The Politics Thread

[BWFC_Insane]

Any wealthy pensioners on here going to follow IDS's suggestion and hand back their benefits?

Happen wealthy pensioners have paid most in in the first place!

But what is the point of dishing out the winters fuel allowance say to pensioners on massive incomes anyway?

It's a bizarre notion that paying more into the tax system should give you an entitlement over and above someone who genuinely needs it.

[Montreal Wanderer]

Any wealthy pensioners on here going to follow IDS's suggestion and hand back their benefits?

Happen wealthy pensioners have paid most in in the first place!

But what is the point of dishing out the winters fuel allowance say to pensioners on massive incomes anyway?

It's a bizarre notion that paying more into the tax system should give you an entitlement over and above someone who genuinely needs it.

Not that bizarre surely. Perhaps it is not just in a leveling socialist world, but it is not unreasonable to get the same entitlement as a pensioner as those who paid less and saved less in their working lives. I paid into the Provincial pension plan for 43 years - should I take less now because I also paid into a private registered plan?

[Bruce Rioja]

It's a bizarre notion that paying more into the tax system should give you an entitlement over and above someone who genuinely needs it.

Over and above?

Who mentioned 'over and above' (other than for you)?

[BWFC_Insane]

It's a bizarre notion that paying more into the tax system should give you an entitlement over and above someone who genuinely needs it.

Over and above?

Who mentioned 'over and above' (other than for you)?

But that's the implication. Surely funds need to be directed to those who most need them, not on the basis of who has contributed most through tax?

Are we not wasting money giving winter fuel allowance to wealthy pensioners?

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

Define wealthy.

[Bruce Rioja]

But that's the implication. Surely funds need to be directed to those who most need them, not on the basis of who has contributed most through tax?

Are we not wasting money giving winter fuel allowance to wealthy pensioners?

As implied where? By who? Other than you? (let me remind you of the 'implication'. Your claim that wealthy pensioners will be paid a winter fuel allowance "OVER AND ABOVE" poorer pensioners)

And anyway - isn't everyone equal and deserving of the same in your socialist eyes,or do you change it to suit the topic? And yes, those that have accrued for old age have every bit as much right to it.

[Worthy4England]

But that's the implication. Surely funds need to be directed to those who most need them, not on the basis of who has contributed most through tax?

Are we not wasting money giving winter fuel allowance to wealthy pensioners?

As implied where? By who? Other than you?

And no - isn't everyone equal and deserving of the same in your socialist eyes,or do you change it to suit the topic? And yes, those that have accrued for old age have every bit as much right to it.

Who'd have thowt it, Brucie and me arguing the same political standpoint.

I do think pension related benefits should be universal. What we seem to have at the minute, is a tax system that takes from earners and gives to those that need it (which is fine). To then try and differentiate post retirement to me, is double whammy. People that have bought thier own home and saved some cash, will have worked plenty hard to do so, whilst propping up (amongst others) the terminally can't be arsed's.

Don't let's take it off them twice.

[Bruce Rioja]

Give in to it, Worthy.

[Worthy4England]

Oh no, Sir. Not on your nelly.

[BWFC_Insane]

But that's the implication. Surely funds need to be directed to those who most need them, not on the basis of who has contributed most through tax?

Are we not wasting money giving winter fuel allowance to wealthy pensioners?

As implied where? By who? Other than you?

And no - isn't everyone equal and deserving of the same in your socialist eyes,or do you change it to suit the topic? And yes, those that have accrued for old age have every bit as much right to it.

Who'd have thowt it, Brucie and me arguing the same political standpoint.

I do think pension related benefits should be universal. What we seem to have at the minute, is a tax system that takes from earners and gives to those that need it (which is fine). To then try and differentiate post retirement to me, is double whammy. People that have bought thier own home and saved some cash, will have worked plenty hard to do so, whilst propping up (amongst others) the terminally can't be arsed's.

Don't let's take it off them twice.

It's not about taking it off anyone twice. Surely taxpayer money for benefits such as the winter fuel allowance should be directed to those who most need it, however you might define it?

I appreciate the means testing might cost more than it saves.

But the idea just doesn't sit right with me in general.

Especially when you consider both someone who has worked all their life for a low paid manual job, possibly causing ill health in later life, would get the same money to heat their house as say Alan Sugar would.

[Bruce Rioja]

Surely taxpayer money for benefits such as the winter fuel allowance should be directed to those who most need it, however you might define it?

It is. Who's denying that? Your issue, however, appears to be it going to those that through their own endeavour and prudence (a favourite of old Gordons there) need it less.

