Pension age to be raised to 75

[tallyhojim]

3 minutes ago, Xander said:

Someone else got what I earned, probably your Granada, I bet you he wasn't complaining. 

 

Stop sounding like a Statist with the victimhood rhetoric. Strawman comments designed to elicit an emotional response is not an argument, it's manipulation.

[tallyhojim]

7 minutes ago, Martlet said:

Public good is an economics term for something provided to the benefit of all, that cannot be profitably provided. Adam Smith recognised and was in favour, good enough for me.  You can chose to accept there was widespread call for pensions or not, the point is now we have it, it would be unfair to stop pension for those that already paid in, and only very few are going to ask for no provision themselves in the future. Perhaps you'll give your's to charity?

If that's what you want to keep telling yourself so you can keep justifying the theft of someone else's property, then you are nothing more than a thief. A morally bankrupt one at that. So on that note, I have no further desire to converse with a Statist thief.

I will leave you with one final question though - If someone did not want their property to be taken from them based on your own immoral "standards" of public good, are you in favour of State force being used against that individual in order to take said property even if it meant killing the individual who was attempting to protect it?

The answer you give to that question will ultimately decide the type of man you are.

[Xander]

2 minutes ago, tallyhojim said:

Stop sounding like a Statist with the victimhood rhetoric. Strawman comments designed to elicit an emotional response is not an argument, it's manipulation.

"Strawman" ...an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponents real argument. 

"Statist victimhood, emotional, manipulation," oh dear, Straw man indeed!

[Martlet]

16 minutes ago, tallyhojim said:

If that's what you want to keep telling yourself so you can keep justifying the theft of someone else's property, then you are nothing more than a thief. A morally bankrupt one at that. So on that note, I have no further desire to converse with a Statist thief.

I will leave you with one final question though - If someone did not want their property to be taken from them based on your own immoral "standards" of public good, are you in favour of State force being used against that individual in order to take said property even if it meant killing the individual who was attempting to protect it?

The answer you give to that question will ultimately decide the type of man you are.

First, if i may ask you, do you believe in the rule of law, courts and police to enforce them?

Though to answer, of course i would not condone killing individual who resisted state enforcement of law, and its an oddly extreme question, as is throwing "statist" around so loosely. 

[KDave]

13 minutes ago, tallyhojim said:

If that's what you want to keep telling yourself so you can keep justifying the theft of someone else's property, then you are nothing more than a thief. 

The reason the payment of pensions is not theft is because it is contributory based, the government attracted people into the tax paying work force by telling people if they work for x amount of years they are promised a weekly pension worth x amount in accordance to how many years of tax they had paid - it was a trade. But it was also reliant on future tax take to fund, nothing is saved or invested but the burden is reasonable - even now pensions are not the largest tax expense despite record numbers claiming I think its 12% of tax expenditure. Welfare is 25% for comparison, NHS is 19% - both non contributory. Interest on the national debt was the fifth largest expenditure last year - how about that for theft, the bloody interest on last years welfare and NHS spending.

The welfare state is non contributory, that is where the theft is. It doesn't matter how much work you do, even if you do nothing at all and contribute nothing you can still pick up the full works; disability scooter, car, council house, weekly handouts - all on the back of someone else working and paying tax. We can't afford it, hence the debt and the interest, it is theft twice over.   

If anything needs to be cut its the non-contributory state help first. We have charities for that in my view; the tax payer should not be seen as a charity. If the government takes money from me and my family to give to someone just landed in the asylum center, or someone who wants to retire at 16 and have kids, or someone who wants to hide 100K and claim out of work bennies until retirement age  - and then have the gall to tell me the pension is not there any more - that is theft and they have broken a contract with the people that keep this s**t show rolling on.  

[Guest]

I think it's a great idea, but I'd raise pension age to 90, just to be sure. The money saved could be invested in tax breaks for the well-deserving, like Google, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, hedge funds, etc.

[vand]

11 hours ago, Martlet said:

Public good is an economics term for something provided to the benefit of all, that cannot be profitably provided. Adam Smith recognised and was in favour, good enough for me.  You can chose to accept there was widespread call for pensions or not, the point is now we have it, it would be unfair to stop pension for those that already paid in, and only very few are going to ask for no provision themselves in the future. Perhaps you'll give your's to charity?

