If you are in the U K here is your best bet

^^^ Paddy O'Tool the Betfair fool! ^^^

Come on boy!

How many wars is enough
One love - Bob

telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/09/17/tesco-clubcard-data-to-warn-shoppers-unhealthy-food-habits/
Use the data better - restrict - fine or ban
Make England healthy again
World leader status

day after day ...more lies more b s from starmer

Keir Starmer’s broken promises are a real problem. More of a problem than his strategists will be telling him, I suspect. A problem for his chances of election, a problem for the country.

In 2020, when Starmer ran to replace Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour party, he framed himself as the natural heir, a friend of Jezza who had worked closely with him in the shadow cabinet.

“My promise to you,” he said on his campaign website, “is that I will maintain our radical values and work tirelessly to get Labour in to power. Based on the moral case for socialism, here is where I stand.”

As long as the UK remains a welfare state, migrants will keep on coming in!

obviously they weren't getting 40 quid a week and a hotel room +bike +mobile +trainers for doing feck all in the country they came from.

Gamer_202218 Sep 24 19:37Joined: 01 Sep 24 | Topic/replies: 69 | Blogger: Gamer_2022's blog
As long as the UK remains a welfare state, migrants will keep on coming in!

Don't let the reality or any hard facts get in the way of your "thinking".

Around 55% of social security expenditure goes to pensioners; in 2024 to 2025 the UK will spend £167.6 billion on benefits for pensioners. This includes the State Pension which is forecast to be £140 billion in 2024 to 2025.

Of course, they will all say "but I paid in all my life" - probably true for a small minority but the vast majority in reality will have only paid in enough to cover a life expectancy massively short of the current average life expectancy. It's a Ponzi scheme.

Too many pensioners happy to sign-on for their benefits every week - but simultaneously happy to slag off and demean the people that are actually funding them.

The irony of a load of angry, hate filled old men moaning about how much immigration is costing "them".

The reality is that they want to continue being takers out of the system themselves - that's fair enough it's human nature - but how thick do you have to be that you simultaneously want to cut off the only likely source of your own funds in the future. You couldn't make it up, how thick some people are.

The state pension is classed as income for taxation purposes and is therefore not a benefit. The system is only a Ponzi scheme because successive governments have chosen to spend the money rather than invest it sensibly. Had the Atlee government called the deductions "tax" rather than "National Insurance" and not made any promises then people would have been well advised to make their own arrangements for old age. The same goes for our rationed national health service.

Approximately half of all pensioners receive the full state pension, which is not a 'small minority' and many more are only a few years short

To receive this they must have paid NI for a full 35 years or even longer if they were ever in SERPS... mine is actually 39 years.

Although taxable, the state pension alone is below the current threshold, so only additional income will be taxed, which again many have contributed towards and will continue paying back into the system until their deaths.

As 'men' were mentioned, the last I checked the average age was 78.6, meaning they get a state pension for 11.6 years... many die before 67, which could be lost entirely. In other words, back into the system.

I could go on and on, but to make a point, many pensioners are still very much playing their part.

It is a benefit. It is paid for via taxation. And it is by far the largest cost element of the UK Welfare State.

So the irony stands. All the angry, hate filled old men on here, moaning about the cost of immigration to "them"- and claiming that people only come here for the Welfare State - are in reality themselves part of the biggest drain on the Welfare State.

Aspro19 Sep 24 11:07Joined: 16 Dec 02 | Topic/replies: 24,891 | Blogger: Aspro's blog
To receive this they must have paid NI for a full 35 years

That's simply not true. Many years for many people are "credited" without a single shilling being paid in.

Additionally, you can "buy" a year or years for a paltry sum (relative to the massive return you will get on it).

The point I am making is where do all the middle-aged and ancient racists think their state pension is actually coming from?

OK, I'm currently on 38 years. The cheapest I can buy that extra year is £795.60, other years are over £800 to afford myself approximately £6 extra pw max! Not exactly a massive return, but still reasonably healthy if I live until the average age. It would still take 2.5 years for me to break even.

I do get your point about people getting credited (those currently on income benefits for example), but that is still well below those that are actually contributing to the system.

