Scrapping Age Related Benefits
Discussion
Integroo said:
selmahoose said:
That wasn’t really the question. Let me ask it another way. What percentage of these 500 are the sons of Surrey investment bankers?
Why does it matter?And I think highly paid professional sport is not the only sector in which this is the case. There are no end of wealthy young businesspeople and successful "artistes" etc who also seem to owe little to their upbringing's economic circumstances.
In fact I'd say that (according to themselves at least) in many cases their relatively deprived backgrounds have actually stimulated their success.
Am I wrong?
Randy Winkman said:
Integroo said:
selmahoose said:
Oh no argument just asking a question. But I think you do know what Im asking and I think you also know it isn't nonsense.
Nobody is saying you can't be born poor and become wealthy.Tannedbaldhead said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48046595
Read this article this morning and thought they have a point.
My 81 year old Dad was complaining at how badly the lump sum he derives his income drawdown was performing. So as to maintain its value he has decided not to take any income this year.
I was worried about how he'd manage till he dug out his pension paperwork and showed me his old age, care related and contribution based pensions amounted to £354 per week. That's not a kick in the arse off £18500 a year.
On top of that my Mum receives old age pensions and a teacher's superannuated pension.
They have no mortgage and no dependants.
This being the case why all the free stuff?
Am I going all socialist for thinking age related benifits should be means tested and the savings should be channelled into either in work benifits or increased tax allowance to help much poorer young working families?
After 50 odd years of paying tax imho all pensioners deserve a break, I'd not tax them a penny more once retired. This whole thing is a fRead this article this morning and thought they have a point.
My 81 year old Dad was complaining at how badly the lump sum he derives his income drawdown was performing. So as to maintain its value he has decided not to take any income this year.
I was worried about how he'd manage till he dug out his pension paperwork and showed me his old age, care related and contribution based pensions amounted to £354 per week. That's not a kick in the arse off £18500 a year.
On top of that my Mum receives old age pensions and a teacher's superannuated pension.
They have no mortgage and no dependants.
This being the case why all the free stuff?
Am I going all socialist for thinking age related benifits should be means tested and the savings should be channelled into either in work benifits or increased tax allowance to help much poorer young working families?
king disgrace imho specially from the HoL who are all minted.TX.
markcoznottz said:
Football is not played at public schools, this actually gives the working class a free ride for once. Football also needs very little in the way of academic intelligence or interpersonal skills to be successful.
https://www.etoncollege.com/football.aspxhttps://www.etoncollege.com/football.aspx
https://www.isfa.org.uk/
Edited by selmahoose on Saturday 27th April 19:12
selmahoose said:
Integroo said:
selmahoose said:
That wasn’t really the question. Let me ask it another way. What percentage of these 500 are the sons of Surrey investment bankers?
Why does it matter?And I think highly paid professional sport is not the only sector in which this is the case. There are no end of wealthy young businesspeople and successful "artistes" etc who also seem to owe little to their upbringing's economic circumstances.
In fact I'd say that (according to themselves at least) in many cases their relatively deprived backgrounds have actually stimulated their success.
Am I wrong?
selmahoose said:
Can anyone name even a single premiership player whose parents are investment bankers from Surrey?
By some standards (eg salary) they can be said to have "done very well", and by some standards what they do can't really be defined as 'work' at all never mind "hard work".
And many of them are from lower economic status backgrounds.
If a player wants to progress in a competitive sport, then it is very hard work. I know little about football, although I do know that if a young player gets an injury which reduces his ability to play, he leaves with little. By some standards (eg salary) they can be said to have "done very well", and by some standards what they do can't really be defined as 'work' at all never mind "hard work".
And many of them are from lower economic status backgrounds.
Edited by selmahoose on Saturday 27th April 16:52
I know a bit about rugby union. There is wage control. The 'domestiques' have to train as hard, if not more so, than their much better favoured, and considerably richer, team-mates for much less remuneration. I know a number of premiership players reaching the end of their playing career, and they will leave with the advantage of having a work ethic that will make them employable, but little else.
