Current Affairs The Labour Party

[tsubaki]

Go read that post of Bruce's again, that I replied to. In my opinion, it was sneering and snidey, and lacking in any foundation in fact. That is why I replied the way I did. It was apparent it was a throwaway comment about pensioners. To me, it was a slur on those who rely on State aid.

If I posted some of the things I've seen, and had to deal with, as a young lad working in a Social Security office and out on the road visiting claimants (as they were called then), people wouldn't believe it...

I don't think it was aimed at those who rely on state aid; if anything it was aimed at the select group of people who had (have) index-linked pensions and a protected (if not uprated) state pension, who got quite a bit of free travel, free TV licences, on whose behalf the compulsory retirement age was removed, who had free tertiary education (in many cases), who had access to cheap housing and who have, in return, repeatedly voted for all of that to be taken away from the generations that follow.

 

[orly]

Or or... it was an acknowledgement of this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38948369

Yet you decided to do your usual; go full on madman aggressive and pre-emptively dismiss any evidence to back up a point given to you.

Literally every time he resurfaces. Must have been an absolute hoot to work for. Hyper-aggressive and sweary.

 

[JonS]

Pensioners have had a disproportionately good time for too long so I've little sympathy.

Watch the karma factor Bruce

Be nice about pensioners as you will be one at some time

But...

the triple lock doesnt help pensioners who are on a very low level income as they are generally on pension credit and could be on housing benefit and council tax supprt which isnt subject to these rules, triple lock helps middle/high income pensioners, but im sure you knew all of that..

Neil has got it right (just checked with my work colleague who used to work for the DWP). Pension credits and HB/CTS are not subject to the triple lock so the lowest income pensioners may not benefit from it in the same way.

I'm still in favour of being nice to pensioners though...

 

[Old Blue 2]

It was about state pensions tho..not young lads

I don't know what your point is... I was talking about what I had come across AS A YOUNG LAD in the work I was doing, with regard to poverty and pensioners. And I added to that by saying it was across the whole reange of those who claimed benefits.

 

[Old Blue 2]

Or or... it was an acknowledgement of this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38948369

Yet you decided to do your usual; go full on madman aggressive and pre-emptively dismiss any evidence to back up a point given to you.

Nah, you take a tilt at me again, Tubey. No surprise there, then!

 

[orly]

Nah, you take a tilt at me again, Tubey. No surprise there, then!

Not wrong though is he.

 

[neil999]

I don't know what your point is... I was talking about what I had come across AS A YOUNG LAD in the work I was doing, with regard to poverty and pensioners. And I added to that by saying it was across the whole reange of those who claimed benefits.

Did you read my other post on the triple lock?

 

[Old Blue 2]

I don't think it was aimed at those who rely on state aid; if anything it was aimed at the select group of people who had (have) index-linked pensions and a protected (if not uprated) state pension, who got quite a bit of free travel, free TV licences, on whose behalf the compulsory retirement age was removed, who had free tertiary education (in many cases), who had access to cheap housing and who have, in return, repeatedly voted for all of that to be taken away from the generations that follow.

He didn't state that, though.

And if you pull up the real figures concerning pensions that people pay into for many decades, you'll see that the real value of those funds, managed properly, far outweigh the final output of payments to the pensioner. An eye-opener.

And a state pension increase is no protection against council rates/water rates rises for starters, before the increase in ordinary prices throughout the 12-month period before the next in crease in the pension rate occurs.

I do believe many (I'm not saying you directly, tsubaki) are simply taken in by what the media feeds them...

 

[Old Blue 2]

Not wrong though is he.

Yes he is. Some people don't like being taken to task over what they write. Bruce doesn't. I'd be very surprised if he replied to my initial reply to his post.

Problem is, some people don't like straight-talkers. I'm a straight-talker, say what I think Scouser. Are you, orly, or do you just take a lob at others now and again...?

 

[Tubey]

Yes he is. Some people don't like being taken to task over what they write. Bruce doesn't. I'd be very surprised if he replied to my initial reply to his post.

Problem is, some people don't like straight-talkers. I'm a straight-talker, say what I think Scouser. Are you, orly, or do you just take a lob at others now and again...?

 

[neil999]

He didn't state that, though.

And if you pull up the real figures concerning pensions that people pay into for many decades, you'll see that the real value of those funds, managed properly, far outweigh the final output of payments to the pensioner. An eye-opener.

And a state pension increase is no protection against council rates/water rates rises for starters, before the increase in ordinary prices throughout the 12-month period before the next in crease in the pension rate occurs.

I do believe many (I'm not saying you directly, tsubaki) are simply taken in by what the media feeds them...

EXACTLY! the triple lock helped middle/high income pensioners..those that dont need the increase, it was a tory vote grabber...its clever as appealed to their voters and also made it look like they were 'helping out the old folk'

 

[Old Blue 2]

Did you read my other post on the triple lock?

Yeah, the slight problem with trriple-lock, the inflation part of it, is that not everything is counted in towards inflation. So the selective process sometimes excludes important things that impact directly on ordinary people, that in their real economic scenario is a direct rise in price(s).

Similarly for pensions (not State pensions). Over a long period of time, the gauge for calculating the increase has vascillated between the RPI and the CPI, whichever best suited those controlling it. That is, whichever is the less. Again, the model is imperfect, and excludes certain key things.

 

[tsubaki]

He didn't state that, though.

And if you pull up the real figures concerning pensions that people pay into for many decades, you'll see that the real value of those funds, managed properly, far outweigh the final output of payments to the pensioner. An eye-opener.

And a state pension increase is no protection against council rates/water rates rises for starters, before the increase in ordinary prices throughout the 12-month period before the next in crease in the pension rate occurs.

I do believe many (I'm not saying you directly, tsubaki) are simply taken in by what the media feeds them...

I agree - the level of fees charged on pension funds verge on the criminal (even after its been exposed 1.5% a year is not unusual), and then of course you have the whole phenomena of payment holidays and outright looting of funds.

My point was that there is a politically significant number of pensioners who are prepared to vote for that to continue, as well denying the rest of us the chance to ever have anything like that.

 

[Old Blue 2]

Good one, Tubey. If we, as Evertonians, can't be ironic on here, where can we be...?

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Yes he is. Some people don't like being taken to task over what they write. Bruce doesn't. I'd be very surprised if he replied to my initial reply to his post.

Problem is, some people don't like straight-talkers. I'm a straight-talker, say what I think Scouser. Are you, orly, or do you just take a lob at others now and again...?

Seems pretty futile to be honest. You talked about the era in which the welfare state was created, and indeed, it was created in an era where life expectancy was 65 rather than the 81 it is today. It was created in an era where you had roughly 6 working people for every retiree, versus the ~3 you have today. Now, of course, we could import working people from abroad, but I suspect you're against that, yet don't appear to want well-off pensioners to give up state handouts they don't need, or indeed raise the state retirement age so that it's more in keeping with rises in life expectancy, which will never happen precisely because older people vote.