Means testing the state pension a possibility?

The Homebrew Forum

Help Support The Homebrew Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
There isn't enough money in the pot to pay pensions because we are living longer yet there is nearly £56 billion (which of course will be much more by the time its competed) to get a minute number of the population to London a bit faster!

The official total cost for HS2, as set out in the 2015 spending review, is £55.7bn, which, according to the government, is value for money.
.
 
There isn't enough money in the pot to pay pensions because we are living longer yet there is nearly £56 billion (which of course will be much more by the time its competed) to get a minute number of the population to London a bit faster!


.



Crazy isn't it? Vanity projects like that which benefit a small percentage of the population but cost ridiculous sums.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
It really does make my blood boil when you consider the amount of money it is costing and the upheaval for many people who are being forced out of their homes just so a few people can cut a few minutes off a journey time.

We are also paying around £15 billion annually in foreign aid which i think is obscene when we are basically forcing our workers to work until they drop, i doubt workers on low incomes having enough spare cash to put into private pensions and look forward to the luxury of early retirement.

.
 
The right type of immigration is required at the moment because we don't have enough children and people are living longer so we need it to balance our ageing population to an extent.

So that's why they shipped 'em in by the boatload and gave 'em the council houses and arranged foreign-speaking benefits advisors etc!
 
So that's why they shipped 'em in by the boatload and gave 'em the council houses and arranged foreign-speaking benefits advisors etc!

No like I said we need a certain type of immigration, people who will work & pay tax. I don't think legal immigrants get any more entitlement to housing than Brits and legal immigrants from outside the EU are vetted to make sure they are the working tax payers we want. Also legal EU immigrants (with significant exceptions) do come here to work and pay tax and speak English. While illegal immigrants/refugees are far more likely to be a financial drain on society, not speak English & be prioritised for housing. The moral reasons we should or shouldn't help these people I think is beyond the topic of conversation.
 
Crazy isn't it? Vanity projects like that which benefit a small percentage of the population but cost ridiculous sums.
So called vanity projects whether you like them or not do have their benefits. Its not literally money down the drain or dead money as some imply. In this case (HSn) there will be
- thousands of people employed from conceptual design through to commissioning; they all pay tax that goes back to the Exchequer; the wealth they earn goes back into the economy and benefits a much wider group
- hundred of companies designing supplying constructing and commissioning; they also pay tax that goes back to the Exchequer, and their increased profitability and dividends boost pension funds which again benefits a wider group
And of course we will have the infrastructure in place which will benefit society for many years to come, just like the Victorians built over 100 years ago and is now finally showing its age and is requiring large chunks of public money following many years of under investment.
So I'm not saying HSn is right or wrong but folks do sometimes have to look beyond the click bait headlines for this and similar projects.
 
built over 100 years ago and is now finally showing its age and is requiring large chunks of public money following many years of under investment.

As you say the state of the railway is down to under-investment so why not use part of the £56 billion plus to sort it and use the rest to benefit us all not just a tiny fraction of people who need to get from A to B a little faster.
.
 
So Terrym, following your logic. If I get a folly built in my garden and the builders promise to pay me back 30% of what I pay them, and on top of that I have the cost of materials,then my household is much better off financially? I must be missing something.

I'm sorry but I'm with Chippy on this one, planning to spend £56 billion (which will probably end up being £80 billion) to benefit a few people is absolutely ludicrous.

Brian
 
I think you are missing Terry's point, of the £56 billion a large amount will go directly or quickly indirectly into pay and the government will get a chunk back in income tax, people then spend this and they get another chunk back in VAT and other taxes. Alot of the rest then goes to other peoples pay and the cycle repeats. Of the money that doesn't make it into pay some will go into investments (either directly or via a bank) in companies that employ people and take another route back into the cycle. The only money the government doesn't get a steady cycle of repeat income is when it leaves the country or invested very long term in something like gold or to a lesser extent empty property. So its only a matter of time as the money keeps moving until they make a profit.

It would be an interesting economic experiment to see what would happen if the government gave everyone £1000 for free if it resulted on them getting higher tax revenues by how much for how long but there are to many other variables in play even if they seriously considered it.
 
Time for a bit of sanity methinks!

ANY country that can afford to PAY a multi-millionaire tosspot like Boris Johnson a wage can EASILY afford to look after their elderly citizens.

If anyone says otherwise then they know the facts and they are lying ... :thumb:

... or they read the Daily Wail and take everything that gets printed as being the gospel truth. :doh:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/apr/05/boris-johnson-financial-details-earnings
 
In the grand scheme of things his MP's salary is "chicken feed".
 
I think you are missing Terry's point, of the �£56 billion a large amount will go directly or quickly indirectly into pay and the government will get a chunk back in income tax, people then spend this and they get another chunk back in VAT and other taxes. Alot of the rest then goes to other peoples pay and the cycle repeats. Of the money that doesn't make it into pay some will go into investments (either directly or via a bank) in companies that employ people and take another route back into the cycle. The only money the government doesn't get a steady cycle of repeat income is when it leaves the country or invested very long term in something like gold or to a lesser extent empty property. So its only a matter of time as the money keeps moving until they make a profit.

It would be an interesting economic experiment to see what would happen if the government gave everyone �£1000 for free if it resulted on them getting higher tax revenues by how much for how long but there are to many other variables in play even if they seriously considered it.
I think it's the other way round, I think you are missing the point in my analogy.
Spending government money (the peoples money that is) to build something that is not needed or of any benefit to the vast majority just to create jobs is foolhardy.
 
Spending government money (the peoples money that is) to build something that is not needed or of any benefit to the vast majority just to create jobs is foolhardy.
I agree with that. :thumb:
But what I said was different. Read it again.
All I pointed out was that, in this case, some of the £56n to be spent on the project would be recycled back into the economy.
And I also said that HSn was neither right nor wrong, and so made no judgement on whether it was value for money, or brought any long term financial or social benefits.
 
I think all governments turn to infrastructure to create jobs and keep factories ticking over, when the balloon burst in China they spent billions upon billions of dollars even on infrastructure they didn't really want hoping for the world economy to turn around. Also in Australia we have a means test for the pension, the pollies say housing will never come into it but a pensioner who owns their own home gets less than a pensioner who doesn't. But if a person of pension age owns a $3,000,000 house but has under $1.600,000 in savings and super that person will still get the pension. I think without doubt they will start and take house valuations into account while the trade deficit keeps going up.
 
I get my state pension in a couple of months - £131.80 a week. Do I feel guilty? Nope!
Paid N.I. for 47 years without a break.
£131.80 - 20% = 105.44 I plan on painting the town red with that
 
I get my state pension in a couple of months - £131.80 a week. Do I feel guilty? Nope!
Paid N.I. for 47 years without a break.
£131.80 - 20% = 105.44 I plan on painting the town red with that
Have you had a pensions forecast? I had mine 2/3 years back and think it said £140 and I contracted out of serps for 18 odd years,mines due next August
 
Back
Top