A chap I know, from a single parent family, with little spare money, played for a premiership team and England, was injured and they all waved him a very nice goodbye as he left. He was a grafter. You have to be to be in the premiership. It can't really be defined as work as the players have their wages capped. It is as if the teams don't want to spend money on the talent.
It feels, from what I've seen from the outside, that the teams take a kid's youth and health and pay little for it.
Randy Winkman said:
OK. But I'm just not sure how much it tells us about the UK when only 500 people have that job.
What it tells us if we want to think about it is that amongst the enormous number of people in the UK who are comfortably off on between £50kpa (twice the average wage) to £150 million pa (done really well) not so many depend on some fortunate socio-economic background for their good fortune.selmahoose said:
Randy Winkman said:
OK. But I'm just not sure how much it tells us about the UK when only 500 people have that job.
What it tells us if we want to think about it is that amongst the enormous number of people in the UK who are comfortably off on between £50kpa (twice the average wage) to £150 million pa (done really well) not so many depend on some fortunate socio-economic background for their good fortune.Look instead at the £18k - £25k and the (say) £40k - £80k group
I would bet that upbringing has a massive significant factor on these groups.
As others say.. how good were your parents at bringing you up? Probably very similar to how well their parents were...and their parents etc
(For what it's worth, I think premiership footballers have to work damn hard, with huge amounts of drive and motivation, worthy of most investment bankers. )
selmahoose said:
Randy Winkman said:
Integroo said:
selmahoose said:
Oh no argument just asking a question. But I think you do know what Im asking and I think you also know it isn't nonsense.
Nobody is saying you can't be born poor and become wealthy.Derek Smith said:
If a player wants to progress in a competitive sport, then it is very hard work. I know little about football, although I do know that if a young player gets an injury which reduces his ability to play, he leaves with little.
I know a bit about rugby union. There is wage control. The 'domestiques' have to train as hard, if not more so, than their much better favoured, and considerably richer, team-mates for much less remuneration. I know a number of premiership players reaching the end of their playing career, and they will leave with the advantage of having a work ethic that will make them employable, but little else.
A chap I know, from a single parent family, with little spare money, played for a premiership team and England, was injured and they all waved him a very nice goodbye as he left. He was a grafter. You have to be to be in the premiership. It can't really be defined as work as the players have their wages capped. It is as if the teams don't want to spend money on the talent.
It feels, from what I've seen from the outside, that the teams take a kid's youth and health and pay little for it.
I think it's somewhat disingenuous to say that it's as though the teams don't want to spend money when only Exeter actually turn a profit in the Premiership. The salary cap is there to try and ensure that one or two owners with very deep pockets can't completely distort the competition, and unless to flight rugby suddenly starts making the same amount of money as to flight football, I'm not sure how you address that? I know a bit about rugby union. There is wage control. The 'domestiques' have to train as hard, if not more so, than their much better favoured, and considerably richer, team-mates for much less remuneration. I know a number of premiership players reaching the end of their playing career, and they will leave with the advantage of having a work ethic that will make them employable, but little else.
A chap I know, from a single parent family, with little spare money, played for a premiership team and England, was injured and they all waved him a very nice goodbye as he left. He was a grafter. You have to be to be in the premiership. It can't really be defined as work as the players have their wages capped. It is as if the teams don't want to spend money on the talent.
It feels, from what I've seen from the outside, that the teams take a kid's youth and health and pay little for it.
mike74 said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
And she's managing that through sheer hard work and long hours?And isn't receiving Child Tax Credits (and other associated benefits)?
She's a single mother of 2 (presumably pre-school or school age) on a low income. That's exactly who these benefits are aimed at helping.
Kermit power said:
Derek Smith said:
If a player wants to progress in a competitive sport, then it is very hard work. I know little about football, although I do know that if a young player gets an injury which reduces his ability to play, he leaves with little.
I know a bit about rugby union. There is wage control. The 'domestiques' have to train as hard, if not more so, than their much better favoured, and considerably richer, team-mates for much less remuneration. I know a number of premiership players reaching the end of their playing career, and they will leave with the advantage of having a work ethic that will make them employable, but little else.
