Culture Wars
#51
(06-24-2020, 10:13 AM)JOK Wrote: BB; I have addressed the qualifying period. If you do not earn enough to pay NI. you still get a qualifying year. It’s a minimum of 10 years to get some pension and up to 35 years to get the full pension and you have a 50 year working life to obtain them. Even if you are unemployed. you can claim either Class 1 or Class 3 NI credits.
 
2 million pensioners are living in poverty. 16% and growing again. (How it is measured is irrelevant to this argument)
35 per cent pensioners who are private tenants and 29 per cent of social rented sector tenants, live in poverty compared to 13 per cent of older people who
own their home outright. They are not able to realise value from assets they don’t have. Nearly a quarter (24%) of pensioners have no savings.
 
You’re quite happy to abandon them. Would you be content to ignore even 16% of children in poverty.
Not all pensioners are mini Rothschilds!

You still need to meet a threshold that is now higher than it was and puts the people that the state pension was originally designed to cover out of it's repayment terms, as I said it's a short term idea that would have been better served by increasing tax credits.

As for the "poverty" nonsense, relative poverty is determined by income against the median working income. Pensioners do not tend to work, therefore income will be significantly lower. Pensioners also have lower costs than working families which isn't factored into the calculations not to mention a majority have additional income sources. When you apply that you realise how useless of a metric it is in this context, dishonest even. That's not even to mention wealth, pensioners hold a disproportionate level of wealth in this country relative to previous years and this is increasing. The only reason you would use relative poverty is to compare changes in that group over time and it shows that pensioners have had a consistent decline in relative poverty over the last 20 years, which is unlike any other age group. It is outright disingenuous to apply relative poverty statistics to this scenario.

And I'm not sure you have to be Rothschilds to be wealth holders. If you don't have any assets to extract value from you have the state pension as a fallback (what it was designed to do) as well as goodwill gestures like concessions, tax exemptions, winter fuel payments, housing costs etc that do not apply to anyone else. A typical pensioner going up to a typical mid-20s London professional and saying the professional is better off is outright laughable. Then there's the government schemes that have inflated those assets so they're out of reach for people in their mid-20s and 30s to the point where what was considered a basic aspiration in the 70s and 80s is now out of reach.

Maintaining the triple lock is not financially feasible, over 60s are already a massive burden on the welfare state through their use of the NHS and the state pension. We have an aging population, are you happy to have continuous mass immigration to provide enough tax revenue to cover it? Then there's the additional question of what happens to those people when they retire, who will cover the welfare state then? Then there's the morality, the state pension going up above wage levels while all other benefits have been cut seems like a smack in the face to me, why does one set of people get better off on the state the rest get screwed over? Personally I'd rather drop the triple lock and use what we as a country save on that on the mental health and social care crisis because those budgets have been seriously squeezed to maintain the state pension.

(06-24-2020, 12:31 PM)Protheroe Wrote:
(06-23-2020, 12:54 PM)Derek Hardballs Wrote: What would you do differently to protect lives, business’s and jobs?

That's very simple. Helicopter Money. IIRC even Heath agreed with me about that.

Helicopter money or a short term UBI makes more sense during the recovery phase rather than in the middle of the crisis. If you give people that money now they'd just hold onto it to cover potential fallout, plus they wouldn't really be able to spend it. If you give it to people in late-July/August then there's incentive to spend it.
Reply
#52
(06-18-2020, 06:04 PM)Derek Hardballs Wrote: I did start a thread about a year ago regarding this but it got little traction. However it’s now becoming more apparent the chasm between communities in regards to how we see our country, what we identify with, and who we identify with. 

Be it Brexit, generation gaps, political persuasion there is very little common ground. Now you could argue that this suits the government as we squabble amongst ourselves and they push on with their agenda but their time will be temporary in the grand scheme of things. However over the long term I think we shall see the majority that could be described crudely as Voteleave types marginalised as those things they identify with as British are seen as out of touch. I genuinely think we are seeing the biggest cultural changes since the 60s.

The Voteleave Party will like this reference... you may have won the battle but you will lose the war.

Just think how less divided we'd have been had people like you accepted the result 4 years ago and not sought to fight democracy and insult and dehumanise leave supporters.

The lack of self-awareness in the remain Left is hilarious.

(06-18-2020, 06:04 PM)Derek Hardballs Wrote: I did start a thread about a year ago regarding this but it got little traction. However it’s now becoming more apparent the chasm between communities in regards to how we see our country, what we identify with, and who we identify with. 

Be it Brexit, generation gaps, political persuasion there is very little common ground. Now you could argue that this suits the government as we squabble amongst ourselves and they push on with their agenda but their time will be temporary in the grand scheme of things. However over the long term I think we shall see the majority that could be described crudely as Voteleave types marginalised as those things they identify with as British are seen as out of touch. I genuinely think we are seeing the biggest cultural changes since the 60s.

The Voteleave Party will like this reference... you may have won the battle but you will lose the war.
Reply
#53
(06-26-2020, 12:25 PM)Neil Parsley Wrote: Just think how less divided we'd have been had people like you accepted the result 4 years ago and not sought to fight democracy and insult and dehumanise leave supporters.