I take your points too Aspro - but i think you have actually demonstrated my point that "buying" any missing years is actually very cheap and is a cracking investment!

Women in particular (and quite rightly imo) that are currently already claiming their state pension, will on average actually have more years "credited" than years that they have actually contributed. I don't have an issue with that (beyond the fact that it's completely unsustainable!) - but it's just another example of people claiming they "have paid in all their lives". The reality is that the vast majority will take out more than they ever put in.

It's doomed to fail and future generations will obviously pay the price - so I just can't understand why any old folk (no matter how bitter or angry) would want to be so derogatory about the people that are currently funding their unsustainable state benefits.

Many things are paid out of taxation and not classed as benefits because they are contractual, public sector salaries for example. The state pension is also contractual, it is paid after reaching a certain age in return for an agreed number of contributions. It is true there are exceptions for those who were unable to work and contribute for a number of years but that is not the majority. As Aspro said, not everyone gets the full pension, meagre as it is and that includes older pensioners born before April 1951.

Sorry Foinavon - but it is the majority (that take out more than they put in).

Credit to you if you have put in more than you took out, same comment to Aspro - but most do not. That's just a fact.

If it weren't a fact, we wouldn't have a pension crisis, the existing system would be sustainable and we wouldn't be in need of massive reforms (in addition to the tiny little bit of tinkering that has already taken place).

I agree the system is unsustainable but that's not what I said. I meant that the majority pay the agreed number of contributions. I'm 79 so may well be in credit but I still pay quite a bit of tax as I'm fortunate in having other sources of income. I would have to pay less tax if my state pension were classed as a tax free benefit. (I'm not asking for that by the way as I have always paid my fair share into the system).

Sorry, had to pop out for a few hours. Agree with a lot that has been said between us all, with many valid points however; it should also be noted that those in their 50's or 60's who have worked their entire lives are paying more tax than anyone else. Once they hit 35 years contributions, they are literally paying extra tax for absolutely no extra benefits; they can't even claim tax-relief on their private or company pensions for this extra tax. So a 16 year old, who works full time without a break, is paying this additional tax from year 52 onwards... a total of 16 extra years to receive an average of 11.6 years state pension... and it's mandatory. OK, it doesn't hide the fact that it is still a tough ask for the government going forward, but no matter which way it is considered, the older population are actually giving more before they retire. Surely this needs to be factored in. No?

Live 2.5 years for buying extra years is best use of money
most people can make. If they don't have full contributions.

It's way too cheap.

Oh it is definitely cheap, on average. Nobody can argue that. Bit of a bummer for those that don't make it to 70 though.

Even tougher if you die at 67,and get zip
for your contributions.

"Too many pensioners happy to sign-on for their benefits every week - but simultaneously happy to slag off and demean the people that are actually funding them."


I'm an OAP and had my wages cut every week by National Insurance for 30 odd years of my life.

How the feck is it a benefit it was done for 38 years by British politicians ?

I now slag off these politicians because they lie like feck , Boris and Starmer, either side good examples

I would far rather have had a hotel room to live in, 40 quid a week, a phone and clothes for 30 odd years but I never got to the U K on an illegal boat .

If you are now telling me that I shouldn't be slagging off politicians who have fecked me over then you sir are the thick one not me.

"Too many pensioners happy to sign-on for their benefits every week - but simultaneously happy to slag off and demean the people that are actually funding them."


I'm an OAP and had my wages cut every week by National Insurance for 30 odd years of my life.

How the feck is it a benefit it was done for 38 years by British politicians ?

I now slag off these politicians because they lie like feck , Boris and Starmer, either side good examples

I would far rather have had a hotel room to live in, 40 quid a week, a phone and clothes for 30 odd years but I never got to the U K on an illegal boat .

If you are now telling me that I shouldn't be slagging off politicians who have fecked me over then you sir are the thick one not me.

If you are claiming the state pension, you are on benefits. That is a fact.

Sorry you don't like that reality - you don't seem to have a grip on many realities tbf - but the combination of increased life expectancy and reduced birth rates, I'm sure we are both hoping that enough immigrants will come over and contribute, so that you can keep receiving your benefits from the Welfare State.