A chap I know, from a single parent family, with little spare money, played for a premiership team and England, was injured and they all waved him a very nice goodbye as he left. He was a grafter. You have to be to be in the premiership. It can't really be defined as work as the players have their wages capped. It is as if the teams don't want to spend money on the talent.
It feels, from what I've seen from the outside, that the teams take a kid's youth and health and pay little for it.
I think it's somewhat disingenuous to say that it's as though the teams don't want to spend money when only Exeter actually turn a profit in the Premiership. The salary cap is there to try and ensure that one or two owners with very deep pockets can't completely distort the competition, and unless to flight rugby suddenly starts making the same amount of money as to flight football, I'm not sure how you address that? I know a bit about rugby union. There is wage control. The 'domestiques' have to train as hard, if not more so, than their much better favoured, and considerably richer, team-mates for much less remuneration. I know a number of premiership players reaching the end of their playing career, and they will leave with the advantage of having a work ethic that will make them employable, but little else.
A chap I know, from a single parent family, with little spare money, played for a premiership team and England, was injured and they all waved him a very nice goodbye as he left. He was a grafter. You have to be to be in the premiership. It can't really be defined as work as the players have their wages capped. It is as if the teams don't want to spend money on the talent.
It feels, from what I've seen from the outside, that the teams take a kid's youth and health and pay little for it.
I'm not sure I want rugby to fight any other sport. I follow a team at club level (to be promoted next season) and that, to me, is rugby. At my club's level we have suffered in the past when other teams have bent the RFU club rules to an unreasonable extent. But that's no reason to artificially restrict players' pay.
Rugby going pro was, to my mind, the best thing that happened to the sport, raising the level of play remarkably. I see play at level 6 (soon to be 5, did I mention that?) that 20 years ago would have given rise to myth and legend. There is a downside though, with career-ending injuries at senior level being too frequent due to the size and weight of players, even the 9.
I see why, but I don't think it fair.
Nickgnome said:
Toaster said:
just a thought on what we pay in, are you really saying the government doesn’t invest the money we pay them which means those funds make money over the years. So are more much more than the contributions we made
NI contributions do not go into any investment fund. The monies are used as current account spending on health services and pension benefits of those entitled to receive pensions at the time you pay NHI. As I stated previously you can get a schedule of your contributions over the years.The agreement is that providing you have contributed for a minimum number of years then you will be entitled to a state pension.
In my view this is unsustainable in its current form going forward. Surely we should all save for our own pension pot and choosing not to is just negligent. There are even tax benefits for personal pension contributions.
Back onto the OPs original post. The age related benefits should be scrapped immediately as they do not form part of the original NHI intention.
not exactly here is something the `government does reveal about our NIC's Claim
National Insurance Contributions are being used to reduce the national debt.
Conclusion
Some are. This doesn’t mean anyone isn’t getting paid what they’re currently due in pensions or benefits—the UK government invests the NICs that don’t go towards paying pensions and benefits on reducing the national debt.
https://fullfact.org/economy/money-national-insura...
Interesting isn't it
Toaster said:
Nickgnome said:
Toaster said:
just a thought on what we pay in, are you really saying the government doesn’t invest the money we pay them which means those funds make money over the years. So are more much more than the contributions we made
NI contributions do not go into any investment fund. The monies are used as current account spending on health services and pension benefits of those entitled to receive pensions at the time you pay NHI. As I stated previously you can get a schedule of your contributions over the years.The agreement is that providing you have contributed for a minimum number of years then you will be entitled to a state pension.
In my view this is unsustainable in its current form going forward. Surely we should all save for our own pension pot and choosing not to is just negligent. There are even tax benefits for personal pension contributions.
Back onto the OPs original post. The age related benefits should be scrapped immediately as they do not form part of the original NHI intention.
not exactly here is something the `government does reveal about our NIC's Claim
National Insurance Contributions are being used to reduce the national debt.
