Topical debate, moral dilemmas and quirky questions. Join fellow shareholders in civilised discussions of issues of interest
-
parchedpeas
- Posts: 410
- Joined: Tue Jun 29 2010 1:34pm
- Has thanked: 200 times
- Been thanked: 460 times
-
Contact:
Post
by parchedpeas » Tue Jul 06 2021 9:10am
I wasn't a huge fan of Corbyn and I generally think that we should be a fiscally responsible country, but given the huge sums of cash that have been thrown around and wasted this last 18 months and given the increasing gap between wealthy and the rest of us, I can't help thinking we'd be a better country all around if we'd followed his spending plans.
We need to get away from saying that tax is a bad thing - we've got a huge hole to fill and it should be our collective duty to help fill it, and those who have more should absolutely be chipping in more. And they should be proud to do it, because it's the right thing to do.
Sadly, I think it's more likely that we'll end up trying to carry on as before. And that does not bode well for the future or for the next generations.
-
blythburgh
- Posts: 17758
- Joined: Tue Jun 29 2010 7:14pm
- Location: The Far East
- Has thanked: 35046 times
- Been thanked: 6110 times
-
Contact:
Post
by blythburgh » Tue Jul 06 2021 9:33am
Why is it 60 for some "pensioner" benefits? Simple: women used to retire at 60 and men at 65. A man (who could be called mysoginist) took the Govt. to court saying it was not fair that women got stuff at 60 but men had to wait until they were 65. He won in that the Govt. brought these benefits in at 60 for both sexes.
Women's retirement age has gradually been rising. And that has caused enormous anger and financial problems for those women who suddenly found they would not be retiring at 60. I knew it was happening and which women would be most affected. But for what ever reason many of those who would have to retire later than they expected had not heard about it.
Guess the reason for that is the Govt's of every colour have not spent a miniscule amount of money informing people about the pension age changes and pension credit. But then again I am sure the treasury would not want people to be informed about pension credit due to the cost. And this Govt. would rather cut taxes for the better off than help the poorest pensioners.
Keep smiling because the light at the end of someone's tunnel may be you, Ron Cheneler
-
macliam
- Posts: 11235
- Joined: Thu Jul 18 2013 12:26pm
- Location: By the Deben, Suffolk
- Has thanked: 1630 times
- Been thanked: 9292 times
-
Contact:
Post
by macliam » Tue Jul 06 2021 5:08pm
pabenny wrote: ↑Tue Jul 06 2021 6:28am
macliam wrote: ↑Mon Jul 05 2021 8:48pm
.. charge people for being sick...
That sort of emotive phrasing is unhelpful to any serious debate.
That is an excuse often used by those who know their stance is morally wrong
Just because I'm paranoid, it doesn't mean they're not out to get me
-
expressman33
- Posts: 12468
- Joined: Tue Jun 29 2010 10:36pm
- Location: stockport
- Has thanked: 3006 times
- Been thanked: 10641 times
-
Contact:
Post
by expressman33 » Tue Jul 06 2021 6:16pm
blythburgh wrote: ↑Tue Jul 06 2021 9:33am
Women's retirement age has gradually been rising. And that has caused enormous anger and financial problems for those women who suddenly found they would not be retiring at 60. I knew it was happening and which women would be most affected. But for what ever reason many of those who would have to retire later than they expected had not heard about it.
Pension rules are always being changed . When I took early retirement I just had the full 30 qualifying years in order to get a full pension . Then it was changed to 35 years . Luckily I am able to claim extra years by looking after grandchildren .
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/look ... te-pension.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 guests