Life expectancy has slowed, even reduced of late, but to be fair, Covid has probably played a part in those figures. I'm of the belief that it is peaking. Either way, the next 10 years should paint a clearer picture. Personally I don't see a dramatic increase. Another pension age increase could and probably will balance the scales. Your thoughts TM?

It needs radical reform imp Aspro - life expectancy might have slowed/peaked but it's still amazing compared to even just 40 or 50 years ago - no Govt has had the ba11s to do anything about it (except a bit of tinkering), birth rates are very low, and that all coincides with company schemes making the same mistakes and having to close or massively reduce terms.

I can see many people doing a decent days work (mental or physical work) much beyond the age of 70.

If you could turn back the clock, everybody would have had to have paid-in an awful lot more than they have or taken a lot less out. The young are gonna be so heavily taxed to pay for the old, that they don't have much hope themselves, given the state of everything else.

All in all it's a massive mess. Solving it would be so massively painful for so many people and so unpopular, that I don't suppose anybody will be brave enough to try.

Means testing it is probably inevitable at some point - but that opens many cans of worms (imo).

That is a massive problem for any government, who appear to care more about themselves than us. Unlikely to change much in the foreseeable.

I assume you mean company pensions? That was altered some years back when most companies discarded the expensive defined benefit schemes (final salary) with defined contributions (money purchase)... people get considerably less with the latter, if it even grows at all. That trick has already been played so how can they reduce it even further without making it a complete waste of people's time, which in turn could put more pressure on the government come retirement.

It is a mess, but how can you make it means tested if people have been paying all their lives for it. A difficult conundrum.

Sure is.

Even if you just take the (very rough) example that life-expectancy in 1960 was approx 70 years and factor in that life expectancy is now approx 80 years.

A man claiming it from age 65 is gonna be claiming it for 3 times longer than was anticipated! i.e. claiming it for 15 years rather than just 5 years.

The State Pension is an entitlement not a benefit.


Please show me where the U K government call it a benefit ?

https://www.gov.uk/search/all?keywords=state+pension&order=relevance

I have to go out.

Maybe you could just google "Is the State Pension a benefit?"

I believe it was defined as a Benefit from about 2016.

Try not to burst to many blood vessels.

Yeah thought so ....you cant because the UK government doesnt call it a benefit, Wicki does though, which explains your idiocy

I just want to clarify something that I wrote above, which was that you may have to pay extra NI contributions (years) if you were "in SERPS" ... this is incorrect.

The extra years are required if you were contracted out of SERPS, which many company pensions were at the time. This resulted in reduced National Insurance contributions, hence the need to make up this shortfall with additional years. I was contracted-out for 15 years, which has added four years to my minimum requirements. Apologies for any confusion.

I was in serps

I have checked on Gov site I have paid more than the Required years

So your pension forecast should be showing £221.20pw. Is that correct nanny?

For the Irish Thicket - here is a link to the petition started in 2015 when people got outraged that the state pension is classed as a benefit:

https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/121267

Here is a link to a Govt/HMRC Manual confirming the State Pension whilst classed as income, is a Social Security Benefit:

https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/employment-income-manual/eim76160

Here is a link as to why (old) people don't like calling it a benefit but an explanation as to why the Govt does class it as a benefit:

news.co.uk/inews-lifestyle/money/pensions-and-retirement/state-pension-benefit-2788014?srsltid=AfmBOoqsB_6gfdumxRtZFd7ZxA_92gO-Fx7nJs_a3M4Op0ZMEO2ZGG_q

The article above (like many others) also confirms: "the notion that the state pension is “earned” is wrong. Many people – most in fact – get more back through the state pension than they pay in via NI contributions in their lifetime".

There are plenty more and most actually go on to explain that pensioners (despite the majority taking out more than they pay) don't like to think of their State Pension as a benefit.

Here is the IFS (Institute for Fiscal Studies) Pie Chart for Government Spending - it shows that Pensions are a Social Security payment and that the cost of pensions outstrips every other component of Govt spending apart from Health:

https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-key-questions/what-does-government-spend-money

No offence intended to any individual on this thread (apart from one maybe!).

OK, so accepting they are considered benefits, then growth interest must be added to the contributions because effectively we are loaning the government money, much like premium bonds, which grow somewhere between 4-5%. Add that growth to the contributions then the gap between what you pay and what is returned should reflect this. In other words you would expect to get more back than what you pay in. It's an interesting debate.