What he said.
Reply
#54
Yeah that's right you should accept this jumping off a cliff moment in your life, especially when everyone knows that those leading the charge have bullshitted their way through the last 4 years - you lost, get over it.

IT'S NOT FOOTBALL YOU FUCKING MORON!
Reply
#55
(06-26-2020, 12:39 PM)Protheroe Wrote:
(06-26-2020, 12:25 PM)Neil Parsley Wrote: Just think how less divided we'd have been had people like you accepted the result 4 years ago and not sought to fight democracy and insult and dehumanise leave supporters.

What he said.

This is total anti democratic nonsense Neil.

I have to repeat again, when General Election after General Election result, returned Governments who were mandated to remain in the EU, it didn't stop those who wanted to leave the EU from campaigning for that  and more importantly nor should it have done. 

One democratic process should not bind is in all entirety to its conclusion. 

And remember subsequent to that referendum there were not one but 2 General Elections, neither of which were forced on the Government f the day, both of which could have seen a democratic reversal of the referendum result - and by that i mean it might have been won by a party who ran on a platform of reversing the referendum result. You cannot complain about opposition to the referendum result and then provide a stage for that opposition.

And can i remind you that the process of leaving the EU was not only held up by those who wished to remain but by some of the most ardent leave supporters, it wasn't just remain MPs who voted against the withdrawal agreement of the May Govt. 

And finally since the GE the only people who seem to want to carry on the brexit argument are people like you, you just cannot let it go. I see no serious discussion of the subject by opposition MPs, even Liberal Democrats, but here you are still going on and on and on and on and on. I believe that when everything is finally wrapped up you will be bereft.
Reply
#56
(06-26-2020, 01:20 PM)Shabby Russian Wrote:
(06-26-2020, 12:39 PM)Protheroe Wrote:
(06-26-2020, 12:25 PM)Neil Parsley Wrote: Just think how less divided we'd have been had people like you accepted the result 4 years ago and not sought to fight democracy and insult and dehumanise leave supporters.

What he said.

This is total anti democratic nonsense Neil.

I have to repeat again, when General Election after General Election result, returned Governments who were mandated to remain in the EU, it didn't stop those who wanted to leave the EU from campaigning for that  and more importantly nor should it have done. 

One democratic process should not bind is in all entirety to its conclusion. 

And remember subsequent to that referendum there were not one but 2 General Elections, neither of which were forced on the Government f the day, both of which could have seen a democratic reversal of the referendum result - and by that i mean it might have been won by a party who ran on a platform of reversing the referendum result. You cannot complain about opposition to the referendum result and then provide a stage for that opposition.

And can i remind you that the process of leaving the EU was not only held up by those who wished to remain but by some of the most ardent leave supporters, it wasn't just remain MPs who voted against the withdrawal agreement of the May Govt. 

And finally since the GE the only people who seem to want to carry on the brexit argument are people like you, you just cannot let it go. I see no serious discussion of the subject by opposition MPs, even Liberal Democrats, but here you are still going on and on and on and on and on. I believe that when everything is finally wrapped up you will be bereft.
Rolleyes  Have you seen the majority of Dekka’s posts.
Reply
#57
As a former Remainer I accept that that horse has gone. Moaning about Brexit is pointless now. Moaning about the state we're in seems reasonable. I believe we will be in a worse state financially and socially as a consequence of leaving, but the important questions are simply how do we plan for the future and what kind of society should we aim to build.

Given the above one irony I do think difficult to overlook is certain members of a Tory government that had spent 10 years in power moaning about the state the Labour govt. left the country in … even ten years later.

There are crises and there are crises and while a few people predicted an epidemic it was difficult for many to believe it would happen. Once it did happen I find it bizarre that there are people who, because of their ideological persuasion, still seek to absolve the present political incumbents from accusation of incompetence, failed planning and irresponsibility.
Reply
#58
(06-26-2020, 01:20 PM)Shabby Russian Wrote: I have to repeat again, when General Election after General Election result, returned Governments who were mandated to remain in the EU, it didn't stop those who wanted to leave the EU from campaigning for that  and more importantly nor should it have done.

There is a BIG difference between campaigning for something and using every single legal and procedural mechanism to frustrate it.

There is a BIG difference between campaigning for something and attempting to completely denegrate the other side with "racist", "thick", "fascist" epithets.
Reply
#59
(06-29-2020, 09:15 AM)Protheroe Wrote:
(06-26-2020, 01:20 PM)Shabby Russian Wrote: I have to repeat again, when General Election after General Election result, returned Governments who were mandated to remain in the EU, it didn't stop those who wanted to leave the EU from campaigning for that  and more importantly nor should it have done.

There is a BIG difference between campaigning for something and using every single legal and procedural mechanism to frustrate it.

There is a BIG difference between campaigning for something and attempting to completely denegrate the other side with "racist", "thick", "fascist" epithets.

Or traitor, enemy of the people etc
Reply
#60
I know Shabs, it defies belief some of the retrospective historical 'facting' going on. There was a bloody big bus saying 'We send the EU 350m a week, let's fund our NHS instead' and without question people accepted that as fact, yet there is shock when those same people get called thick. This wasn't some article written in the Telegraph, it was the main campaign slogan.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)