Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 ). The only way to make them tougher is to remove all eligibility | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The only way is to have a smaller public sector "He didn't elaborate on this 
Anyone with a crystal ball? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He states three times as many people are signed off from work (compared to a decade ago) but (him being a doctor) doesn't believe there's three times the sickness level. Sounds like he's going to toughen up eligibility to certain benefits for new claimants. PIP is already tough to claim. Reduced capability is already tough to qualify (you only actually qualify if you have no capability for work ). The only way to make them tougher is to remove all eligibility "I'm not clued up on benefits, but I was listening to a discussion a while back about eligibility for work / sickness and allowances. The gov person (no ides who it was) said there is a misconception on the ability to work. She went on to say people expect disability and other allowances because they can no longer carry out their work, however that thinking is wrong she said, if you can't climb a ladder as you did in your previous job you look for another job that takes away the ladder, and re-skilling is always an option. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He states three times as many people are signed off from work (compared to a decade ago) but (him being a doctor) doesn't believe there's three times the sickness level. Sounds like he's going to toughen up eligibility to certain benefits for new claimants. PIP is already tough to claim. Reduced capability is already tough to qualify (you only actually qualify if you have no capability for work ). The only way to make them tougher is to remove all eligibility ". I feel one of the reasons there is 3 times as many people signed of work than a decade ago is illness like depression and mental health were not as common as they are now and perhaps a lot of GP’s are scared of getting it wrong and so just give the patient a fit note.The patient then claim’s Universal Credit and gets a help with their rent as well as any other entitlements. I think that depression and mental health can be hard to diagnose but at the same time can be easy to feign as how do you interview someone like that to establish if genuine or a con. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm watching LK interview Sunak. He states his priority to control spending, control welfare to cut people's taxes. Control or cut? "Standard Torying. I'm sure the elderly, disabled, the least well off in society will be pleased to bear the brunt of more austerity so that rich punters can pay a % less on their top bracket earnings. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He states three times as many people are signed off from work (compared to a decade ago) but (him being a doctor) doesn't believe there's three times the sickness level. Sounds like he's going to toughen up eligibility to certain benefits for new claimants. PIP is already tough to claim. Reduced capability is already tough to qualify (you only actually qualify if you have no capability for work ). The only way to make them tougher is to remove all eligibility
I'm not clued up on benefits, but I was listening to a discussion a while back about eligibility for work / sickness and allowances.
The gov person (no ides who it was) said there is a misconception on the ability to work. She went on to say people expect disability and other allowances because they can no longer carry out their work, however that thinking is wrong she said, if you can't climb a ladder as you did in your previous job you look for another job that takes away the ladder, and
re-skilling is always an option."My disability is my brain. I can only work part-time because of it, it doesn't matter whether I'm medical or a shop worker or work from home, I can only work x number of hours. Yet because I can work I don't qualify for reduced capability for work. If I did, my wages would be topped up, possibly to the living wage threshold. As it is, I earn less than the minimum wage annually! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He states three times as many people are signed off from work (compared to a decade ago) but (him being a doctor) doesn't believe there's three times the sickness level. Sounds like he's going to toughen up eligibility to certain benefits for new claimants. PIP is already tough to claim. Reduced capability is already tough to qualify (you only actually qualify if you have no capability for work ). The only way to make them tougher is to remove all eligibility . I feel one of the reasons there is 3 times as many people signed of work than a decade ago is illness like depression and mental health were not as common as they are now and perhaps a lot of GP’s are scared of getting it wrong and so just give the patient a fit note.The patient then claim’s Universal Credit and gets a help with their rent as well as any other entitlements. I think that depression and mental health can be hard to diagnose but at the same time can be easy to feign as how do you interview someone like that to establish if genuine or a con."You get a lay person to assess them as fit for work. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He states three times as many people are signed off from work (compared to a decade ago) but (him being a doctor) doesn't believe there's three times the sickness level. Sounds like he's going to toughen up eligibility to certain benefits for new claimants. PIP is already tough to claim. Reduced capability is already tough to qualify (you only actually qualify if you have no capability for work ). The only way to make them tougher is to remove all eligibility . I feel one of the reasons there is 3 times as many people signed of work than a decade ago is illness like depression and mental health were not as common as they are now and perhaps a lot of GP’s are scared of getting it wrong and so just give the patient a fit note.The patient then claim’s Universal Credit and gets a help with their rent as well as any other entitlements. I think that depression and mental health can be hard to diagnose but at the same time can be easy to feign as how do you interview someone like that to establish if genuine or a con.
You get a lay person to assess them as fit for work.". lay person ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Thanks to increased debt interest payments (wonder how that happened) the Govt needs to fund that while balancing the books. So they actually need to keep income (tax) up while cutting spending. There’d be more in the coffers (or less debt accumulated at higher rates) if the Govt hadn’t wasted so much during Covid (will they ever be able to reclaim any/much). Can’t remember exact figures but believe govt loss through fraud and error etc increase four fold. The figure £20bn is in my head. Of course they will cut taxes before an election. It is pretty much the only popularity weapon they have left (though I would keep an eye on stealth taxes rather than headline reductions)." Stealth taxes were mentioned on LK as already happening. The Tories give with one hand, take more with the other. Case in point, they gave 8billion extra to the NHS the year they then removed the nursing bursary. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He states three times as many people are signed off from work (compared to a decade ago) but (him being a doctor) doesn't believe there's three times the sickness level. Sounds like he's going to toughen up eligibility to certain benefits for new claimants. PIP is already tough to claim. Reduced capability is already tough to qualify (you only actually qualify if you have no capability for work ). The only way to make them tougher is to remove all eligibility . I feel one of the reasons there is 3 times as many people signed of work than a decade ago is illness like depression and mental health were not as common as they are now and perhaps a lot of GP’s are scared of getting it wrong and so just give the patient a fit note.The patient then claim’s Universal Credit and gets a help with their rent as well as any other entitlements. I think that depression and mental health can be hard to diagnose but at the same time can be easy to feign as how do you interview someone like that to establish if genuine or a con.
You get a lay person to assess them as fit for work.. lay person ?"Not medical. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He states three times as many people are signed off from work (compared to a decade ago) but (him being a doctor) doesn't believe there's three times the sickness level. Sounds like he's going to toughen up eligibility to certain benefits for new claimants. PIP is already tough to claim. Reduced capability is already tough to qualify (you only actually qualify if you have no capability for work ). The only way to make them tougher is to remove all eligibility
I'm not clued up on benefits, but I was listening to a discussion a while back about eligibility for work / sickness and allowances.
The gov person (no ides who it was) said there is a misconception on the ability to work. She went on to say people expect disability and other allowances because they can no longer carry out their work, however that thinking is wrong she said, if you can't climb a ladder as you did in your previous job you look for another job that takes away the ladder, and
re-skilling is always an option.
My disability is my brain. I can only work part-time because of it, it doesn't matter whether I'm medical or a shop worker or work from home, I can only work x number of hours. Yet because I can work I don't qualify for reduced capability for work. If I did, my wages would be topped up, possibly to the living wage threshold. As it is, I earn less than the minimum wage annually!"You are right at the other end of the scale. I would support uplifts in benefits for people in your situation, but equally I do want the government to be robust enough to be removing those from the system that have no entitlement. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As it is, I earn less than the minimum wage annually!" I assume you mean 'less than the full-time minimum wage', since you are only able to work part-time. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He states three times as many people are signed off from work (compared to a decade ago) but (him being a doctor) doesn't believe there's three times the sickness level. Sounds like he's going to toughen up eligibility to certain benefits for new claimants. PIP is already tough to claim. Reduced capability is already tough to qualify (you only actually qualify if you have no capability for work ). The only way to make them tougher is to remove all eligibility
I'm not clued up on benefits, but I was listening to a discussion a while back about eligibility for work / sickness and allowances.
The gov person (no ides who it was) said there is a misconception on the ability to work. She went on to say people expect disability and other allowances because they can no longer carry out their work, however that thinking is wrong she said, if you can't climb a ladder as you did in your previous job you look for another job that takes away the ladder, and
re-skilling is always an option.
My disability is my brain. I can only work part-time because of it, it doesn't matter whether I'm medical or a shop worker or work from home, I can only work x number of hours. Yet because I can work I don't qualify for reduced capability for work. If I did, my wages would be topped up, possibly to the living wage threshold. As it is, I earn less than the minimum wage annually!
You are right at the other end of the scale.
I would support uplifts in benefits for people in your situation, but equally I do want the government to be robust enough to be removing those from the system that have no entitlement. "The most ridiculous thing about the capability for work is that you cannot be assessed while in work. You have to be off sick, however, you can work after it has been granted. This is nonsensical. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He states three times as many people are signed off from work (compared to a decade ago) but (him being a doctor) doesn't believe there's three times the sickness level. Sounds like he's going to toughen up eligibility to certain benefits for new claimants. PIP is already tough to claim. Reduced capability is already tough to qualify (you only actually qualify if you have no capability for work ). The only way to make them tougher is to remove all eligibility
I'm not clued up on benefits, but I was listening to a discussion a while back about eligibility for work / sickness and allowances.
The gov person (no ides who it was) said there is a misconception on the ability to work. She went on to say people expect disability and other allowances because they can no longer carry out their work, however that thinking is wrong she said, if you can't climb a ladder as you did in your previous job you look for another job that takes away the ladder, and
re-skilling is always an option.
My disability is my brain. I can only work part-time because of it, it doesn't matter whether I'm medical or a shop worker or work from home, I can only work x number of hours. Yet because I can work I don't qualify for reduced capability for work. If I did, my wages would be topped up, possibly to the living wage threshold. As it is, I earn less than the minimum wage annually!
You are right at the other end of the scale.
I would support uplifts in benefits for people in your situation, but equally I do want the government to be robust enough to be removing those from the system that have no entitlement.
The most ridiculous thing about the capability for work is that you cannot be assessed while in work. You have to be off sick, however, you can work after it has been granted. This is nonsensical."Have they got a suggestion box? I’m guessing they haven’t | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As it is, I earn less than the minimum wage annually! I assume you mean 'less than the full-time minimum wage', since you are only able to work part-time." That's a moot point as there is no other minimum/living wage threshold. The threshold is computed at an hourly rate pa. I earn more than the minimum hourly rate. Because I am unable to work full-time through disability, am I not entitled to still have a minimum income. I am penalised through an unfair system. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As it is, I earn less than the minimum wage annually! I assume you mean 'less than the full-time minimum wage', since you are only able to work part-time. That's a moot point as there is no other minimum/living wage threshold. The threshold is computed at an hourly rate pa. I earn more than the minimum hourly rate. Because I am unable to work full-time through disability, am I not entitled to still have a minimum income. I am penalised through an unfair system." I assume you're able to claim UC top up? We may have had this conversation before but I can't remember. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As it is, I earn less than the minimum wage annually!" "I assume you mean 'less than the full-time minimum wage', since you are only able to work part-time." "That's a moot point as there is no other minimum/living wage threshold. " I disagree. The minimum wage is specified as a per hour rate, not an annual amount. What you earn is above minimum wage, but below the equivalent annual amount, because you don't work equivalent annual hours. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As it is, I earn less than the minimum wage annually! I assume you mean 'less than the full-time minimum wage', since you are only able to work part-time. That's a moot point as there is no other minimum/living wage threshold. The threshold is computed at an hourly rate pa. I earn more than the minimum hourly rate. Because I am unable to work full-time through disability, am I not entitled to still have a minimum income. I am penalised through an unfair system. I assume you're able to claim UC top up? We may have had this conversation before but I can't remember. " . There is no harm or shame in making a claim for Universal Credit.If you are put in a non work related group you wouldn’t need to attend the job centre all your contact will be with your case manager via the journal on your Universal Credit account | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As it is, I earn less than the minimum wage annually! I assume you mean 'less than the full-time minimum wage', since you are only able to work part-time. That's a moot point as there is no other minimum/living wage threshold. The threshold is computed at an hourly rate pa. I earn more than the minimum hourly rate. Because I am unable to work full-time through disability, am I not entitled to still have a minimum income. I am penalised through an unfair system. I assume you're able to claim UC top up? We may have had this conversation before but I can't remember. . There is no harm or shame in making a claim for Universal Credit.If you are put in a non work related group you wouldn’t need to attend the job centre all your contact will be with your case manager via the journal on your Universal Credit account " Who said anything about shame? I was simply asking if, because she can't work full time, she is entitled to claim a top up. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As it is, I earn less than the minimum wage annually! I assume you mean 'less than the full-time minimum wage', since you are only able to work part-time. That's a moot point as there is no other minimum/living wage threshold. The threshold is computed at an hourly rate pa. I earn more than the minimum hourly rate. Because I am unable to work full-time through disability, am I not entitled to still have a minimum income. I am penalised through an unfair system. I assume you're able to claim UC top up? We may have had this conversation before but I can't remember. . There is no harm or shame in making a claim for Universal Credit.If you are put in a non work related group you wouldn’t need to attend the job centre all your contact will be with your case manager via the journal on your Universal Credit account Who said anything about shame? I was simply asking if, because she can't work full time, she is entitled to claim a top up." Some people feel a sense of shame if they have to step into a job centre.I was just trying to say that you shouldn’t feel a sense of shame if you have to walk in to get your identification verified and speak to a work coach. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As it is, I earn less than the minimum wage annually! I assume you mean 'less than the full-time minimum wage', since you are only able to work part-time. That's a moot point as there is no other minimum/living wage threshold. The threshold is computed at an hourly rate pa. I earn more than the minimum hourly rate. Because I am unable to work full-time through disability, am I not entitled to still have a minimum income. I am penalised through an unfair system. I assume you're able to claim UC top up? We may have had this conversation before but I can't remember. " No. I would only get top up if I qualified for capability for work. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As it is, I earn less than the minimum wage annually! I assume you mean 'less than the full-time minimum wage', since you are only able to work part-time. That's a moot point as there is no other minimum/living wage threshold. The threshold is computed at an hourly rate pa. I earn more than the minimum hourly rate. Because I am unable to work full-time through disability, am I not entitled to still have a minimum income. I am penalised through an unfair system. I assume you're able to claim UC top up? We may have had this conversation before but I can't remember. . There is no harm or shame in making a claim for Universal Credit.If you are put in a non work related group you wouldn’t need to attend the job centre all your contact will be with your case manager via the journal on your Universal Credit account " I try, repeatedly | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As it is, I earn less than the minimum wage annually! I assume you mean 'less than the full-time minimum wage', since you are only able to work part-time. That's a moot point as there is no other minimum/living wage threshold. I disagree. The minimum wage is specified as a per hour rate, not an annual amount. What you earn is above minimum wage, but below the equivalent annual amount, because you don't work equivalent annual hours." Funny how you deleted the rest of my post! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As it is, I earn less than the minimum wage annually! I assume you mean 'less than the full-time minimum wage', since you are only able to work part-time. That's a moot point as there is no other minimum/living wage threshold. The threshold is computed at an hourly rate pa. I earn more than the minimum hourly rate. Because I am unable to work full-time through disability, am I not entitled to still have a minimum income. I am penalised through an unfair system. I assume you're able to claim UC top up? We may have had this conversation before but I can't remember. No. I would only get top up if I qualified for capability for work." They say you're capable of working more hours? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As it is, I earn less than the minimum wage annually!" "I assume you mean 'less than the full-time minimum wage', since you are only able to work part-time." "That's a moot point as there is no other minimum/living wage threshold." "I disagree. The minimum wage is specified as a per hour rate, not an annual amount. What you earn is above minimum wage, but below the equivalent annual amount, because you don't work equivalent annual hours." "Funny how you deleted the rest of my post!" I deleted the bit where you said "The threshold is computed at an hourly rate pa", because that isn't true. The minimum wage is specified as an hourly rate, with no annualising. In the government's words "The National Minimum Wage is the minimum pay per hour almost all workers are entitled to". https://www.gov.uk/national-minimum-wage I also deleted the bit where you said "I am penalised through an unfair system". I can't argue with that. Without knowing all of your details (which I don't expect you to share), I'm not qualified to determine whether that's true or not. Was there anything else that you feel provided context? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The welfare system in most of Europe is under threat because of one reason - Ageing population. A problem that Japan has been tackling with for year now. For a welfare system to work, we need a good ratio of number of people doing the work, contributing to taxes against number of people taking out of the system. Ageing population means this ratio is getting lower and lower. This is why France recently pushed to increase retirement age limit. One way or another, sacrifices have to be made because it's harder to sustain the population at its current state. The question is who is going to be sacrificed? Should we cut the welfare of old people to keep the younger people happy? Or should we do the opposite? " I agree with your statements albeit would challenge the emotional question at the end. The state pension is a social contract. The current pensioners have (unwittingly somewhat) drawn up an unfair contract. The burden they were asked to pay when they were young was less than what they are asking of young people today. Workers to pensioners ratio has dropped loads. And I believe the time on state retirement has gone up a fair amount too. The working generation today has concerns that it is being asked to fund a generous promise today to keep pensioners "happy" who have benefited from the lop sided social contract, and then will see the contract torn up before they become a pensioner (I for one am making private provisions assuming no state pension until I'm 80). The whole contract (plus social care) needs a really hard conversation about. It's been ignored for about 20 years too long now. And is a way bigger issue than Brexit or immigration (although immigration is a factor in this especially given reducing worker ratios despite immigration peaks) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As it is, I earn less than the minimum wage annually! I assume you mean 'less than the full-time minimum wage', since you are only able to work part-time. That's a moot point as there is no other minimum/living wage threshold. The threshold is computed at an hourly rate pa. I earn more than the minimum hourly rate. Because I am unable to work full-time through disability, am I not entitled to still have a minimum income. I am penalised through an unfair system. I assume you're able to claim UC top up? We may have had this conversation before but I can't remember. No. I would only get top up if I qualified for capability for work. They say you're capable of working more hours?" That's my theory. I do too many as it is. My days off aren't days off, they are recovery days (everything is affected, hearing, speech,cognition, balance, CNS, pain are a few of the issues). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As it is, I earn less than the minimum wage annually! I assume you mean 'less than the full-time minimum wage', since you are only able to work part-time. That's a moot point as there is no other minimum/living wage threshold. The threshold is computed at an hourly rate pa. I earn more than the minimum hourly rate. Because I am unable to work full-time through disability, am I not entitled to still have a minimum income. I am penalised through an unfair system. I assume you're able to claim UC top up? We may have had this conversation before but I can't remember. No. I would only get top up if I qualified for capability for work. They say you're capable of working more hours? That's my theory. I do too many as it is. My days off aren't days off, they are recovery days (everything is affected, hearing, speech,cognition, balance, CNS, pain are a few of the issues)." In imo I would say speak to CAB as they are funded to look into cases such as yours that is if you haven't already, I think there is no point in seeking support through the benefit system, as they have a saying what is the first rule of fight club? In other words if a claimant has no or limited knowledge of the benefits system, it is not the systems responsibility to tell you about it. Hence why it is good to use an alternative system, to claim benefits. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Right now we have the highest proportion of working people claiming benefits, these people are getting up and going out to work, but they still claim benefits. Who pays for this? not employers but you. Later this year we will see people from the middle class begin to lose their homes as rates of mortgages go up, and they will enter the benefits system. Who pays for this, yes you will. If anything it is time to address this and balance out the injustices that are made against people who have been trapped in this man made rut. This is an election year, and for me no matter who I vote for I will not be affected until they attack my tax bracket, will will be never, I take no joy in this as my cash goes to help the needy as I always have. And until we as a collective say no enough is enough they will continue to look after the minority whilst the majority suffer." What are we calling benefits here ? Are we including pensions ? And child benefit? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The welfare system in most of Europe is under threat because of one reason - Ageing population. A problem that Japan has been tackling with for year now. For a welfare system to work, we need a good ratio of number of people doing the work, contributing to taxes against number of people taking out of the system. Ageing population means this ratio is getting lower and lower. This is why France recently pushed to increase retirement age limit. One way or another, sacrifices have to be made because it's harder to sustain the population at its current state. The question is who is going to be sacrificed? Should we cut the welfare of old people to keep the younger people happy? Or should we do the opposite? I agree with your statements albeit would challenge the emotional question at the end. The state pension is a social contract. The current pensioners have (unwittingly somewhat) drawn up an unfair contract. The burden they were asked to pay when they were young was less than what they are asking of young people today. Workers to pensioners ratio has dropped loads. And I believe the time on state retirement has gone up a fair amount too. The working generation today has concerns that it is being asked to fund a generous promise today to keep pensioners "happy" who have benefited from the lop sided social contract, and then will see the contract torn up before they become a pensioner (I for one am making private provisions assuming no state pension until I'm 80). The whole contract (plus social care) needs a really hard conversation about. It's been ignored for about 20 years too long now. And is a way bigger issue than Brexit or immigration (although immigration is a factor in this especially given reducing worker ratios despite immigration peaks) " If I understand correctly, you didn't contradict what I said. You pointed out that we overpromised the older generation of today and probably they are the ones who have to make some sacrifices. I kind of agree with it. It's hard to predict what happens 5 years in the future, let alone decades. When the welfare system was built at that time, no one probably considered the idea that birth rates would drop like this. But we now know that we overpromised and we cannot deliver that promise without screwing up the younger generation. Immigration has been tried as a solution. But the returns you get out of immigration is probably going down slowly due to the pressure on housing. So yes. As you said, it's time to have a hard conversation about this topic. Sacrifices have to be made, at least temporarily. We should just hope that automation can take over lot of work soon. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Right now we have the highest proportion of working people claiming benefits, these people are getting up and going out to work, but they still claim benefits. Who pays for this? not employers but you. Later this year we will see people from the middle class begin to lose their homes as rates of mortgages go up, and they will enter the benefits system. Who pays for this, yes you will. If anything it is time to address this and balance out the injustices that are made against people who have been trapped in this man made rut. This is an election year, and for me no matter who I vote for I will not be affected until they attack my tax bracket, will will be never, I take no joy in this as my cash goes to help the needy as I always have. And until we as a collective say no enough is enough they will continue to look after the minority whilst the majority suffer. What are we calling benefits here ? Are we including pensions ? And child benefit? " Not in my view. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The welfare system in most of Europe is under threat because of one reason - Ageing population. A problem that Japan has been tackling with for year now. For a welfare system to work, we need a good ratio of number of people doing the work, contributing to taxes against number of people taking out of the system. Ageing population means this ratio is getting lower and lower. This is why France recently pushed to increase retirement age limit. One way or another, sacrifices have to be made because it's harder to sustain the population at its current state. The question is who is going to be sacrificed? Should we cut the welfare of old people to keep the younger people happy? Or should we do the opposite? I agree with your statements albeit would challenge the emotional question at the end. The state pension is a social contract. The current pensioners have (unwittingly somewhat) drawn up an unfair contract. The burden they were asked to pay when they were young was less than what they are asking of young people today. Workers to pensioners ratio has dropped loads. And I believe the time on state retirement has gone up a fair amount too. The working generation today has concerns that it is being asked to fund a generous promise today to keep pensioners "happy" who have benefited from the lop sided social contract, and then will see the contract torn up before they become a pensioner (I for one am making private provisions assuming no state pension until I'm 80). The whole contract (plus social care) needs a really hard conversation about. It's been ignored for about 20 years too long now. And is a way bigger issue than Brexit or immigration (although immigration is a factor in this especially given reducing worker ratios despite immigration peaks) If I understand correctly, you didn't contradict what I said. You pointed out that we overpromised the older generation of today and probably they are the ones who have to make some sacrifices. I kind of agree with it. It's hard to predict what happens 5 years in the future, let alone decades. When the welfare system was built at that time, no one probably considered the idea that birth rates would drop like this. But we now know that we overpromised and we cannot deliver that promise without screwing up the younger generation. Immigration has been tried as a solution. But the returns you get out of immigration is probably going down slowly due to the pressure on housing. So yes. As you said, it's time to have a hard conversation about this topic. Sacrifices have to be made, at least temporarily. We should just hope that automation can take over lot of work soon. " sorry, I missed the "do opposite bit and read it as shouting at the yoof. My bad. I take back the emotional bit! I have no trust automation will make things better. Although that may depend on what better means. Automation has allowed us to work outside of the farms and the mills... But we are still working. And I bet people.tjought computers and emails would make life easier.... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The welfare system in most of Europe is under threat because of one reason - Ageing population. A problem that Japan has been tackling with for year now. For a welfare system to work, we need a good ratio of number of people doing the work, contributing to taxes against number of people taking out of the system. Ageing population means this ratio is getting lower and lower. This is why France recently pushed to increase retirement age limit. One way or another, sacrifices have to be made because it's harder to sustain the population at its current state. The question is who is going to be sacrificed? Should we cut the welfare of old people to keep the younger people happy? Or should we do the opposite? I agree with your statements albeit would challenge the emotional question at the end. The state pension is a social contract. The current pensioners have (unwittingly somewhat) drawn up an unfair contract. The burden they were asked to pay when they were young was less than what they are asking of young people today. Workers to pensioners ratio has dropped loads. And I believe the time on state retirement has gone up a fair amount too. The working generation today has concerns that it is being asked to fund a generous promise today to keep pensioners "happy" who have benefited from the lop sided social contract, and then will see the contract torn up before they become a pensioner (I for one am making private provisions assuming no state pension until I'm 80). The whole contract (plus social care) needs a really hard conversation about. It's been ignored for about 20 years too long now. And is a way bigger issue than Brexit or immigration (although immigration is a factor in this especially given reducing worker ratios despite immigration peaks) If I understand correctly, you didn't contradict what I said. You pointed out that we overpromised the older generation of today and probably they are the ones who have to make some sacrifices. I kind of agree with it. It's hard to predict what happens 5 years in the future, let alone decades. When the welfare system was built at that time, no one probably considered the idea that birth rates would drop like this. But we now know that we overpromised and we cannot deliver that promise without screwing up the younger generation. Immigration has been tried as a solution. But the returns you get out of immigration is probably going down slowly due to the pressure on housing. So yes. As you said, it's time to have a hard conversation about this topic. Sacrifices have to be made, at least temporarily. We should just hope that automation can take over lot of work soon. sorry, I missed the "do opposite bit and read it as shouting at the yoof. My bad. I take back the emotional bit! I have no trust automation will make things better. Although that may depend on what better means. Automation has allowed us to work outside of the farms and the mills... But we are still working. And I bet people.tjought computers and emails would make life easier...." I don't know about anyone else but when we have mentioned pensions, I get the thought of a pyramid scheme. And these schemes collapsed due to people at the bottom not paying enough to pay those at the top and the whole thing collapsed. just came to mind it means nothing | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The welfare system in most of Europe is under threat because of one reason - Ageing population. A problem that Japan has been tackling with for year now. For a welfare system to work, we need a good ratio of number of people doing the work, contributing to taxes against number of people taking out of the system. Ageing population means this ratio is getting lower and lower. This is why France recently pushed to increase retirement age limit. One way or another, sacrifices have to be made because it's harder to sustain the population at its current state. The question is who is going to be sacrificed? Should we cut the welfare of old people to keep the younger people happy? Or should we do the opposite? I agree with your statements albeit would challenge the emotional question at the end. The state pension is a social contract. The current pensioners have (unwittingly somewhat) drawn up an unfair contract. The burden they were asked to pay when they were young was less than what they are asking of young people today. Workers to pensioners ratio has dropped loads. And I believe the time on state retirement has gone up a fair amount too. The working generation today has concerns that it is being asked to fund a generous promise today to keep pensioners "happy" who have benefited from the lop sided social contract, and then will see the contract torn up before they become a pensioner (I for one am making private provisions assuming no state pension until I'm 80). The whole contract (plus social care) needs a really hard conversation about. It's been ignored for about 20 years too long now. And is a way bigger issue than Brexit or immigration (although immigration is a factor in this especially given reducing worker ratios despite immigration peaks) If I understand correctly, you didn't contradict what I said. You pointed out that we overpromised the older generation of today and probably they are the ones who have to make some sacrifices. I kind of agree with it. It's hard to predict what happens 5 years in the future, let alone decades. When the welfare system was built at that time, no one probably considered the idea that birth rates would drop like this. But we now know that we overpromised and we cannot deliver that promise without screwing up the younger generation. Immigration has been tried as a solution. But the returns you get out of immigration is probably going down slowly due to the pressure on housing. So yes. As you said, it's time to have a hard conversation about this topic. Sacrifices have to be made, at least temporarily. We should just hope that automation can take over lot of work soon. sorry, I missed the "do opposite bit and read it as shouting at the yoof. My bad. I take back the emotional bit! I have no trust automation will make things better. Although that may depend on what better means. Automation has allowed us to work outside of the farms and the mills... But we are still working. And I bet people.tjought computers and emails would make life easier.... I don't know about anyone else but when we have mentioned pensions, I get the thought of a pyramid scheme. And these schemes collapsed due to people at the bottom not paying enough to pay those at the top and the whole thing collapsed. just came to mind it means nothing " State pensions are similar to Ponzi schemes except for one key aspect = governments enjoy the powers of collecting tax revenues now and in future. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Right now we have the highest proportion of working people claiming benefits, these people are getting up and going out to work, but they still claim benefits. Who pays for this? not employers but you. Later this year we will see people from the middle class begin to lose their homes as rates of mortgages go up, and they will enter the benefits system. Who pays for this, yes you will. If anything it is time to address this and balance out the injustices that are made against people who have been trapped in this man made rut. This is an election year, and for me no matter who I vote for I will not be affected until they attack my tax bracket, will will be never, I take no joy in this as my cash goes to help the needy as I always have. And until we as a collective say no enough is enough they will continue to look after the minority whilst the majority suffer. What are we calling benefits here ? Are we including pensions ? And child benefit? " . I wouldn’t class pensions or child benefits as benefits. I would question though why Universal Credit pays you for your first two children but child benefit will pay you for all your children. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The welfare system in most of Europe is under threat because of one reason - Ageing population. A problem that Japan has been tackling with for year now. For a welfare system to work, we need a good ratio of number of people doing the work, contributing to taxes against number of people taking out of the system. Ageing population means this ratio is getting lower and lower. This is why France recently pushed to increase retirement age limit. One way or another, sacrifices have to be made because it's harder to sustain the population at its current state. The question is who is going to be sacrificed? Should we cut the welfare of old people to keep the younger people happy? Or should we do the opposite? I agree with your statements albeit would challenge the emotional question at the end. The state pension is a social contract. The current pensioners have (unwittingly somewhat) drawn up an unfair contract. The burden they were asked to pay when they were young was less than what they are asking of young people today. Workers to pensioners ratio has dropped loads. And I believe the time on state retirement has gone up a fair amount too. The working generation today has concerns that it is being asked to fund a generous promise today to keep pensioners "happy" who have benefited from the lop sided social contract, and then will see the contract torn up before they become a pensioner (I for one am making private provisions assuming no state pension until I'm 80). The whole contract (plus social care) needs a really hard conversation about. It's been ignored for about 20 years too long now. And is a way bigger issue than Brexit or immigration (although immigration is a factor in this especially given reducing worker ratios despite immigration peaks) If I understand correctly, you didn't contradict what I said. You pointed out that we overpromised the older generation of today and probably they are the ones who have to make some sacrifices. I kind of agree with it. It's hard to predict what happens 5 years in the future, let alone decades. When the welfare system was built at that time, no one probably considered the idea that birth rates would drop like this. But we now know that we overpromised and we cannot deliver that promise without screwing up the younger generation. Immigration has been tried as a solution. But the returns you get out of immigration is probably going down slowly due to the pressure on housing. So yes. As you said, it's time to have a hard conversation about this topic. Sacrifices have to be made, at least temporarily. We should just hope that automation can take over lot of work soon. sorry, I missed the "do opposite bit and read it as shouting at the yoof. My bad. I take back the emotional bit! I have no trust automation will make things better. Although that may depend on what better means. Automation has allowed us to work outside of the farms and the mills... But we are still working. And I bet people.tjought computers and emails would make life easier.... I don't know about anyone else but when we have mentioned pensions, I get the thought of a pyramid scheme. And these schemes collapsed due to people at the bottom not paying enough to pay those at the top and the whole thing collapsed. just came to mind it means nothing State pensions are similar to Ponzi schemes except for one key aspect = governments enjoy the powers of collecting tax revenues now and in future."  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
. They're toast, at least he is. It's unforgivable to hoist distress on to some of the most vulnerable people in society, who have been struggling because of conservative policies. I noticed there's little mention of having come through a badly managed - by them- pandemic and the the impaired health outcomes that they have caused | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The welfare system in most of Europe is under threat because of one reason - Ageing population. A problem that Japan has been tackling with for year now. For a welfare system to work, we need a good ratio of number of people doing the work, contributing to taxes against number of people taking out of the system. Ageing population means this ratio is getting lower and lower. This is why France recently pushed to increase retirement age limit. One way or another, sacrifices have to be made because it's harder to sustain the population at its current state. The question is who is going to be sacrificed? Should we cut the welfare of old people to keep the younger people happy? Or should we do the opposite? I agree with your statements albeit would challenge the emotional question at the end. The state pension is a social contract. The current pensioners have (unwittingly somewhat) drawn up an unfair contract. The burden they were asked to pay when they were young was less than what they are asking of young people today. Workers to pensioners ratio has dropped loads. And I believe the time on state retirement has gone up a fair amount too. The working generation today has concerns that it is being asked to fund a generous promise today to keep pensioners "happy" who have benefited from the lop sided social contract, and then will see the contract torn up before they become a pensioner (I for one am making private provisions assuming no state pension until I'm 80). The whole contract (plus social care) needs a really hard conversation about. It's been ignored for about 20 years too long now. And is a way bigger issue than Brexit or immigration (although immigration is a factor in this especially given reducing worker ratios despite immigration peaks) If I understand correctly, you didn't contradict what I said. You pointed out that we overpromised the older generation of today and probably they are the ones who have to make some sacrifices. I kind of agree with it. It's hard to predict what happens 5 years in the future, let alone decades. When the welfare system was built at that time, no one probably considered the idea that birth rates would drop like this. But we now know that we overpromised and we cannot deliver that promise without screwing up the younger generation. Immigration has been tried as a solution. But the returns you get out of immigration is probably going down slowly due to the pressure on housing. So yes. As you said, it's time to have a hard conversation about this topic. Sacrifices have to be made, at least temporarily. We should just hope that automation can take over lot of work soon. sorry, I missed the "do opposite bit and read it as shouting at the yoof. My bad. I take back the emotional bit! I have no trust automation will make things better. Although that may depend on what better means. Automation has allowed us to work outside of the farms and the mills... But we are still working. And I bet people.tjought computers and emails would make life easier.... I don't know about anyone else but when we have mentioned pensions, I get the thought of a pyramid scheme. And these schemes collapsed due to people at the bottom not paying enough to pay those at the top and the whole thing collapsed. just came to mind it means nothing State pensions are similar to Ponzi schemes except for one key aspect = governments enjoy the powers of collecting tax revenues now and in future." they also can tweak the rules. Like when we take it and how much it is. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The welfare system in most of Europe is under threat because of one reason - Ageing population. A problem that Japan has been tackling with for year now. For a welfare system to work, we need a good ratio of number of people doing the work, contributing to taxes against number of people taking out of the system. Ageing population means this ratio is getting lower and lower. This is why France recently pushed to increase retirement age limit. One way or another, sacrifices have to be made because it's harder to sustain the population at its current state. The question is who is going to be sacrificed? Should we cut the welfare of old people to keep the younger people happy? Or should we do the opposite? I agree with your statements albeit would challenge the emotional question at the end. The state pension is a social contract. The current pensioners have (unwittingly somewhat) drawn up an unfair contract. The burden they were asked to pay when they were young was less than what they are asking of young people today. Workers to pensioners ratio has dropped loads. And I believe the time on state retirement has gone up a fair amount too. The working generation today has concerns that it is being asked to fund a generous promise today to keep pensioners "happy" who have benefited from the lop sided social contract, and then will see the contract torn up before they become a pensioner (I for one am making private provisions assuming no state pension until I'm 80). The whole contract (plus social care) needs a really hard conversation about. It's been ignored for about 20 years too long now. And is a way bigger issue than Brexit or immigration (although immigration is a factor in this especially given reducing worker ratios despite immigration peaks) If I understand correctly, you didn't contradict what I said. You pointed out that we overpromised the older generation of today and probably they are the ones who have to make some sacrifices. I kind of agree with it. It's hard to predict what happens 5 years in the future, let alone decades. When the welfare system was built at that time, no one probably considered the idea that birth rates would drop like this. But we now know that we overpromised and we cannot deliver that promise without screwing up the younger generation. Immigration has been tried as a solution. But the returns you get out of immigration is probably going down slowly due to the pressure on housing. So yes. As you said, it's time to have a hard conversation about this topic. Sacrifices have to be made, at least temporarily. We should just hope that automation can take over lot of work soon. sorry, I missed the "do opposite bit and read it as shouting at the yoof. My bad. I take back the emotional bit! I have no trust automation will make things better. Although that may depend on what better means. Automation has allowed us to work outside of the farms and the mills... But we are still working. And I bet people.tjought computers and emails would make life easier.... I don't know about anyone else but when we have mentioned pensions, I get the thought of a pyramid scheme. And these schemes collapsed due to people at the bottom not paying enough to pay those at the top and the whole thing collapsed. just came to mind it means nothing State pensions are similar to Ponzi schemes except for one key aspect = governments enjoy the powers of collecting tax revenues now and in future.they also can tweak the rules. Like when we take it and how much it is. " If it's a ponzi type scheme (which I agree it probably is) then won't we need unlimited numbers of people eventually. Bringing in new people works in the short term but surely even they will grow old and be entitled to a pension of there own one day | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The welfare system in most of Europe is under threat because of one reason - Ageing population. A problem that Japan has been tackling with for year now. For a welfare system to work, we need a good ratio of number of people doing the work, contributing to taxes against number of people taking out of the system. Ageing population means this ratio is getting lower and lower. This is why France recently pushed to increase retirement age limit. One way or another, sacrifices have to be made because it's harder to sustain the population at its current state. The question is who is going to be sacrificed? Should we cut the welfare of old people to keep the younger people happy? Or should we do the opposite? I agree with your statements albeit would challenge the emotional question at the end. The state pension is a social contract. The current pensioners have (unwittingly somewhat) drawn up an unfair contract. The burden they were asked to pay when they were young was less than what they are asking of young people today. Workers to pensioners ratio has dropped loads. And I believe the time on state retirement has gone up a fair amount too. The working generation today has concerns that it is being asked to fund a generous promise today to keep pensioners "happy" who have benefited from the lop sided social contract, and then will see the contract torn up before they become a pensioner (I for one am making private provisions assuming no state pension until I'm 80). The whole contract (plus social care) needs a really hard conversation about. It's been ignored for about 20 years too long now. And is a way bigger issue than Brexit or immigration (although immigration is a factor in this especially given reducing worker ratios despite immigration peaks) If I understand correctly, you didn't contradict what I said. You pointed out that we overpromised the older generation of today and probably they are the ones who have to make some sacrifices. I kind of agree with it. It's hard to predict what happens 5 years in the future, let alone decades. When the welfare system was built at that time, no one probably considered the idea that birth rates would drop like this. But we now know that we overpromised and we cannot deliver that promise without screwing up the younger generation. Immigration has been tried as a solution. But the returns you get out of immigration is probably going down slowly due to the pressure on housing. So yes. As you said, it's time to have a hard conversation about this topic. Sacrifices have to be made, at least temporarily. We should just hope that automation can take over lot of work soon. sorry, I missed the "do opposite bit and read it as shouting at the yoof. My bad. I take back the emotional bit! I have no trust automation will make things better. Although that may depend on what better means. Automation has allowed us to work outside of the farms and the mills... But we are still working. And I bet people.tjought computers and emails would make life easier.... I don't know about anyone else but when we have mentioned pensions, I get the thought of a pyramid scheme. And these schemes collapsed due to people at the bottom not paying enough to pay those at the top and the whole thing collapsed. just came to mind it means nothing State pensions are similar to Ponzi schemes except for one key aspect = governments enjoy the powers of collecting tax revenues now and in future.they also can tweak the rules. Like when we take it and how much it is. If it's a ponzi type scheme (which I agree it probably is) then won't we need unlimited numbers of people eventually. Bringing in new people works in the short term but surely even they will grow old and be entitled to a pension of there own one day" all things being equal, no. Bit all things aren't equal. It's a complex contract. Part of that is less in control (eg longevity unless pension ages are based on paying the last 15 years say, rather than age 67). Part of it is, say birth replacement rate. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The welfare system in most of Europe is under threat because of one reason - Ageing population. A problem that Japan has been tackling with for year now. For a welfare system to work, we need a good ratio of number of people doing the work, contributing to taxes against number of people taking out of the system. Ageing population means this ratio is getting lower and lower. This is why France recently pushed to increase retirement age limit. One way or another, sacrifices have to be made because it's harder to sustain the population at its current state. The question is who is going to be sacrificed? Should we cut the welfare of old people to keep the younger people happy? Or should we do the opposite? I agree with your statements albeit would challenge the emotional question at the end. The state pension is a social contract. The current pensioners have (unwittingly somewhat) drawn up an unfair contract. The burden they were asked to pay when they were young was less than what they are asking of young people today. Workers to pensioners ratio has dropped loads. And I believe the time on state retirement has gone up a fair amount too. The working generation today has concerns that it is being asked to fund a generous promise today to keep pensioners "happy" who have benefited from the lop sided social contract, and then will see the contract torn up before they become a pensioner (I for one am making private provisions assuming no state pension until I'm 80). The whole contract (plus social care) needs a really hard conversation about. It's been ignored for about 20 years too long now. And is a way bigger issue than Brexit or immigration (although immigration is a factor in this especially given reducing worker ratios despite immigration peaks) If I understand correctly, you didn't contradict what I said. You pointed out that we overpromised the older generation of today and probably they are the ones who have to make some sacrifices. I kind of agree with it. It's hard to predict what happens 5 years in the future, let alone decades. When the welfare system was built at that time, no one probably considered the idea that birth rates would drop like this. But we now know that we overpromised and we cannot deliver that promise without screwing up the younger generation. Immigration has been tried as a solution. But the returns you get out of immigration is probably going down slowly due to the pressure on housing. So yes. As you said, it's time to have a hard conversation about this topic. Sacrifices have to be made, at least temporarily. We should just hope that automation can take over lot of work soon. sorry, I missed the "do opposite bit and read it as shouting at the yoof. My bad. I take back the emotional bit! I have no trust automation will make things better. Although that may depend on what better means. Automation has allowed us to work outside of the farms and the mills... But we are still working. And I bet people.tjought computers and emails would make life easier.... I don't know about anyone else but when we have mentioned pensions, I get the thought of a pyramid scheme. And these schemes collapsed due to people at the bottom not paying enough to pay those at the top and the whole thing collapsed. just came to mind it means nothing State pensions are similar to Ponzi schemes except for one key aspect = governments enjoy the powers of collecting tax revenues now and in future.they also can tweak the rules. Like when we take it and how much it is. If it's a ponzi type scheme (which I agree it probably is) then won't we need unlimited numbers of people eventually. Bringing in new people works in the short term but surely even they will grow old and be entitled to a pension of there own one dayall things being equal, no. Bit all things aren't equal. It's a complex contract. Part of that is less in control (eg longevity unless pension ages are based on paying the last 15 years say, rather than age 67). Part of it is, say birth replacement rate. " Not enough tax paying (young people) workers. Retired (old) people living too long compared to the past. Increase the indigenous birthrate or encourage immigration to keep the ponzi/pyramid going. Economy needs enough jobs for all these extra workers needed to collect enough tax. Or keep increasing retirement age (though that locks up some of the job market stopping young people joining). Or if you are into conspiracies, undertake a cull of economically inactive old people to reduce welfare (and healthcare bill). Even if a total coincidence, it is rather handy* All rather difficult a circle to square I would say! *not saying that is what *I* believe but it is what some people believe. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The welfare system in most of Europe is under threat because of one reason - Ageing population. A problem that Japan has been tackling with for year now. For a welfare system to work, we need a good ratio of number of people doing the work, contributing to taxes against number of people taking out of the system. Ageing population means this ratio is getting lower and lower. This is why France recently pushed to increase retirement age limit. One way or another, sacrifices have to be made because it's harder to sustain the population at its current state. The question is who is going to be sacrificed? Should we cut the welfare of old people to keep the younger people happy? Or should we do the opposite? I agree with your statements albeit would challenge the emotional question at the end. The state pension is a social contract. The current pensioners have (unwittingly somewhat) drawn up an unfair contract. The burden they were asked to pay when they were young was less than what they are asking of young people today. Workers to pensioners ratio has dropped loads. And I believe the time on state retirement has gone up a fair amount too. The working generation today has concerns that it is being asked to fund a generous promise today to keep pensioners "happy" who have benefited from the lop sided social contract, and then will see the contract torn up before they become a pensioner (I for one am making private provisions assuming no state pension until I'm 80). The whole contract (plus social care) needs a really hard conversation about. It's been ignored for about 20 years too long now. And is a way bigger issue than Brexit or immigration (although immigration is a factor in this especially given reducing worker ratios despite immigration peaks) If I understand correctly, you didn't contradict what I said. You pointed out that we overpromised the older generation of today and probably they are the ones who have to make some sacrifices. I kind of agree with it. It's hard to predict what happens 5 years in the future, let alone decades. When the welfare system was built at that time, no one probably considered the idea that birth rates would drop like this. But we now know that we overpromised and we cannot deliver that promise without screwing up the younger generation. Immigration has been tried as a solution. But the returns you get out of immigration is probably going down slowly due to the pressure on housing. So yes. As you said, it's time to have a hard conversation about this topic. Sacrifices have to be made, at least temporarily. We should just hope that automation can take over lot of work soon. sorry, I missed the "do opposite bit and read it as shouting at the yoof. My bad. I take back the emotional bit! I have no trust automation will make things better. Although that may depend on what better means. Automation has allowed us to work outside of the farms and the mills... But we are still working. And I bet people.tjought computers and emails would make life easier.... I don't know about anyone else but when we have mentioned pensions, I get the thought of a pyramid scheme. And these schemes collapsed due to people at the bottom not paying enough to pay those at the top and the whole thing collapsed. just came to mind it means nothing State pensions are similar to Ponzi schemes except for one key aspect = governments enjoy the powers of collecting tax revenues now and in future.they also can tweak the rules. Like when we take it and how much it is. If it's a ponzi type scheme (which I agree it probably is) then won't we need unlimited numbers of people eventually. Bringing in new people works in the short term but surely even they will grow old and be entitled to a pension of there own one dayall things being equal, no. Bit all things aren't equal. It's a complex contract. Part of that is less in control (eg longevity unless pension ages are based on paying the last 15 years say, rather than age 67). Part of it is, say birth replacement rate. Not enough tax paying (young people) workers. Retired (old) people living too long compared to the past. Increase the indigenous birthrate or encourage immigration to keep the ponzi/pyramid going. Economy needs enough jobs for all these extra workers needed to collect enough tax. Or keep increasing retirement age (though that locks up some of the job market stopping young people joining). Or if you are into conspiracies, undertake a cull of economically inactive old people to reduce welfare (and healthcare bill). Even if a total coincidence, it is rather handy* All rather difficult a circle to square I would say! *not saying that is what *I* believe but it is what some people believe. " Half a life, s4 ep 22 of Star Trek tng looks at the issue that you speak of. so not a conspiracy imv as it has been looked at by many si - fi programmes. I think this is something up for debate, but the problem is I was young when I first saw this episode and as I get older I tend to disagree, so is that theory for the young to debate or our elders as I think both would have different views. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The welfare system in most of Europe is under threat because of one reason - Ageing population. A problem that Japan has been tackling with for year now. For a welfare system to work, we need a good ratio of number of people doing the work, contributing to taxes against number of people taking out of the system. Ageing population means this ratio is getting lower and lower. This is why France recently pushed to increase retirement age limit. One way or another, sacrifices have to be made because it's harder to sustain the population at its current state. The question is who is going to be sacrificed? Should we cut the welfare of old people to keep the younger people happy? Or should we do the opposite? I agree with your statements albeit would challenge the emotional question at the end. The state pension is a social contract. The current pensioners have (unwittingly somewhat) drawn up an unfair contract. The burden they were asked to pay when they were young was less than what they are asking of young people today. Workers to pensioners ratio has dropped loads. And I believe the time on state retirement has gone up a fair amount too. The working generation today has concerns that it is being asked to fund a generous promise today to keep pensioners "happy" who have benefited from the lop sided social contract, and then will see the contract torn up before they become a pensioner (I for one am making private provisions assuming no state pension until I'm 80). The whole contract (plus social care) needs a really hard conversation about. It's been ignored for about 20 years too long now. And is a way bigger issue than Brexit or immigration (although immigration is a factor in this especially given reducing worker ratios despite immigration peaks) If I understand correctly, you didn't contradict what I said. You pointed out that we overpromised the older generation of today and probably they are the ones who have to make some sacrifices. I kind of agree with it. It's hard to predict what happens 5 years in the future, let alone decades. When the welfare system was built at that time, no one probably considered the idea that birth rates would drop like this. But we now know that we overpromised and we cannot deliver that promise without screwing up the younger generation. Immigration has been tried as a solution. But the returns you get out of immigration is probably going down slowly due to the pressure on housing. So yes. As you said, it's time to have a hard conversation about this topic. Sacrifices have to be made, at least temporarily. We should just hope that automation can take over lot of work soon. sorry, I missed the "do opposite bit and read it as shouting at the yoof. My bad. I take back the emotional bit! I have no trust automation will make things better. Although that may depend on what better means. Automation has allowed us to work outside of the farms and the mills... But we are still working. And I bet people.tjought computers and emails would make life easier...." Yes it looks like it. But we need to look at how much population has grown during that time. For decades before 2000, we were all worrying about how population growth is going to result in starvation and whole population will be doomed, with people having to fight each other for limited resources. Yet here we are. In the past few decades, % of people suffering from starvation all over the world has declined Massively. We have mobile phones and good transport for a vast majority of human population in spite of human population increasing by over a billion.It all happened because of the automation we have done so far. Because machines can do lot of farming work, people were able to something else and be more productive. Without automation and technology, those doomsday predictions would actually have come true. So I personally believe more automation is the solution. Japan has been heavily investing in robotics for the same reason. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Control public spending? Outrageous! The UK is blessed with a magic money tree so there's absolutely no need." Seemed to be a magic money tree when Sunak and co were handing out money during covid via the VIP lanes, mate he should go after these people rather than society's poorest? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Or if you are into conspiracies, undertake a cull of economically inactive old people to reduce welfare (and healthcare bill). Even if a total coincidence, it is rather handy* " My own conspiracy theory - Covid was an attempt by some government to create a virus that does exactly this 
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Or if you are into conspiracies, undertake a cull of economically inactive old people to reduce welfare (and healthcare bill). Even if a total coincidence, it is rather handy* My own conspiracy theory - Covid was an attempt by some government to create a virus that does exactly this
"Thankfully this post isn't in the virus forum otherwise people would be agreeing with you left, right and centre. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Or if you are into conspiracies, undertake a cull of economically inactive old people to reduce welfare (and healthcare bill). Even if a total coincidence, it is rather handy* My own conspiracy theory - Covid was an attempt by some government to create a virus that does exactly this
Thankfully this post isn't in the virus forum otherwise people would be agreeing with you left, right and centre." Funny I told this as a joke to my colleague and he thought for a while and said there is a good chance China did it because of that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He states three times as many people are signed off from work (compared to a decade ago) but (him being a doctor) doesn't believe there's three times the sickness level. Sounds like he's going to toughen up eligibility to certain benefits for new claimants. PIP is already tough to claim. Reduced capability is already tough to qualify (you only actually qualify if you have no capability for work ). The only way to make them tougher is to remove all eligibility "I would bet lots of over 60 are on benefits it's ok pushing up the pension age but can a bricklayer still work at 67. Lots of jobs are to physical for the old.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The welfare system in most of Europe is under threat because of one reason - Ageing population. A problem that Japan has been tackling with for year now. For a welfare system to work, we need a good ratio of number of people doing the work, contributing to taxes against number of people taking out of the system. Ageing population means this ratio is getting lower and lower. This is why France recently pushed to increase retirement age limit. One way or another, sacrifices have to be made because it's harder to sustain the population at its current state. The question is who is going to be sacrificed? Should we cut the welfare of old people to keep the younger people happy? Or should we do the opposite? I agree with your statements albeit would challenge the emotional question at the end. The state pension is a social contract. The current pensioners have (unwittingly somewhat) drawn up an unfair contract. The burden they were asked to pay when they were young was less than what they are asking of young people today. Workers to pensioners ratio has dropped loads. And I believe the time on state retirement has gone up a fair amount too. The working generation today has concerns that it is being asked to fund a generous promise today to keep pensioners "happy" who have benefited from the lop sided social contract, and then will see the contract torn up before they become a pensioner (I for one am making private provisions assuming no state pension until I'm 80). The whole contract (plus social care) needs a really hard conversation about. It's been ignored for about 20 years too long now. And is a way bigger issue than Brexit or immigration (although immigration is a factor in this especially given reducing worker ratios despite immigration peaks) " The other point on this is I'm 55 soon 56 and started work age 14 paying tax and NI age 15. So will be working and paying tax and NI for 52 years, if retirement is 67. If you don't start employment till after collage most now don't that's 3 years less. If you go to university that's 3/4 years less so posably only work for 46years. So generally less working age if more are in further education. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Covid proved its possible for a lot of jobs to be home based. IF they're home based its highly unlikely they'd be physically demanding." Examples of the jobs would be good I don't see the construction industry, or manufacturing working from home.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The welfare system in most of Europe is under threat because of one reason - Ageing population. A problem that Japan has been tackling with for year now. For a welfare system to work, we need a good ratio of number of people doing the work, contributing to taxes against number of people taking out of the system. Ageing population means this ratio is getting lower and lower. This is why France recently pushed to increase retirement age limit. One way or another, sacrifices have to be made because it's harder to sustain the population at its current state. The question is who is going to be sacrificed? Should we cut the welfare of old people to keep the younger people happy? Or should we do the opposite? I agree with your statements albeit would challenge the emotional question at the end. The state pension is a social contract. The current pensioners have (unwittingly somewhat) drawn up an unfair contract. The burden they were asked to pay when they were young was less than what they are asking of young people today. Workers to pensioners ratio has dropped loads. And I believe the time on state retirement has gone up a fair amount too. The working generation today has concerns that it is being asked to fund a generous promise today to keep pensioners "happy" who have benefited from the lop sided social contract, and then will see the contract torn up before they become a pensioner (I for one am making private provisions assuming no state pension until I'm 80). The whole contract (plus social care) needs a really hard conversation about. It's been ignored for about 20 years too long now. And is a way bigger issue than Brexit or immigration (although immigration is a factor in this especially given reducing worker ratios despite immigration peaks) If I understand correctly, you didn't contradict what I said. You pointed out that we overpromised the older generation of today and probably they are the ones who have to make some sacrifices. I kind of agree with it. It's hard to predict what happens 5 years in the future, let alone decades. When the welfare system was built at that time, no one probably considered the idea that birth rates would drop like this. But we now know that we overpromised and we cannot deliver that promise without screwing up the younger generation. Immigration has been tried as a solution. But the returns you get out of immigration is probably going down slowly due to the pressure on housing. So yes. As you said, it's time to have a hard conversation about this topic. Sacrifices have to be made, at least temporarily. We should just hope that automation can take over lot of work soon. sorry, I missed the "do opposite bit and read it as shouting at the yoof. My bad. I take back the emotional bit! I have no trust automation will make things better. Although that may depend on what better means. Automation has allowed us to work outside of the farms and the mills... But we are still working. And I bet people.tjought computers and emails would make life easier.... I don't know about anyone else but when we have mentioned pensions, I get the thought of a pyramid scheme. And these schemes collapsed due to people at the bottom not paying enough to pay those at the top and the whole thing collapsed. just came to mind it means nothing State pensions are similar to Ponzi schemes except for one key aspect = governments enjoy the powers of collecting tax revenues now and in future.they also can tweak the rules. Like when we take it and how much it is. If it's a ponzi type scheme (which I agree it probably is) then won't we need unlimited numbers of people eventually. Bringing in new people works in the short term but surely even they will grow old and be entitled to a pension of there own one dayall things being equal, no. Bit all things aren't equal. It's a complex contract. Part of that is less in control (eg longevity unless pension ages are based on paying the last 15 years say, rather than age 67). Part of it is, say birth replacement rate. Not enough tax paying (young people) workers. Retired (old) people living too long compared to the past. Increase the indigenous birthrate or encourage immigration to keep the ponzi/pyramid going. Economy needs enough jobs for all these extra workers needed to collect enough tax. Or keep increasing retirement age (though that locks up some of the job market stopping young people joining). Or if you are into conspiracies, undertake a cull of economically inactive old people to reduce welfare (and healthcare bill). Or bring in assisted suicide for the terminally I'll so they can get out when they want without being a drain on resources. Even if a total coincidence, it is rather handy* All rather difficult a circle to square I would say! *not saying that is what *I* believe but it is what some people believe. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The welfare system in most of Europe is under threat because of one reason - Ageing population. A problem that Japan has been tackling with for year now. For a welfare system to work, we need a good ratio of number of people doing the work, contributing to taxes against number of people taking out of the system. Ageing population means this ratio is getting lower and lower. This is why France recently pushed to increase retirement age limit. One way or another, sacrifices have to be made because it's harder to sustain the population at its current state. The question is who is going to be sacrificed? Should we cut the welfare of old people to keep the younger people happy? Or should we do the opposite? I agree with your statements albeit would challenge the emotional question at the end. The state pension is a social contract. The current pensioners have (unwittingly somewhat) drawn up an unfair contract. The burden they were asked to pay when they were young was less than what they are asking of young people today. Workers to pensioners ratio has dropped loads. And I believe the time on state retirement has gone up a fair amount too. The working generation today has concerns that it is being asked to fund a generous promise today to keep pensioners "happy" who have benefited from the lop sided social contract, and then will see the contract torn up before they become a pensioner (I for one am making private provisions assuming no state pension until I'm 80). The whole contract (plus social care) needs a really hard conversation about. It's been ignored for about 20 years too long now. And is a way bigger issue than Brexit or immigration (although immigration is a factor in this especially given reducing worker ratios despite immigration peaks) " I completely agree with what you have put and to make things worse the people that save for a private pension instead of spending thst money now, I bet will be penalised later by not bring eligible for a state pension. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Covid proved its possible for a lot of jobs to be home based. IF they're home based its highly unlikely they'd be physically demanding." Not all disabilities are physical. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He states three times as many people are signed off from work (compared to a decade ago) but (him being a doctor) doesn't believe there's three times the sickness level. Sounds like he's going to toughen up eligibility to certain benefits for new claimants. PIP is already tough to claim. Reduced capability is already tough to qualify (you only actually qualify if you have no capability for work ). The only way to make them tougher is to remove all eligibility . I feel one of the reasons there is 3 times as many people signed of work than a decade ago is illness like depression and mental health were not as common as they are now and perhaps a lot of GP’s are scared of getting it wrong and so just give the patient a fit note.The patient then claim’s Universal Credit and gets a help with their rent as well as any other entitlements. I think that depression and mental health can be hard to diagnose but at the same time can be easy to feign as how do you interview someone like that to establish if genuine or a con."Do you think there might be a reason there are more people with depression and mental health problems than there were a decade ago? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Control public spending? Outrageous! The UK is blessed with a magic money tree so there's absolutely no need." Trouble is that it’s only the very rich who have access to it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He states three times as many people are signed off from work (compared to a decade ago) but (him being a doctor) doesn't believe there's three times the sickness level. Sounds like he's going to toughen up eligibility to certain benefits for new claimants. PIP is already tough to claim. Reduced capability is already tough to qualify (you only actually qualify if you have no capability for work ). The only way to make them tougher is to remove all eligibility . I feel one of the reasons there is 3 times as many people signed of work than a decade ago is illness like depression and mental health were not as common as they are now and perhaps a lot of GP’s are scared of getting it wrong and so just give the patient a fit note.The patient then claim’s Universal Credit and gets a help with their rent as well as any other entitlements. I think that depression and mental health can be hard to diagnose but at the same time can be easy to feign as how do you interview someone like that to establish if genuine or a con.
Do you think there might be a reason there are more people with depression and mental health problems than there were a decade ago?". One reason that sticks out very quickly to me is lockdown and everything that went with it. I also think people , employers are more aware and try to be more understanding but as I said I personally feel it can be hard to diagnose and there can be open to abuse in the work place and benefits. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He states three times as many people are signed off from work (compared to a decade ago) but (him being a doctor) doesn't believe there's three times the sickness level. Sounds like he's going to toughen up eligibility to certain benefits for new claimants. PIP is already tough to claim. Reduced capability is already tough to qualify (you only actually qualify if you have no capability for work ). The only way to make them tougher is to remove all eligibility
I would bet lots of over 60 are on benefits it's ok pushing up the pension age but can a bricklayer still work at 67. Lots of jobs are to physical for the old.."Bloody slackers! Benefit scroungers! They need to retrain and get themselves other jobs once they have knackered their body doing manual labour! P.S. The State Pension is a benefit and is the single largest cost in the Welfare budget each year. Pensioners are all benefit claimants | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do you think there might be a reason there are more people with depression and mental health problems than there were a decade ago?" It seems to me that there aren't more people with depression and mental health problems, it's just that we've become more likely to talk about them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He states three times as many people are signed off from work (compared to a decade ago) but (him being a doctor) doesn't believe there's three times the sickness level. Sounds like he's going to toughen up eligibility to certain benefits for new claimants. PIP is already tough to claim. Reduced capability is already tough to qualify (you only actually qualify if you have no capability for work ). The only way to make them tougher is to remove all eligibility . I feel one of the reasons there is 3 times as many people signed of work than a decade ago is illness like depression and mental health were not as common as they are now and perhaps a lot of GP’s are scared of getting it wrong and so just give the patient a fit note.The patient then claim’s Universal Credit and gets a help with their rent as well as any other entitlements. I think that depression and mental health can be hard to diagnose but at the same time can be easy to feign as how do you interview someone like that to establish if genuine or a con.
