How are you supposed to be looking for work if you're working? Would you get 'time off' to look for work – or travel to interviews? Would you lose benefit for that time required to go about the business of finding a job (when unemployment is high)?

I honestly don't think they care about such points.

They've got so many people worked up about 'benefits scroungers' that they don't need to care about the workability or practicality of any scheme.

The professional benefits claimers are wise to the system. My Mother and Father in law haven't worked a day in their lives, own a car, a caravan in Wales and go on holiday twice a year. They went to the meetings, pretended they are looking. They even get sent for interviews and trials at different places, but to quote them, they 'act like zombies and pretend to be stupid' so they get knocked back. They had a major boost a couple of years ago when one was given disability benefits as well because of their weight and it's associated conditions, so the other got to claim carers allowance

. They are not rare in society either, one person in their street of about 12 houses works and he's a scrap metal merchant who doesn't declare anything. Under Labour it really was a lifestyle choice and every attempt to disincentivise it is attacked.

As for working for your benefits, it would be easy to apply a limit. You have to do 20/30 (Whatever) hours a week and its up to you how you do this. You can easily fit pretending to be looking for a job around that. It would obviously have no bearing on your ability to claim benefits and would entitle you to claim them in fact (They can call it plebs allowance, rather than job seekers in that instance). Fail to do your hours, you lose your benefit on a pro-rata basis.

Back to the pensions issue, it's clear something needs to be done.

Yeah good plan. 30 hours a week is almost full time. So can I have a top up on my salary

Anyway, back to pensions. Let's make people who paid their dues up to now go back to work to earn the pension they've already paid for.

Just for the hell of it I entered £140,000 into a pension annuity calculator and assuming that your "pot" was that big the best rates that the small range of providers would offer ranged from £527 to £690 per month for a non-smoker aged 65.

Its a great indicator that its nigh-on impossible for the average person - and within that average will be many lower waged, for obvious reasons - to afford a private pension, if we assumed that everyone ONLY paid NIS for their pension provision and NOTHING towards healthcare, then you could look forward to a pension of around £175 per week upon retirement, if you ever arrived at retirement, not having any healthcare and all - you wouldn't arrive there for a start



My children are expected to make their own provisions for their pensions whilst at the same time still paying NIS for their own healthcare and for my state pension.

How the fook does that work then ?

Indeed.

Decent pensions for all.

BTW, I'm delighted that you reported your corrupt parents and have not, yourself, benefitted from their behaviour.

Yes, would give them a sense of purpose too and the confidence and skills to eventually move into paid work.

They might even enjoy it.

This £140K thing is highly dubious though. If anybody paid 11% of their income into a private pension pot, instead of paying NI contributions, then for every £80 they put in, they get £100, because the pension provider claims the extra back off the taxman.

Then, pensions are based on pension funds. Now don't think I'm speaking up for the robbing dogs in the game, because I certainly aren't, but in general, if you invest in any pension, there is likely to be an annual return added into your pot.

If you want an illustration then the standard life website has a good basic one, if you were on around 30K and assuming a 4% growth then if you paid in £800 a month for your working life then you would end up with a pension of the equivalent of 30K

I know there are loads of imponderables but without any doubt you would beat a state pension into absolute fits. If you had the ability to run your on SIPP you could easily do huge amounts better than averaging 4%, too.

How typically condescending of you Ajw. Does it not occur to you that there are people out there with more skills than you or I put together that are claiming JSA through no fault of their own? But I suppose working for £65 a week will give them back their self worth eh?

Oh for goodness sake. Don't you realise that that is simply not possible?

The individual in question is the very epitome of perfection itself!

Only in the real world though

Yup, I can see where you are coming from but now, with the country just about turning the corner, with millions out of work who do want to work and lots of other things the government should be doing, is not the time to sort out the workshy.

The time to sort them out is at the peak of the economic cycle, a thing missed by Brown/Blair who chose instead to flood the UK with cheap labour from abroad rather than get the genuinely workshy off their backsides.

We need to concentrate on those who want to work, like 1400 of them sacked by Ford today. A real case study in making it easier for employers to hire and fire means employers will hire more...

And he didn't mention home insulation that time either.

Ferocious Aardvark, I am on approx £30k a year (gross) and I would like to know how Standard Life think I can afford to put away £800 a month to my pension whilst also paying off a mortgage, the house hold bills, running the car I need to get to work and feeding myself.

Get yourself on benefits mate, you could easily double that rate

That was my first thought too as I can relate to the figure of £30k, you'll come out nett with around £2000 per month, now if two of you are on that sort of figure then £800 saved (for the whole of your working life) is probably do-able, but if only one of you is on what might be termed an average salary and the other is on a minimum wage no fixed hours contract, then the main wage earners salary is going to be all used up just by living before anyone has even thought of the word "pension".

The other thing I'd add is that the pension investors love to give the outward expectation that your "investment" gets an immediate 20% boost by tax relief and so how can you fail but increase your pot year on year ?

They like to give that impression, but of course thats not what their small print says, and when they actually lose more than what you paid in year on year (4 years out of 5), then they suddenly go very quiet, indeed, my pension investor didn't even have a standard letter put together to explain why my fund was decreasing year on year, all they could do was send me the one that they'd prepared for the good times, the one that starts "We're pleased to enclose your annual statement"...like pouring freshly squeezed lemon juice in a paper cut.