Conclusion
Some are. This doesn’t mean anyone isn’t getting paid what they’re currently due in pensions or benefits—the UK government invests the NICs that don’t go towards paying pensions and benefits on reducing the national debt.
https://fullfact.org/economy/money-national-insura...
Interesting isn't it
If the pot is overspent the reverse will apply.
It is still current account spending though and there is not an invested pot with Toaster’s name on it. You like all of us are or will be reliant on current contributions to receive your state pension.
Have you checked out how much you have contributed over the years?
Jaguar steve said:
Nickgnome said:
BoRED S2upid said:
Count yourself lucky you will be getting a state pension even at 67. I’m not banking on it being around when I get that old our retirement planning doesn’t take it into account they will have moved it to 77 by then!
Why not plan for no state pension. Why should the state provide for you?If the state hadn't taken from you all your working life then you'd have no right to expect anything in return as you get older. But it has and so you should.
Defense. NHS. Infrastructure, emergency services, justice system - everything that you may never have used directly; but did provide you with the safety, security and society in which you could go out and earn money. Would you have been able to to earn anywhere near what you did in a country with none of these public services?
It's selfish delusion for anyone to think that their tax money does not benefit them until they finally reach retirement.
Nickgnome said:
It goes on to say that there are periods of underspend and periods of overspend. It is the underspend that may get invested which at that point reduces the national debt.
If the pot is overspent the reverse will apply.
It is still current account spending though and there is not an invested pot with Toaster’s name on it. You like all of us are or will be reliant on current contributions to receive your state pension.
Have you checked out how much you have contributed over the years?
Instead of paying the national debt it should be invested for all, I am also not stupid ~I do understand that Toaster has not got an individual pot as this and I know its a strange concept is a social fund and yes I know exactly how much I have paid and how long it would last if it was in my bank and `i paid it to myself at the rate the government pays me. If the pot is overspent the reverse will apply.
It is still current account spending though and there is not an invested pot with Toaster’s name on it. You like all of us are or will be reliant on current contributions to receive your state pension.
Have you checked out how much you have contributed over the years?
Edited to say whilst Toaster does not have a personal "Pot" you will read that it is a communal pot sometimes it has more in it and sometimes it does not........Socialism in action eh
such a bad concept who would have thought it...."Unlike most taxes in the UK, NICs are paid into a specific pot called the National Insurance Fund, rather than being put with the rest of the tax money collected for the Treasury.
Huge sums of money flow into and out of this fund every year. In 2017/18, about £100 billion went in via NIC contributions and about £100 billion left the fund again to pay for benefits.
But the fund doesn’t always end up in balance. In some years, it needs to pay out a little more in benefits than it gets in contributions—a deficit. In other years, it pays out less than it receives—meaning it’s in surplus"
Edited by Toaster on Tuesday 7th May 18:45
anonymous said:
[redacted]
You say you have earned the right, assuming you were born some time in the 50s then your life expectancy at birth was around 67 years ( source https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/whats-ha... )So in effect you entered a contract with the state that at 65 they would give you a pension so you could retire, they have completed their side of the deal, you must complete your side and die before reaching 68.
Welshbeef said:
Kermit power said:
Toaster said:
jakesmith said:
That would require people to pay 'their fair share' which would mean doing things like making low earners pay income tax
I think a blanket % tax rate is my idea of fair
I pay the same income tax amount as 60 minimum wage earners
I am happy to do that but resent being called 'greedy' for not wanting to pay more, by imbeciles who don't work as hard as me or work at all in some cases
Minimum wage is £8.21 per hour if you earn 60 x that then you earn £492 per hour x 40 hours = £19,704 or £1024608 per year, I am not saying your greedy but clearly could afford to pay more. I am also not going to say you are not working hard but neither is the individual that is on minimum wage has two or three jobs and takes home a fraction of your earnings. I think a blanket % tax rate is my idea of fair
I pay the same income tax amount as 60 minimum wage earners
I am happy to do that but resent being called 'greedy' for not wanting to pay more, by imbeciles who don't work as hard as me or work at all in some cases
He's not saying he earns sixty times minimum wage. He's saying he pays the same amount of tax as sixty people on minimum wage.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff