work if you agree not to claim your state pension?

Its an utterly ridiculous proposal. 70 year olds caring for 90 olds. What happens when the 70 year old doesn't turn up for "work"? Do they get their state pension sanctioned like JSA claimants?
I'm surprised at the Tories targeting pensioners though. Think they've messed up with this and changes in the budget. Pensioners, police and armed forces were Tory heartland areas previously. They're doing a pretty good job of enraging all of them.

Note that they've not actually done anything here, it's just someone suggesting ideas. With an ageing population the cost of supporting pensionsers from 65 through to death is unsustainable. People are living longer and the average person will live to 82 now. That is 17 years of free state handouts if they don't have their own pensions. Where do you people expect that money to come from?

The idea of people working for benefits is mocked on here and I really don't understand why. If you are on benefits you should contribute to society to earn that handout. Community service for those on benefits is absolutely valid and needs to be brought in.

I'm sure Labour's ideas would be better. How about they just top up benefits to keep those out of work happy and pensioners liquid and we'll stick it all on the tab eh?

A better idea would be to bring in a proper tax system that is simple and closes all the current loopholes. The most profitable companies trading in the UK pay precious little tax, the highest earners in the UK pay very little tax and business owners also escape. Close all those loopholes and the country would be in a better position.

Because what we need are real jobs.

If it is doing a job that needs doing – then it is a job that needs doing and it should be treated like that, providing an opportunity for someone to actually get a job, thus helping to lift them [iout[/i of benefits.

Not, as Workfare showed, an opportunity for already profitable companies to make yet more off the back of the taxpayer.



Totally agree (I may have said as much just a few days ago

). But there is nobody suggesting that – just floating ideas about making pensioners work for their pensions.

I seem to remember Blair doing the same.

Is it really?

Nobody from any political party has said that. Where are the statistics and the research that have demonstrated the truth of this startling claim?

Or did you just make it up?

He makes lots of things up does Saddened.

Wonder if they include those who have reached 65 and never done a days graft in their lives, a couple near to my mam spring to mind, it would certainly save the state money as he would collapse with shock if he was asked to contribute.

Thought I was reading the Daily Mash when I clicked the BBC link!

17 years of state pension after 49 years of tax contributions, of which the state pension can in theory be taxed again and is then recirculated back into the economy supporting private and public companies alike, and being retaxed again as VAT.

In ten years time I have no expectation that a government will provide a pension that will support me, I have two private pensions that are worth fook-all since "the markets" robbed them (remember that bit about them going down as well as up ?) and so I await the 2020's with a mixture of trepidation and of cynicism as I wait in line at the local soup kitchen...

You won't be queuing at it, you'll be serving. If you want what's left of your pension, of course.

That doesn't sound like the "free handout" Saddened mentioned, so there must be another one you can get, on top of that one.

"Aviva Pensions is proud to sponsor this soup kitchen, manned entirely by "volunteers" who want to draw their Aviva Pension this month"

The real crime that was committed 60-odd years ago was to give the impression to those of working age at that time that the money that was taken from them under the guise of National Insurance was to pay for their healthcare throughout their life, and for them to have a state pension after 60 or 65 years of age.

Of course, that was smoke and mirrors, we all know that now, but my parents generation were taken in by those smoke and mirrors and the myth was passed down to my generation - its only in the last 15 or so years that governments of both flavours have held their hands up and told us that it was all bollax and the money that they'd been taken off us since we were 16 years old was actually not for our benefit at all.

I'm just happy that my parents had a good retirement and managed on the pension that I paid for, I'm not so happy that there will be no-one around to do it for me, or that "the markets" screwed up with my additional pension provisions, politicians of all flavours gambled and continue to gamble with the hope that my childrens generation will be able to personally save enough during their working lives to pay for their retirement - they may if they put that money under their beds, they won't if they hand it over to "the markets" to look after.

That is precisely the point here.

Are there any figures anywhere for how that calculation would pan out over the average life?

Average salary = £27k ish? NI at 11% would be roughly £3,000 x 47 years = roughly £140,000 over the average life.

A state pension at the minimum of £65 a week is roughly £3,500 per year. Times the 19 years the average person lives is roughly £66,500. That leaves just £73,500 to pay for healthcare. With say 4 visits to the GP at £25 per visit over 82 years thats another £8200 gone. An average A&E visit costs the NHS £195.67 (

) so we'll throw in another couple of pounds for that. So a person who works his whole life and doesn't have NHS treamtment for Cancer or diabetes for example might just about contribute more than they take back.

But once you throw in the diabetics (Hands up here) who cost the NHS £5,000 per year EACH and the cancer sufferers who cost the NHS god knows how much plus all the people who choose not to bother with that working malarkey and it's pretty clear there will be an enormous shortfall building up. With more oldies and them living longer, it'll only get worse.

Quite staggering really. If you take me as an example. I'll cost the state £358,200 in NHS costs alone but only contribute roughly £180,000 in NI. And that's me working every minute of my life and assuming I die at 65 and don't get to claim my hard earned pension. So 4 or 5 of you are probably working your butts off to pay for me



There are a few choices. You either raise income taxes, have a health scheme like the US where you pay for what you use (I'd be fine with that on moral grounds) or you reduce the burden somewhere. A cull at 65 if you've not got a positive balance in your 'contribution to the state' account perhaps?

Like in "Logan's Run"?

Or simply collect the corporation tax that should be due/paid.



Are those the "moral grounds" where insurance companies get to, in effect, sign death warrants on people that they have taken money from and then refuse to pay out for, particularly when it comes to long-term conditions? Do you mean those "moral grounds"?

Saddened! should be culled now. It's for the best.

Those of us fortunate enough to have a job have to work to provide the taxes to provide the funding for the benefits. Can no one see why those that do work resent supporting those that "do not want to work" and would like to see them at least contribute something for the money.

There are those who are genuinely incapable of working through mental/physical illness but these are the minority allbeit a sizable minority who must be adequately provided for. The rest could do "like to do" community projects that would not happen as finite finances dictate funds must be directed elsewhere.

Claiming yourself as representative of everyone, are you?

On what grounds?

And did you notice that this thread is about pensions – not 'those who don't work like wot I do'.

I know things have changed since I was claiming the dole, but you had to declare that you had sought work and not been able to find it to qualify (and of course that was checked rigourously).

How does this "work for your benefit" operate on that basis. If you aren't available for work because you're brushing IDS's drive with a toothbrush, how do you qualify for the dole?