Baby Boomers: are they bleeding the welfare state and the co

[ChesterfieldJohn]

So the Mp's who have fiddled their expenses, taken money to ask questions and paid their family for doing nothing are honest are they?

Not to mention the continual lies that they tell.

The difference between Maxwell and MP's is that Maxwell only robbed his employees, the MP's rob us all the time.

John

The inference you make is that EVERY MP is dishonest. I trust you have evidence to back these assertions up? Yes, many MPs were caught fiddling, many MPs have been exposed as liars, but that does NOT mean that every MP has no morals or scruples.

It does not matter a jot who is robbing who - theft is theft.

As I stated approx 400 were caught fiddling expenses.
Add on the ones caught caught lobbying and how many are left?
I did not say all MP's were dishonest but it appears that most are from the figures.

Probably one of the most honest is Dennis Skinner who treats being an MP as a job, unlike loads of others.

Perhaps more should do this.

How many of them 'break promises' is this not telling lies?

Yes I believe that the majority of MP's are dishonest even if in a small way by promising one thing and doing something else.
Nick Clegg and the lib dems for example.

Oh and also what about the ones who rarely attend yet are getting paid to do so.

John

[Silver_Shiney]

I did not say all MP's were dishonest but it appears that most are from the figures.

Perhaps, but it was the impression you gave.

How many of them 'break promises' is this not telling lies?

I do not think so. A promise can be made with the best of intentions and be "broken" for honourable reasons not foreseen at the time. Lying is to knowingly state a falsehood.

Yes I believe that the majority of MP's are dishonest even if in a small way by promising one thing and doing something else.
Nick Clegg and the lib dems for example.

As above

Oh and also what about the ones who rarely attend yet are getting paid to do so.John

What is the reason for their non-attendance? If it's not for valid reasons, then their local party should be obliged to deselect them, IMHO.

[ChesterfieldJohn]

I did not say all MP's were dishonest but it appears that most are from the figures.

Perhaps, but it was the impression you gave.

400 out of 650 is it that seems like most to me.

How many of them 'break promises' is this not telling lies?

I do not think so. A promise can be made with the best of intentions and be "broken" for honourable reasons not foreseen at the time. Lying is to knowingly state a falsehood.
Like the promise the lib Dems made about student fees?

Yes I believe that the majority of MP's are dishonest even if in a small way by promising one thing and doing something else.
Nick Clegg and the lib dems for example.

As above
Ditto

Oh and also what about the ones who rarely attend yet are getting paid to do so.John

What is the reason for their non-attendance? If it's not for valid reasons, then their local party should be obliged to deselect them, IMHO.

Various reasons I would imagine, have you ever seen a normal day in Parliament its empty, yet when its an important vote then they all appear beacuse the whip makes them.
Where are they all on those days? Not debating the issues are they.


John

[Silver_Shiney]

400 out of 650 is it that seems like most to me.

"most" is different from "all", which is what you alluded to earlier.

Like the promise the lib Dems made about student fees?

I cannot comment on that because I know nothing about it. I pay absolutely no attention to anything they say.

Various reasons I would imagine, have you ever seen a normal day in Parliament its empty, yet when its an important vote then they all appear beacuse the whip makes them.
Where are they all on those days? Not debating the issues are they.

Other duties, perhaps, like Commons Select Committees, constituency surgeries? I honestly do not know what they get up to, but bitter experience has taught me that it is foolish to make generalisations without first-hand detailed knowledge.

Kind regards

[daib GC]

To go back to the OP the BB as I understand it were the children of the returning soldiers from the war so 1946 to about 1952 so if you were born in 44 you are not a BB. What it does mean however is that the majority of BB's have not started to pick up there pensions, well the men anyway.


Gan Canny


Dai

[Silver_Shiney]

Good point, Dai.

[Susan Watt]

Most of my working life I expected to be able to get my state pension at 60. It then went to 64 and now to 66. As I am only 58 at the moment I wonder if I will actually ever get one.

[Silver_Shiney]

Most of my working life I expected to be able to get my state pension at 60. It then went to 64 and now to 66. As I am only 58 at the moment I wonder if I will actually ever get one.

ditto

That's why it is important to make your own arrangements. If only I had listened to my elders when I was a kid....

[Susan Watt]

I was a "civil" servant but as I had to take early retirement to look after my disabled husband I am on a greatly reduced pension.