Public goods are a "market failure" argument, but in this day and age its one that is increasingly indefensible as technologies continually evolve to be able to be profitable to the provider. eg, TV/Radio transmissions can now effectively be provided only to those willing to pay for them; policing & security can be hired privately. The public good argument becomes absurd if you take it to its Nth degree.. eg, should the government provide deodorant, as it benefits people in the wearers' vincinity as much as the wearer themselves?

[tallyhojim]

State pension payments are theft. State pensions come from taxation. Taxation is forcibly extracted from people against their will under threat of imprisonment through the initiation of force (Police/Judges/Courts etc). If someone continued to simply refuse (read that as peacefully saying no) to hand over their property, the powers that be will simply increase their level of violence to get it (arrest/imprisonment/confiscation of property etc). The word "contributory" is just another fluffy word used to justify stealing someone's stuff by making it sound nicer than what it is.

I imagine those same people advocating for access to other peoples property are quire happy for people to go to prison, where there is an increased likelihood said person will be physically harmed, for refusing to hand over their property in the first place.

Tyrants.

[tallyhojim]

12 hours ago, Martlet said:

First, if i may ask you, do you believe in the rule of law, courts and police to enforce them?

Though to answer, of course i would not condone killing individual who resisted state enforcement of law, and its an oddly extreme question, as is throwing "statist" around so loosely. 

Rule of Law is no excuse to steal what isn't yours. And the Courts and Police are nothing more than an extension of the States demand to continue stealing peoples property - "these are the people we will send round if you don't give us your stuff".

If you believe you have a right to someone else's property against the wishes of that person, then you are at the very least a Statist. I could have said Communist but don't want to be rude.

Anyhow, as I said earlier, I won't be conversing with Statists. Bye.

[KDave]

If you want a state pension you have to accumulate years of national insurance contributions by paying tax. If you don't want a pension, don't pay tax. Where is the theft in that equation, it's a trade, promissory by the govt for labour over a working lifetime. 

It's a risk for sure, if everyone decides not to pay tax then yesteryear taxpayer won't get a pension, in reality what's happening is continued tax take is being used elsewhere in the wrong order of priority. 

[Martlet]

8 hours ago, vand said:

Public goods are a "market failure" argument, but in this day and age its one that is increasingly indefensible as technologies continually evolve to be able to be profitable to the provider. eg, TV/Radio transmissions can now effectively be provided only to those willing to pay for them; policing & security can be hired privately. The public good argument becomes absurd if you take it to its Nth degree.. eg, should the government provide deodorant, as it benefits people in the wearers' vincinity as much as the wearer themselves?

The definition i gave is missing something about control of use.  TV is not a public good, you can control access (satellite) and is economical/profitable to operate.  Policing is a public good because you couldn't realistically control access to only those paying, crime in the neighbourhood affects all, police presence affects all.  Deodorant is not an economic benefit.  State pensions probably aren't technically a public good, though not because its "fluffy" but i used it incorrectly.  However society has decided to support them (through dozens of elections) and contribute to them. 

[MancunianStacker]

I’ve not read all this thread but they could easily phase out the state pension.

Pick a year e.g 2020 and state that anyone born after 01/01/20 will not be entitled to a state pension (nobody born yet can complain about it). The new citizen will still be charged N.I for the NHS (make it look like it’s actually compartmentalised).

They then make a private pension scheme compulsory at a rate of x% of all income.

This might work better than the ponzi scheme it currently relies upon.

[Pipers]

Just read this thread.

  I used to be a Landlord i stopped doing it.  I believe the most greedy (though not all) are Land lords, you will get a sense of the type of character you see on the TV on day time shows bragging how cheap they have got a house and how much yield they can achieve, without a thought of the cattle (people) who will be using the property and where the funds (Government benefits Over £20 Billion) come from.  I do not excuse myself i was in on it for a while before i saw what was wrong.  These Landlords (again not all)  claim to be hard working though when i was at it the money came very easily for not much risk. In fact i would call most UK Landlords Petite Bourgeoisie and esteem to be Bourgeoisie.  It was obvious to me the bench mark rents are set by the Government through the DWP  and if the DWP were to set their rates at .50% of the present rates the housing markets would collapse.

Passive income on the markets why it is not taxed, it is because this is where the wealthy put there money.   Money from Land is not taxed this is because this is owned by the wealthy.  I have to say if the Government did tax these the wealthy would find somewhere else to put there money and it would be the middle class who would pay the tax. 