Only if your tax code was about mega high, I would guess around £1800.

IDS proposing to limit child benefits to your first 2 children: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20077758 Such a good idea. Having children is a lifestyle choice, a bit like having a Jaguar XKR on your drive or a 37ft motor cruiser on the Broads. If you can't afford them, you shouldn't have them. The idea that the state should fork out to help someone maintain their 3+ kids is ridiculous. Government also trying to get rid of this ridiculous nonsense where parents can claim child benefit for children living outside the UK: www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/ ... outside-uk

IDS proposing to limit child benefits to your first 2 children: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20077758 Such a good idea. Having children is a lifestyle choice, a bit like having a Jaguar XKR on your drive or a 37ft motor cruiser on the Broads. If you can't afford them, you shouldn't have them. The idea that the state should fork out to help someone maintain their 3+ kids is ridiculous. Government also trying to get rid of this ridiculous nonsense where parents can claim child benefit for children living outside the UK: www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/ ... outside-uk

Fecking pensioners . I hate them . I have a few that come in and help out at work . Mainly doing bodywork and prepping/restoration on classic/historic cars . They complain constantly about the state of this country , and the best way to get their backs up is a mere mention of Maggie . All they do all day is complain about immigration , the price of biscuits , and bang on about the time they served in Aden armed only with flumps .

' Feckin pensioners should be drowned at birth' is a phrase that is commonly used in my place of work .

Quote ="The Video Ref"IDS proposing to limit child benefits to your first 2 children: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20077758 Such a good idea. Having children is a lifestyle choice, a bit like having a Jaguar XKR on your drive or a 37ft motor cruiser on the Broads. If you can't afford them, you shouldn't have them. The idea that the state should fork out to help someone maintain their 3+ kids is ridiculous. Government also trying to get rid of this ridiculous nonsense where parents can claim child benefit for children living outside the UK: www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/ ... outside-uk'" He's not simply talking about Child Benefit, he's talking about child-related benefits. So, what happens if someone who had a good job, paying enough to allow him and his wife to have four kids and live comfortably, suddenly finds himself with a debilitating condition that means he can no longer support his wife and four kids? Should he ask his missus to stuff that youngest two back up her fanny? More bull[is[/ihit from IDS, pandering to brain-dead s. Look back at China's "one-child policy' for all you need to know

Quote ="The Video Ref"IDS proposing to limit child benefits to your first 2 children: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20077758 Such a good idea. Having children is a lifestyle choice, a bit like having a Jaguar XKR on your drive or a 37ft motor cruiser on the Broads. If you can't afford them, you shouldn't have them. The idea that the state should fork out to help someone maintain their 3+ kids is ridiculous. Government also trying to get rid of this ridiculous nonsense where parents can claim child benefit for children living outside the UK: www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/ ... outside-uk'" He's not simply talking about Child Benefit, he's talking about child-related benefits. So, what happens if someone who had a good job, paying enough to allow him and his wife to have four kids and live comfortably, suddenly finds himself with a debilitating condition that means he can no longer support his wife and four kids? Should he ask his missus to stuff that youngest two back up her fanny? More bull[is[/ihit from IDS, pandering to brain-dead s. Look back at China's "one-child policy' for all you need to know

<cough>

I'll be ok as long as I don't stop running...

Unlike yourself - I don't claim to have the only opinion that matters. Every thread on here moves away from the original OP often caused by you trying to ram your righteous preachings down everyone's throat.

The fact remains how with an ageing population does the country afford the OAP - a debate you seem to have avoided on this thread!! Perhaps the government should just keep borrowing, after all you think the deficit is pretty low - compared to the years after the second world war!!

Perhaps if women had to wait until they were the same age as men before they could claim might help?

Really? I seem to remember the topic of collecting all the corporation tax that was due mentioned as a starting point.

You cannot base a benefits system on the worst case scenario - the man with 4 kids understands the risks to his family if he loses his job - if he hasn't considered it then it should not be the role of the state to consider it for him.

Unfortunately that is the nature of life. We all have financial commitments that we would, probably, struggle to meet if we developed a debilitating condition.

Life insurance policies cater for such eventualities.

Quote ="The Video Ref"IDS proposing to limit child benefits to your first 2 children: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20077758 Such a good idea. Having children is a lifestyle choice, a bit like having a Jaguar XKR on your drive or a 37ft motor cruiser on the Broads. If you can't afford them, you shouldn't have them. The idea that the state should fork out to help someone maintain their 3+ kids is ridiculous. Government also trying to get rid of this ridiculous nonsense where parents can claim child benefit for children living outside the UK: www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/ ... outside-uk'" Sound policies. Save money and promote fairness.

Quote ="The Video Ref"IDS proposing to limit child benefits to your first 2 children: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20077758 Such a good idea. Having children is a lifestyle choice, a bit like having a Jaguar XKR on your drive or a 37ft motor cruiser on the Broads. If you can't afford them, you shouldn't have them. The idea that the state should fork out to help someone maintain their 3+ kids is ridiculous. Government also trying to get rid of this ridiculous nonsense where parents can claim child benefit for children living outside the UK: www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/ ... outside-uk'" Sound policies. Save money and promote fairness.