Clegg v pensioners

Is there any need to actually answer Clegg? This comment put it well:

The Lib Dems just don’t get it! Pensions, including those extra ‘add ons’ are NOT “benefits” but entitlements to repay retired people for the 40 odd years of working lives during which they paid their taxes in full and national insurance contributions. And pensions in the UK are some of the lowest in the developed world. The winter fuel allowance, Xmas bonus (£10!) and bus passes are just sticking plasters to cover up the embarrassment, guilt and shame our rulers feel about the appalling level of our pensions compared to our neighbours’.

And further to that, it was, in the main, fulltime work too so maximum contributions. When I hear some younger people moan about seniors hogging the buses, they forget that these seniors are entitled, they’ve earned that.

Every age group and every nationality has its proportion of good people, nasty, wise and idiots and pensioners are no different – they just begin to cope less and become more vulnerable. Too often they themselves don’t realize they should put a sock in it and that gets people’s backs up but the bottom line is that they are entitled to be looked after.

The primary care giver should be the family too. One spinoff of Russian families retaining their old people with them was the elevated status of the babushka and that had a direct effect on the children who were in contact with them more than even the parents – the result was that those values were imparted and the world pop culture wasn’t the main values imparter. That also took care of the babysitting issue, of the cooking in the morning and evening, of children being walked to school and collected later, of the skills being handed down.

And those babushki ruled whole houses too, sometimes with twenty flats in that section. I’ve seen thuggish types given a tongue lashing by grandmothers en masse and what’s more, they took it too. In mid-winter once, an old lady stopped me in the street and ordered me inside because she saw hypothermia starting on my cheek. The very idea that she had any right to order me was something the Russians take as read. Can you imagine that here?

And they could cook too!

Russian friend of mine went to the U.S. and was appalled how the grandparents were put out to pasture in a home, out of sight and mind except by the telephone and [usually] daily visits by mother. What would we save here if every family in the nation ran along similar lines, what cohesion would there be?

11 comments for “Clegg v pensioners

  1. January 11, 2013 at 12:28 pm

    Clegg is right (never thought I would say that). Pensions are benefits. No one pays tax and NI for their pension. They have paid it to support those retired at the time.

    It’s not fair, it’s a con job, a giant Ponzi scheme, but that is the facts.

    The Ponzi scheme is why Governments are so keen on immigration. They are trying to make sure they aren’t in power when the whole pensions con collapses.

    • January 11, 2013 at 12:34 pm

      I’m afraid you are absolutely correct, but those who have been had are most unwilling to face the fact that they have not made a deposit at all – they just paid a load of tax and now it has gone.

    • January 11, 2013 at 1:46 pm

      That is actually the reality of it but it doesn’t help.

      The people were sold an insurance policy. They were told to pay National Insurance and told that they would receive certain things when they needed it.

      If an insurance company sold policies and then spent all the money so they couldn’t pay out, it’s directors would go to prison.

      • January 11, 2013 at 6:59 pm

        Yes, I agree with this. There was an agreement – can we call it a contract? They assumed that what was offered would be given and on that basis, they put in.

        Problem is, we’ve known for years it was going to be problematic and politicians were mooting these figures which didn’t add up before I even went overseas again, so that’s over fifteen years ago now. It was in the press.

        However, we’d already been paying in for years at that point and an agreement’s an agreement. Yet it’s an agreement which always binds next generations. It’s a minefield.

        • January 11, 2013 at 7:51 pm

          Yes we can call it a contract and it should never have been binding on next generations. The money should have been set aside, not spent on the understanding that more will pay in.

  2. Mudplugger
    January 11, 2013 at 4:45 pm

    The first step to clarifying the pension issue would be to roll up all the so-called ‘added benefits’ (Winter Fuel, Bus-Pass, TV License etc) into the standard weekly pension.

    Then make it illegal for any future government ever again to add any further ‘vote-bribes’ onto that basic sum, for that is what they all were.

    This would have the additional benefit of making the total of State Pension value taxable, so that the wealthier aged-ones would pay equivalent tax on their total income.

    It doesn’t answer the issue of whether State Pension is a benefit or a return on insurance investment, but that’s another argument.

  3. Jan
    January 11, 2013 at 5:42 pm

    The bus pass doesn’t really cost anything if the bus was to travel the route anyway. Effectively it is a subsidy that provides off-peak buses for the paying passenger which would have been withdrawn if they were empty. The bus pass is probably good for local trade too as it encourages a trip into town to the shops rather than buying online.

    The UK’s largest bus company says that recent fare rises produced no increase in revenue and fewer passengers. Fuel prices are going up and subsidies going down. EuroEco requirements cost ever more. Who would operate a bus? Without the bus passes the end of the bus is nigh and the envious “we are all in it together, equal misery” will get their wish, no buses and everyone miserable.

    • January 11, 2013 at 7:04 pm

      recent fare rises produced no increase in revenue and fewer passengers

      You’d expect that.

      • David A. Evans
        January 13, 2013 at 8:41 pm

        The logic is strange.

        I never quite understood why anyone would think fare increases would increase revenues.

        The only way to increase revenues is to increase competitiveness.

        BR did the same thing. No-one wants to travel by rail…

        I know, let’s increase prices!


  4. Penseivat
    January 11, 2013 at 8:48 pm

    Cleggy is simply pandering to the long term plans of his (European) masters. Being in receipt of an EU pension, he stands to lose this if he criticises, or even disagrees with, EU decisions. He is therefore either a 5th columnist EU consultant or a political prostitute. The book is ipen which it is.

  5. Greg Tingey
    January 12, 2013 at 9:58 am

    Well, I’m afraid all these moaners about pensioners can fuck right off.
    Those of us born during or immediately after, and in the shadow of WWII have worked as much as we could, & paid our taxes …
    And now “They” want to take even our miserable pensions & “benefits” such as free travel) away from us.
    Sorry, bastards, but you made a promise, now keep it, or if you are lucky, you’ll just get voted out of office.
    The alternative?
    Well, rope is cheap & there’s lots of lamp-posts …..

Comments are closed.