Pension People live to long or do they?  If a person stops working at 50 then does not pay tax and lives to 85 thats 35 years of not working  thats longer retired than working so it is my opinion the Government state you cannot retire unless you are ill or have been in a job that life expectancy is shorter eg fireman or chemical worker Mechanic etc;  so you could retire 7 years before your life expectancy if that makes sense.  So a office worker in the south of England who has a life expectancy of 89  would still retire at 82 but no younger and a fireman could retire at 56.         

[5huggy]

@Pipers  just love your moralistic approach! 

👍 to you Sir!

 

[Pipers]

5 minutes ago, 5huggy said:

@Pipers  just love your moralistic approach! 

👍 to you Sir!

 

Thank you, though at the time Morals were secondary when i sold up.  The fact is the Government is giving the UK Landlords massive amounts of Benefits and it is being handed to the renter who has to give it to the Landlord so A,B,C.   Its a trick the Benefit is classed as going to the poor but in fact is going to the Landlord.  The payment also keeps the housing market going , remember the price is set at the edge and the bottom is where the DWP benchmark is so i say again if the DWP paid 0.50% then that would be the bench mark and the housing market would collapse unless wages increased  dramatically. 

Just think about it.  Imagine you are on a lower wage and want to buy a 'home' your rent is high you have no children to make your rent it takes 60% of your wages but if the Government had a free market you could buy a house you are being priced out by your own Governments policy of subsidising the Landlords at your expense.  You put money in the building society though its never enough because the rents are to high you can only manage a small amount.  Again you see the Landlords getting Benefits 'working Tax'  from the family next door you just cannot get ahead the landlord has bought another house with the benefit money he has got from the Government.  Thats what i am talking about, It should be a FREE MARKET!!!!!!       

[5huggy]

5 minutes ago, Pipers said:

Thank you, though at the time Morals were secondary when i sold up.  The fact is the Government is giving the UK Landlords massive amounts of Benefits and it is being handed to the renter who has to give it to the Landlord so A,B,C.   Its a trick the Benefit is classed as going to the poor but in fact is going to the Landlord.  The payment also keeps the housing market going , remember the price is set at the edge and the bottom is where the DWP benchmark is so i say again if the DWP paid 0.50% then that would be the bench mark and the housing market would collapse unless wages increased  dramatically. 

Just think about it.  Imagine you are on a lower wage and want to buy a 'home' your rent is high you have no children to make your rent it takes 60% of your wages but if the Government had a free market you could buy a house you are being priced out by your own Governments policy of subsidising the Landlords at your expense.  You put money in the building society though its never enough because the rents are to high you can only manage a small amount.  Again you see the Landlords getting Benefits 'working Tax'  from the family next door you just cannot get ahead the landlord has bought another house with the benefit money he has got from the Government.  Thats what i am talking about, It should be a FREE MARKET!!!!!!       

Totally commendable and glad you have seen through the "SMOKE and MIRRORS"  bull !"£$%^

This is ALL part of "HOW the HECK do we keep the music playing" - prior to FUBAR!!!

 

[vand]

On 20/08/2019 at 10:39, KDave said:

If you want a state pension you have to accumulate years of national insurance contributions by paying tax. If you don't want a pension, don't pay tax. Where is the theft in that equation, it's a trade, promissory by the govt for labour over a working lifetime. 

It's a risk for sure, if everyone decides not to pay tax then yesteryear taxpayer won't get a pension, in reality what's happening is continued tax take is being used elsewhere in the wrong order of priority. 

 

True technically, but most employees cannot just opt-out of NIC payments. It's removed from your paypacket before you get a say on it alongside other payroll taxes. 

Lets not kid ourselves that NICs are ringfenced and used to fund the state pension. Its all just direct taxation, goes into a single pot, and is then split up accordingly.

[KDave]

4 hours ago, vand said:

 

True technically, but most employees cannot just opt-out of NIC payments. It's removed from your paypacket before you get a say on it alongside other payroll taxes. 

Lets not kid ourselves that NICs are ringfenced and used to fund the state pension. Its all just direct taxation, goes into a single pot, and is then split up accordingly.

Well it's perspective and understanding of history. An argument can be made that if you want to opt out, find work that allows you to do so (not pay tax, self employ or cash in hand) or don't work at all. Realistically we are limited in options and need to earn but originally state pension was an incentive to work honest and pay tax, back in the days of cash. 

No ring fence is true, yet pensions cost about 10% of total tax take so what's the problem. Priorities are wrong, money being wasted on the wrong things and social contract being eroded, it's probably deliberate.