[Harry Genshaw]

I just dont understand what IDS hoped to gain from making such a statement. You either means test it, or leave it as it is, surely? To suggest folk hand it back voluntarily just sounds daft and doesn't reflect right well on him as a politician imo

[Worthy4England]

But that's the implication. Surely funds need to be directed to those who most need them, not on the basis of who has contributed most through tax?

Are we not wasting money giving winter fuel allowance to wealthy pensioners?

As implied where? By who? Other than you?

And no - isn't everyone equal and deserving of the same in your socialist eyes,or do you change it to suit the topic? And yes, those that have accrued for old age have every bit as much right to it.

Who'd have thowt it, Brucie and me arguing the same political standpoint.

I do think pension related benefits should be universal. What we seem to have at the minute, is a tax system that takes from earners and gives to those that need it (which is fine). To then try and differentiate post retirement to me, is double whammy. People that have bought thier own home and saved some cash, will have worked plenty hard to do so, whilst propping up (amongst others) the terminally can't be arsed's.

Don't let's take it off them twice.

It's not about taking it off anyone twice. Surely taxpayer money for benefits such as the winter fuel allowance should be directed to those who most need it, however you might define it?

I appreciate the means testing might cost more than it saves.

But the idea just doesn't sit right with me in general.

Especially when you consider both someone who has worked all their life for a low paid manual job, possibly causing ill health in later life, would get the same money to heat their house as say Alan Sugar would.

I doubt Alan Sugar would bother filling the form in.

[BWFC_Insane]

But that's the implication. Surely funds need to be directed to those who most need them, not on the basis of who has contributed most through tax?

Are we not wasting money giving winter fuel allowance to wealthy pensioners?

As implied where? By who? Other than you?

And no - isn't everyone equal and deserving of the same in your socialist eyes,or do you change it to suit the topic? And yes, those that have accrued for old age have every bit as much right to it.

Who'd have thowt it, Brucie and me arguing the same political standpoint.

I do think pension related benefits should be universal. What we seem to have at the minute, is a tax system that takes from earners and gives to those that need it (which is fine). To then try and differentiate post retirement to me, is double whammy. People that have bought thier own home and saved some cash, will have worked plenty hard to do so, whilst propping up (amongst others) the terminally can't be arsed's.

Don't let's take it off them twice.

It's not about taking it off anyone twice. Surely taxpayer money for benefits such as the winter fuel allowance should be directed to those who most need it, however you might define it?

I appreciate the means testing might cost more than it saves.

But the idea just doesn't sit right with me in general.

Especially when you consider both someone who has worked all their life for a low paid manual job, possibly causing ill health in later life, would get the same money to heat their house as say Alan Sugar would.

I doubt Alan Sugar would bother filling the form in.

It's paid automatically to anyone claiming a state pension.

Which Sugar may well not. But still lots similar will.

[Worthy4England]

There aren't "lots similar". In reality it would be a fairly small number. The problem is, they wouldn't set the bar at a level designed to get Alan Sugar. They'd set the bar at a level that catches out folk who've earned £20k per annum for 45 years and salted away 5% in savings. Like they normally do.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I just dont understand what IDS hoped to gain from making such a statement. You either means test it, or leave it as it is, surely? To suggest folk hand it back voluntarily just sounds daft and doesn't reflect right well on him as a politician imo

Totally agree - it's ridiculous and makes him look ridiculous.

For me it's a no-brainer that all benefits should be means-tested and tapered.

[William the White]

It's paid automatically to anyone claiming a state pension.

Which Sugar may well not. But still lots similar will.

If you are talking about winter fuel allowance - it isn't...

[Lord Kangana]

There aren't "lots similar". In reality it would be a fairly small number. The problem is, they wouldn't set the bar at a level designed to get Alan Sugar. They'd set the bar at a level that catches out folk who've earned £20k per annum for 45 years and salted away 5% in savings. Like they normally do.

Exactly. Smoke and mirrors again.

[William the White]

Any wealthy pensioners on here going to follow IDS's suggestion and hand back their benefits?

Well I'll be giving it a lot of careful thought.

Ian Duncan Smith was once elected leader of the Conservative Party. They thought he'd make a great prime minister.

[Harry Genshaw]

Any wealthy pensioners on here going to follow IDS's suggestion and hand back their benefits?

Well I'll be giving it a lot of careful thought.

Ian Duncan Smith was once elected leader of the Conservative Party. They thought he'd make a great prime minister.

"Never under estimate the power of a quiet man"