That would only be true Aspro if they were putting your "contributions" to one side and saving/investing them until you mature (like a private scheme).
In reality they have always been kicking the can down the road (for your children and grandchildren to pay) because all of your "contributions" were just added to the general taxation pot and spent on Health, Education, Transport, Defence, Debt interest, etc, etc. i.e. In reality, they have already spent your contributions on you!

The whole notion of "National Insurance" - the inference that the money goes towards your state pension, makes people feel better about paying that tax because they maybe get a feeling they are saving for their own future - the reality is that money is gone/spent the minute they deduct it! You've already had the benefit of it.

The issue that is coming to a head is, that having already spent your contributions (admittedly they spent them on you - but they spent them all the same), there is now a huge swathe of people living longer (life expectancy) and claiming for way longer, coupled with a massive reduction in people to pick up the bill (birth rate).

Which takes us back to my original reason for posting on this thread. People that are anti-immigration (on the false premise that they are all benefit seekers) but still expecting somebody to foot the bill for their own benefits.

My whole 10:45 post could be summed up with the words "Ponzi Scheme" - not just that - but a Ponzi Scheme that is running out of new members. And of course that is the point where Ponzi Schemes unravel!

Maybe if we told the people in boats that they would be joining the bottom rung of an already exhausted Ponzi Scheme, they might be less keen to come here - and people like irishone would be happier - until he stopped getting his state pension anyway!

It's a two-sided problem.


All the economists say migration is great and - right now - is utterly necessary. We save all those billions on educating and keeping people healthy as kids and simply ship them in once they've matured to working age. Additionally, a sizeable proportion of them will leave and return home some years later and so we don't pick up the tab on looking after their dotage.
Economically it's a win win. The politicians all know this. Business knows this.

The problem is that migration is weaponised. Politicians are simply too scared to state this very basic and obviously true case to the public. They still talk about needing to control it and the importance of listening to people who simply aren't aware or refuse to listen to the facts.

So you get the very real need for migration on one hand against the charade of pretending you're against it on the other. At some point, we might get some politicians who treat the public like grown ups and tell them that they're wrong occasionally, but I can't see it coming for a while.

Hard to argue with any of that PP - although I expect a few will try!

I'm here lads and not ignoring you. Some interesting responses all round, so how, in your opinions, do we resolve it?

I don't think anybody can answer that simply tbf Aspro - it's a really complex problem that has been many decades in the making - you can't euthanise the old, you can't force the young to have children, you can't conjure up a load of money from nowhere. It has been too long in the making for a quick fix.

You could increase contributions/taxes - but that would be unpopular and they are at a record high already.
You could axe the triple lock - that would be really unpopular.
You could increase the age of eligibility (again) - that would be unpopular and what do you realistically expect 70+ year old do for a living?
You could make private schemes much more attractive - but actually they have recently been made much less favourable/attractive.
You could means test it - that would be really unpopular- but is inevitable at some point imo.

You could do a little bit of all of those but populism and getting elected means they would probably have to be done very gradually - meanwhile the ever declining number of young people are gonna have to spend a long time subsidising the ever increasing number of old people.

Which again, takes us back to my reason for even bothering to post on such a thread - immigration is way more likely to be part of the solution - than part of the problem that some of the narrow minded and the bigots on here would have you believe.

When I left school (1979), basic income tax was around 30% - didn't take much notice of it at the time, but boy would that hit home today

The triple-lock could be altered, but would surprise me if they did it so soon (unlikely)

The age of eligibility is interesting. I retired early (mainly due to health) but I've now been offered a full time job, at fast approaching 62 (starting in October). The offer shocked me a little, but it should give me that extra year I'm looking for and proves that jobs ARE available for the more senior amongst us. Upping it just one more year would not to be too difficult (to begin with). When most of us went from 65-67 we moaned, but soon learned to accept it... would probably be 10-15 years before it kicks in though.

They tried improving private schemes by voluntarily contracting out of SERPS and placing these NI contributions into a private pension... that soon died a death when it became apparent that some schemes couldn't match the guarantee, forcing people to contract back in. (This coincidentally cements the fact that governments are paying more!)