[HK phooey]

Oh my word, what an angry thread! Where's Mo, she'll be gutted if she misses this DK, to be fair, the giant was born in the early 1930s, so can hardly be accused of being a baby boomer. As I understand it he has worked hard, raised a family and been a useful member of society so has every right to a good night's sleep. As for the politicians issue, I don't think Chesterfield John's too wide of the mark.

[Mo2013]

Oh, I'm here and reading this angry thread. When you pay into anything, what you rightfully receive is a 'benefit' which is not the same as someone receiving money when they have paid nothing. I was born in 1946 and, like many others, paid my dues through my wages so that I could have health care when I needed it, and a pension when I retired. Furthermore, along with others it seems, I am not going to waste my time arguing with a bitter harpie making objectionable comments, or with those who don't understand that some people will not have had any extra funds with which to make their own arrangements.

[Quizzical Bob]

It's just part of a more widespread conspiracy to try and introduce the idea that old people should be fleeced and robbed as much as possible. The profligate spendthrifts see others who have worked hard and saved as easy pickings.

[paultheeagle]

It's just part of a more widespread conspiracy to try and introduce the idea that old people should be fleeced and robbed as much as possible. The profligate spendthrifts see others who have worked hard and saved as easy pickings.

I don't think that's true QB....People do think that's its unfair though that it's the poor and many of them working families that are taking the brunt of the Government cuts whilst pensioners have been largely left alone...It is hard to accept that someone who has worked hard all their life, paid their taxes and never bothered anyone staying on the right side of the law but, through no fault of their own, because of government policy, has hit hard times and needs a bit of help.....they get their benefits cut but very rich pensioners still receive bus passes and get help towards their bills.

I don't think people are picking on 'old people', they just want them to take their share of the austerity measures...There are many, many older people out there that will not feel any pain at all if their bus pass was taken away, if they had to pay their TV Licence and had to pay all of their heating bills...

Millions of children in this country live in poverty and 67% of those are from families where at least one parent is in full time work....It's hard for them to accept that wealthy old people get financial help and those families get their benefits cut.

[Romig1]

Oh my word, what an angry thread! Where's Mo, she'll be gutted if she misses this DK, to be fair, the giant was born in the early 1930s, so can hardly be accused of being a baby boomer. As I understand it he has worked hard, raised a family and been a useful member of society so has every right to a good night's sleep. As for the politicians issue, I don't think Chesterfield John's too wide of the mark.

I knew HK would stick up for her fellow Baby Boomers. Typical self-interest!

[Dark Knight]

I would say it is more a way to reduce the staggeringly high welfare bill this country pays out to people who don't always need it or deserve it
£110 billion on pensions
given this site was spawned from a cruise site, then anyone on here who can affors 2-3-4- cruises a year does not warrant any state benefits, as they are spending it on luxuries not in order to live day to day
so whilst people on here bleat about rights and "I paid in so I am taking it out" etc etc, the truth is more the case that people are too greedy to give it up, even when it is obvious they dont need it and such a huge welfare cost is unsustainable
but hey as long as the I'm alright Jack brigade are making the most noise.....why worry about the future generations....sod em all....eh

[RB1961]

Did you know that the Bishop of London cruises...

[Dancing Queen]

I don't remember how a similar thread to this went a couple of weeks ago except "downhill" as no doubt this one will

Why, if someone cruises 2/3 times a year should it be assumed they are wealthy or greedy and should therefore give up their state pensions, if they have been sensible and paid into private pension schemes with the view of "topping up" the state pension to allow them to have the same standard of living they had when they were working is that so wrong !!! don't forget there is a limit to what you are allowed to pay into a scheme ( or there was ) so depending on what you could pay in doesn't guarantee that same standard.

Of course if those that have savings were getting any sort of a decent return on their money instead of subsidising cheap mortgages/loans ( and how many years has that been happening ) then there might be a decent argument to withdraw state pensions ( for some ) it's ok for the government to rob people blind, people still have to pay taxes on anything over and above what the state hands out does that not drastically reduce what they are actually receiving

It isn't an "I'm alight Jack" attitude, if this Country can carry on sending billions of pounds worth of aid to other countries ( much of what doesn't even reach the people it is meant to help ) then they can afford to look after their own and no-one will convince me otherwise and don't even get me started on all the idle bu****s that come over here because our unemployment system is a joke !!!!