Do you think there might be a reason there are more people with depression and mental health problems than there were a decade ago?. One reason that sticks out very quickly to me is lockdown and everything that went with it. I also think people , employers are more aware and try to be more understanding but as I said I personally feel it can be hard to diagnose and there can be open to abuse in the work place and benefits. "So you don’t think that more than a decade of austerity policies that have made people considerably poorer have had some effect? Or that it is so much more difficult to get a GP appointment, or that mental health services are massively underfunded? Or maybe that social care etc. funding has been slashed? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He states three times as many people are signed off from work (compared to a decade ago) but (him being a doctor) doesn't believe there's three times the sickness level. Sounds like he's going to toughen up eligibility to certain benefits for new claimants. PIP is already tough to claim. Reduced capability is already tough to qualify (you only actually qualify if you have no capability for work ). The only way to make them tougher is to remove all eligibility . I feel one of the reasons there is 3 times as many people signed of work than a decade ago is illness like depression and mental health were not as common as they are now and perhaps a lot of GP’s are scared of getting it wrong and so just give the patient a fit note.The patient then claim’s Universal Credit and gets a help with their rent as well as any other entitlements. I think that depression and mental health can be hard to diagnose but at the same time can be easy to feign as how do you interview someone like that to establish if genuine or a con.
Do you think there might be a reason there are more people with depression and mental health problems than there were a decade ago?. One reason that sticks out very quickly to me is lockdown and everything that went with it. I also think people , employers are more aware and try to be more understanding but as I said I personally feel it can be hard to diagnose and there can be open to abuse in the work place and benefits.
So you don’t think that more than a decade of austerity policies that have made people considerably poorer have had some effect? Or that it is so much more difficult to get a GP appointment, or that mental health services are massively underfunded? Or maybe that social care etc. funding has been slashed?". Yes they are all valid reasons.Mental health is something that does need to be funded more as it’s the hard to diagnose. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He states three times as many people are signed off from work (compared to a decade ago) but (him being a doctor) doesn't believe there's three times the sickness level. Sounds like he's going to toughen up eligibility to certain benefits for new claimants. PIP is already tough to claim. Reduced capability is already tough to qualify (you only actually qualify if you have no capability for work ). The only way to make them tougher is to remove all eligibility . I feel one of the reasons there is 3 times as many people signed of work than a decade ago is illness like depression and mental health were not as common as they are now and perhaps a lot of GP’s are scared of getting it wrong and so just give the patient a fit note.The patient then claim’s Universal Credit and gets a help with their rent as well as any other entitlements. I think that depression and mental health can be hard to diagnose but at the same time can be easy to feign as how do you interview someone like that to establish if genuine or a con."I think there was as much, but it was not talked about as it had a stigma attached to it. Now we are trying to remove the stigma, and helping people with mental health issues. These numbers will go up, as people are going to the doctors more. Obviously, people will play the system, as it is free money. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Control public spending? Outrageous! The UK is blessed with a magic money tree so there's absolutely no need. Trouble is that it’s only the very rich who have access to it." There is probably less mental illness now then there was at the end of world war 2 but its much more open. Men especially are encouraged to talk about it. Women speak more openly about PMT, post natel and allsorts of other problems. Also social media adds to piar pressure, as dose a society of keeping up with the everyone else's. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is a project running to produce a new tank. So far it has run for six years cost £15 billion and has not yet produced a working tank. This doesn't seem to figure in spending cuts. Nor it seems does asking the question just why do we need a new tank? It's unlikely to feature in the defence of the UK" Which terrible tank project are you thinking of? The Challenger 3 project has been running since 2005, and it does have some working prototypes. The Ajax project (which isn't a tank but looks like one) had its contract awarded in 2010. There are prototypes available, but the army won't accept them as they are too dangerous to drive. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is a project running to produce a new tank. So far it has run for six years cost £15 billion and has not yet produced a working tank. This doesn't seem to figure in spending cuts. Nor it seems does asking the question just why do we need a new tank? It's unlikely to feature in the defence of the UK Which terrible tank project are you thinking of? The Challenger 3 project has been running since 2005, and it does have some working prototypes. The Ajax project (which isn't a tank but looks like one) had its contract awarded in 2010. There are prototypes available, but the army won't accept them as they are too dangerous to drive." Ajax project | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is a project running to produce a new tank. So far it has run for six years cost £15 billion and has not yet produced a working tank. This doesn't seem to figure in spending cuts. Nor it seems does asking the question just why do we need a new tank? It's unlikely to feature in the defence of the UK" "Which terrible tank project are you thinking of? The Challenger 3 project has been running since 2005, and it does have some working prototypes. The Ajax project (which isn't a tank but looks like one) had its contract awarded in 2010. There are prototypes available, but the army won't accept them as they are too dangerous to drive." "Ajax project " The Ajax is an Armored Reconnaissance Vehicle, basically something that you can send forward to scout out the land, with enough armour to defend those inside, and quick enough to run away if real trouble is spotted. If it sees something dangerous, that's when the tanks get sent in to sort it out. Ajax is a typical military project, inadequately specified, with plenty of changes as development went on. Now it has systems that don't work together, systems installed that are already obsolete, and the whole thing is so noisy that it can't be driven for more than 5 minutes, even with ear defenders. Sadly though it isn't a candidate for spending cuts, because the money has already been spent. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is a project running to produce a new tank. So far it has run for six years cost £15 billion and has not yet produced a working tank. This doesn't seem to figure in spending cuts. Nor it seems does asking the question just why do we need a new tank? It's unlikely to feature in the defence of the UK Which terrible tank project are you thinking of? The Challenger 3 project has been running since 2005, and it does have some working prototypes. The Ajax project (which isn't a tank but looks like one) had its contract awarded in 2010. There are prototypes available, but the army won't accept them as they are too dangerous to drive. Ajax project The Ajax is an Armored Reconnaissance Vehicle, basically something that you can send forward to scout out the land, with enough armour to defend those inside, and quick enough to run away if real trouble is spotted. If it sees something dangerous, that's when the tanks get sent in to sort it out. Ajax is a typical military project, inadequately specified, with plenty of changes as development went on. Now it has systems that don't work together, systems installed that are already obsolete, and the whole thing is so noisy that it can't be driven for more than 5 minutes, even with ear defenders. Sadly though it isn't a candidate for spending cuts, because the money has already been spent." They could cut our losses and not throw any further money at it. The point remains that these kind of projects would benefit from much greater scrutiny than welfare benefits | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is a project running to produce a new tank. So far it has run for six years cost £15 billion and has not yet produced a working tank. This doesn't seem to figure in spending cuts. Nor it seems does asking the question just why do we need a new tank? It's unlikely to feature in the defence of the UK Which terrible tank project are you thinking of? The Challenger 3 project has been running since 2005, and it does have some working prototypes. The Ajax project (which isn't a tank but looks like one) had its contract awarded in 2010. There are prototypes available, but the army won't accept them as they are too dangerous to drive. Ajax project The Ajax is an Armored Reconnaissance Vehicle, basically something that you can send forward to scout out the land, with enough armour to defend those inside, and quick enough to run away if real trouble is spotted. If it sees something dangerous, that's when the tanks get sent in to sort it out. Ajax is a typical military project, inadequately specified, with plenty of changes as development went on. Now it has systems that don't work together, systems installed that are already obsolete, and the whole thing is so noisy that it can't be driven for more than 5 minutes, even with ear defenders. Sadly though it isn't a candidate for spending cuts, because the money has already been spent. They could cut our losses and not throw any further money at it. The point remains that these kind of projects would benefit from much greater scrutiny than welfare benefits " With my tax £ being spent, I want scrutiny of the highest order on both…. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is a project running to produce a new tank. So far it has run for six years cost £15 billion and has not yet produced a working tank. This doesn't seem to figure in spending cuts. Nor it seems does asking the question just why do we need a new tank? It's unlikely to feature in the defence of the UK Which terrible tank project are you thinking of? The Challenger 3 project has been running since 2005, and it does have some working prototypes. The Ajax project (which isn't a tank but looks like one) had its contract awarded in 2010. There are prototypes available, but the army won't accept them as they are too dangerous to drive. Ajax project The Ajax is an Armored Reconnaissance Vehicle, basically something that you can send forward to scout out the land, with enough armour to defend those inside, and quick enough to run away if real trouble is spotted. If it sees something dangerous, that's when the tanks get sent in to sort it out. Ajax is a typical military project, inadequately specified, with plenty of changes as development went on. Now it has systems that don't work together, systems installed that are already obsolete, and the whole thing is so noisy that it can't be driven for more than 5 minutes, even with ear defenders. Sadly though it isn't a candidate for spending cuts, because the money has already been spent. They could cut our losses and not throw any further money at it. The point remains that these kind of projects would benefit from much greater scrutiny than welfare benefits With my tax £ being spent, I want scrutiny of the highest order on both…. " There would appear to be a lack of scrutiny on one of these. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sadly though it isn't a candidate for spending cuts, because the money has already been spent." "They could cut our losses and not throw any further money at it." At this point, the government is no longer paying. General Dynamics (the supplier) is shouldering all the costs, and is desperately trying to cut corners in every area. The government could just drop it, but then they'd have to face the "£15BN WASTED" headlines, which won't look good in an election year. It'll get cancelled by Labour if they get in, because they can turn it into an 'incompetent Tories' story. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sadly though it isn't a candidate for spending cuts, because the money has already been spent. They could cut our losses and not throw any further money at it. At this point, the government is no longer paying. General Dynamics (the supplier) is shouldering all the costs, and is desperately trying to cut corners in every area. The government could just drop it, but then they'd have to face the "£15BN WASTED" headlines, which won't look good in an election year. It'll get cancelled by Labour if they get in, because they can turn it into an 'incompetent Tories' story." I see your point | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