Means testing would cause riots imo. Would be a brave government that forced that one.

I fully understand the immigration issues, but getting different cultures to mix is hard work. Without interference it took more than 30 years for whites and blacks to integrate. Terrible back in the 60's and 70's, but by the 90's it had all but worked itself out, aside from a few pockets. Whilst economically sound, it takes time, as proven in the past.

I have to get on now - best wishes and good luck in your new job!

The fact is that there is good immigration that is a massive benefit and there is bad immigration which is a massive drain.

Trying to conflate the two by lumping both sets togther seems to be something that extremists on both sides of the political spectrum try to do which does no one any favours.

Unfortunately too often when a person or politician criticises the bad immigration people jump to make allegations of racism or try and conflate this bad immigration with all immigration.

WEll Done to The management for finally being lured into providing evidence for the vast amount of bullsh1t that he puts up on these threads.

Its a pity his condemnation of Irish people reflects his fundamental racism and his smug yet false intellect.

do any other countries get this "benefit" in older life or is it just us, remember it's not just working people who contribute to SP it's employers and Governments down the years, the fact that a majority havent payed into the system fully could be a number of factors, ill health, unemployment, stay at home parents etc. lazy barstewards or even not being in this country as a British citizen for 35+ years, if you dont qualify for full state pension then it's topped up to a cost of living status - that is a benefit not something you have in effect paid for and then play the gene pool lottery.

France rioted because they shoved it up the age from 62 to 64 we are nowhere close to being the top recipients of state pension in europe:

rte.ie/news/regional/2024/0920/1470972-culture-night/

today's top tip: divorce you're spouse and marry a person from Luxembourg.... you're welcome!

oops wrong link to state pensions

https://www.almondfinancial.co.uk/pension-breakeven-index-how-does-the-uk-state-pension-compare-to-the-rest-of-europe/

was looking at Shinys culture nights in Ireland!

it's not just working people who contribute to SP it's employers and Governments down the years

Very true. An employee starts paying NI at £242pw, whereas employers start at £123pw... both qualify for SP for the individual

Thanks for the (correct) link; worth keeping tabs on

irishone20 Sep 24 12:52Joined: 22 Sep 06 | Topic/replies: 58,819 | Blogger: irishone's blog
WEll Done to The management for finally being lured into providing evidence for the vast amount of bullsh1t that he puts up on these threads.
Its a pity his condemnation of Irish people reflects his fundamental racism and his smug yet false intellect.

First, Thank you for the "well done". Although your first line is obviously something of an oxymoron. You "lured me" into nothing. I provided the evidence that you requested and were too thick/lazy to obtain for yourself; you now seem to have accepted it as evidence of what I had stated but still want to claim it was bullsh1t.

Regarding the Irish people, I have nothing against them as a race whatsoever - like all races, they will be made up of all kinds of people, stupid/clever, good/bad, genuine/deceitful, honest/disnonest etc - it's quite possible to see one member of a race as an ignorant, hate-filled and divisive individual without tarring everybody from a similar place with the same brush - maybe you should try it sometime.

Shrew Dude has quite rightly pointed out, nothing is clear cut or simple, people that make sweeping statements or ignorant generalisations are usually ill informed.

I'm not the prat that put a nationality into my user name. But for clarity pointing out the gaping flaws in the ramblings of somebody that has done so, is not racism.

WAFDH

The Management20 Sep 24 10:15
"For the Irish Thicket"

Why discriminate?   There are plenty of Non Irish Thickets like yourself on here.

The Management20 Sep 24 14:12Joined: 27 Dec 00 | Topic/replies: 10,706 | Blogger: The Management's blog
I'm not the prat that put a nationality into my user name. But for clarity pointing out the gaping flaws in the ramblings of somebody that has done so, is not racism

irishone21 Sep 24 07:06

The Management20 Sep 24 10:15
"For the Irish Thicket"

Why discriminate?   There are plenty of Non Irish Thickets like yourself on here.

How did you know I was referring to you?

irishone21 Sep 24 13:33
irishone21 Sep 24 07:06

The Management20 Sep 24 10:15
"For the Irish Thicket"

Why discriminate?