[Silver_Shiney]

I don't remember how a similar thread to this went a couple of weeks ago except "downhill" as no doubt this one will

Why, if someone cruises 2/3 times a year should it be assumed they are wealthy or greedy and should therefore give up their state pensions, if they have been sensible and paid into private pension schemes with the view of "topping up" the state pension to allow them to have the same standard of living they had when they were working is that so wrong !!! don't forget there is a limit to what you are allowed to pay into a scheme ( or there was )

There is a limit (can't remember what it is), but the likes of thee and me would never earn enough to put away anything close to the figure.

[Dark Knight]

i think it was QB who pointed out you needed a £700K pension pot to get £35K back?
aplogoies if it was someone else

[Silver_Shiney]

i think it was QB who pointed out you needed a £700K pension pot to get £35K back?
aplogoies if it was someone else

Based on purchase at age 65, good health, no widow's pension, no guarantee period, a £700k pot would buy an annuity of £49,484 from Canada Life. Prudential would give £31.825

[Dancing Queen]

I don't remember how a similar thread to this went a couple of weeks ago except "downhill" as no doubt this one will

Why, if someone cruises 2/3 times a year should it be assumed they are wealthy or greedy and should therefore give up their state pensions, if they have been sensible and paid into private pension schemes with the view of "topping up" the state pension to allow them to have the same standard of living they had when they were working is that so wrong !!! don't forget there is a limit to what you are allowed to pay into a scheme ( or there was )

There is a limit (can't remember what it is), but the likes of thee and me would never earn enough to put away anything close to the figure.

I always thought it was a % of income Alan, has that changed, my husband retired 18 months ago and we always paid the maximum we were allowed to into his fund but even that + his state pension leaves us far short of what our income once was

[Quizzical Bob]

i think it was QB who pointed out you needed a £700K pension pot to get £35K back?
aplogoies if it was someone else

Based on purchase at age 65, good health, no widow's pension, no guarantee period, a £700k pot would buy an annuity of £49,484 from Canada Life. Prudential would give £31.825

That seems high, SS. All the figures that I see in the Sunday supplements are much lower.

[Quizzical Bob]

I don't remember how a similar thread to this went a couple of weeks ago except "downhill" as no doubt this one will

Why, if someone cruises 2/3 times a year should it be assumed they are wealthy or greedy and should therefore give up their state pensions, if they have been sensible and paid into private pension schemes with the view of "topping up" the state pension to allow them to have the same standard of living they had when they were working is that so wrong !!! don't forget there is a limit to what you are allowed to pay into a scheme ( or there was )

There is a limit (can't remember what it is), but the likes of thee and me would never earn enough to put away anything close to the figure.

Down to only £1.5 million I believe.

[Quizzical Bob]

It's just part of a more widespread conspiracy to try and introduce the idea that old people should be fleeced and robbed as much as possible. The profligate spendthrifts see others who have worked hard and saved as easy pickings.

I don't think that's true QB....People do think that's its unfair though that it's the poor and many of them working families that are taking the brunt of the Government cuts whilst pensioners have been largely left alone...It is hard to accept that someone who has worked hard all their life, paid their taxes and never bothered anyone staying on the right side of the law but, through no fault of their own, because of government policy, has hit hard times and needs a bit of help.....they get their benefits cut but very rich pensioners still receive bus passes and get help towards their bills.

I don't think people are picking on 'old people', they just want them to take their share of the austerity measures...There are many, many older people out there that will not feel any pain at all if their bus pass was taken away, if they had to pay their TV Licence and had to pay all of their heating bills...

Millions of children in this country live in poverty and 67% of those are from families where at least one parent is in full time work....It's hard for them to accept that wealthy old people get financial help and those families get their benefits cut.

Sorry for the long quote PTE.
You have to be very old or blind to get a free tv licence.
Don't forget that these oldies have already lived through a long lifetime of austerity measures. Today's concept of 'child poverty' is a complete joke compared with those who were brought up in the forties and fifties.

[Mo2013]

Whilst it is true to say that there are some pensioners who do not 'need' the state pension, and no matter how unpalatable that is, anyone who pays into a pension scheme has a right to draw that pension at the appropriate time. It doesn't matter how much income they have coming in now, they paid subs throughout their working life and are now drawing their rightful pension. It is up to an individual how they spend their income and even if you are of the opinion that some are greedy etc. it is none of anyone else's business but theirs. I would also hazard a guess that more well-off pensioners won't even apply for a bus pass because they are not given, you have to apply. It would probably be more trouble than it is worth to extrapolate those pensioners from the system who have an income over a certain amount, thereby making them ineligible for the state pension, so, in a nutshell, they paid in, so they are entitled to take out. Going on about it will not change a thing. That's the way it is.