On 05/02/2018 18:27, Fredxx wrote:
On 05/02/2018 18:01, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) was thinking very hard :
Thought you said you get a pension?

That is hardly the same thing at all, now is it?

It is very much the same thing. The state fund is empty, those who work
pay your pension.


The 'state fund' has ALWAYS been empty for the simple reason it never
existed.

Pension funds exist for workers in the State Sector- lots of different
ones. Contrary to popular belief they aren't all 'free' either. Some
have done very well and aren't in the mess funds like BT are, far from it.

State Pensions are paid from current income (revenue), not some huge
pot- and this has always been so. A famous MP even made a joke of it in
speech decades ago.

On 05/02/2018 18:02, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Ash Burton formulated on Monday :
They may be state benefits but most people will have contributed for a
minimum of 30 years to get the state pension and the NHS is also
funded from National insurance.

Exactly!

The 30 year rule is now 35 years and only relates to the State Pension.
Even without a decent record you get a minimum pension under the new
scheme which isn't 'ungenerous' AS UK PENSIONS GO.

Of course, if you've got over 35 years, you don't get any extra (grrr)

As for 'funded from NI'. Taxes aren't 'ring fenced' in general- they go
into a pot and are allocated.

From he

Page 9
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...etin_Final.pdf


The total income for Income Tax, Capital Gains Tax & National Insurance
Contributions in 2017 was about £310bn

Best figure for NHS spend I can find is budget for 2017/18, which is £122bn.

Unless NI about 1/3 of the taxes listed above, NI alone can't fund the
NHS. Even if it did, there'd be nothing for other benefits people
attribute to NI funding.

On 05/02/2018 19:45, Bob Eager wrote:
On Mon, 05 Feb 2018 17:01:55 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Fredxx brought next idea :
Perhaps state benefits should be withheld from you too.

That might be difficult, because I don't get any at all, not a penny
:-)

Thought you said you get a pension?

Pensions aren't 'benefits', although many try to claim they are.

They are paid into (even the state one) and then they are paid out.


Its a myth, NI is just another tax and goes into the tax fund.
If you really paid NI into a pension fund that then paid your pension
you would starve as you probably wouldn't get 10% of the state pension.


As it is its all spent so there is no fund to pay you at all.

So its a benefit paid out by the state (from taxes).

On 05/02/2018 20:40, Brian Reay wrote:
On 05/02/2018 18:27, Fredxx wrote:
On 05/02/2018 18:01, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) was thinking very hard :
Thought you said you get a pension?

That is hardly the same thing at all, now is it?

It is very much the same thing. The state fund is empty, those who
work pay your pension.


The 'state fund' has ALWAYS been empty for the simple reason it never
existed.

Pension funds exist for workers in the State Sector- lots of different
ones. Contrary to popular belief they aren't all 'free' either. Some
have done very well and aren't in the mess funds like BT are, far from it.

I don't think any of the pension funds are big enough to meet their
liabilities if the workers stop paying in.

They do have the advantage of being bailed out by the government if the
workers do stop paying.

On 05/02/2018 10:53, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:
When I was at school I picked potatoes. The first day was hard, but you got used to it. The BBC clip was a pointless exercise, perhaps if they had done it for a week they would have got into the swing of it.

Speak for yourself!

I didn't last a week.

In the part of Scotland where I was born and educated, country areas had
different school summer holidays to cover 'tattie houwking' which was done
by school children, but paid for. The majority who did this seemed to
manage OK.

But in those days they didn't spend every hour of the day staring at a
phone and being taken everywhere by car, so likely started off physically
rather fitter.

My dad used to help out on a farm at the weekends during his teenage
years. He cycled from Salford to Southport to do so.

I admit that I was never that physical. I just did the odd paper round.

SteveW

On 05/02/2018 19:28, soup wrote:
On 05/02/2018 10:57, T i m wrote:
On Sun, 4 Feb 2018 22:48:33 -0800 (PST), misterroy
wrote:

snip

When I was at school I picked potatoes.

Was this a class? ;-)

The first day was hard, but you got used to it.

Yup, the human body is pretty good / quick to adapt to such things but
the human mind / spirit less so.

It's the same logic as for people on benefits where if they did work
they would end up *much* worse off, even to the extent of having to
pay for dental treatment etc.

The BBC clip was a pointless exercise, perhaps if they had done it
for a week they would have got into the swing of it.

I'd have to agree that they didn't look like what you would typically
consider to be 'land workers' and so are unlikely to have the right
disposition for that sort of work.

So, even if they were given the choice of going without food or doing
that sort of work full time, I'm sure some of them would simply starve
to death. Some people really don't have any drive. Most of the EU
migrant workers do (as most people I have spoken to seem to agree).

I also saw a program where they were talking of putting long term
benefit people in the Army and the Army was saying 'why should they be
their problem'.

It would be the same thing with getting prison inmates to do such
work, like the days of sewing up mailbags or printing number plates
(or breaking rocks before that).

Wasn't the breaking rocks thing, just busy work? The 'making gravel' for
construction projects ,even, in Victorian times could be done quicker
and better by machines.

Probably. Victorian prisons had cranks for the prisoners to crank round
as make-work. Supposedly these could have the resistance adjusted by
screwing a brake down (like on simple exercise bikes). Adjustment was by
the prison officers - hence the term "Screws."

SteveW

On 05/02/2018 10:47, T i m wrote:


We
could see over a million burdensome pensioners back from Spain when we
leave the EU?

In what way burdensome if they come back to the UK, or do you mean they
are a burden now.

You mean the ones who claim a UK state pension ?

Would they then spend that money here. Keeping the money in the UK
economy (Trickle down: Keynesian economics).

On 05/02/2018 20:31, Brian Reay wrote:
On 05/02/2018 11:15, Fredxx wrote:
On 05/02/2018 09:42, Brian Reay wrote:
On 04/02/2018 22:11, dennis@home wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-engl...bs-in-cornwall





Hardly a surprise.

We have a serious problem with people who expect to be carried by
others and/or paid more than their skills etc justify.

Do you work as much as those lazy people who are carried by those who do?

I've claimed unemployment benefit etc. Worked in summer hols at Uni. Got
a job when I left, worked until I retired- admittedlyÂ* early but then
I'd work to do that.


If we stopped people refusing work offers, stopped benefits etc,

I agree, all state benefits should stop.

My issue is with wasters who refuse to work etc. and/or abuse the system.

There is a problem with forcing people to take whatever job comes along
too - they may not be able to afford to.

I was out of work after my contract finished and my wife was ill, so I
couldn't go back to work for a while. When I was ready to look, for some
months I was only finding jobs at 2/3 or less of the rate that I'd been
on, but having lost my wife's income as well, we could not afford that.

While I was unemployed, my insurances were paying mortgage, credit card
bills, etc., but if I'd returned to such a lower income, without my
wife's income, the insurances would have stopped and I'd have had an
income less than our fixed outgoings! Fortunately I eventually managed
to get a job with a similar income to before and we could manage again.

SteveW

In article , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) was thinking very hard :
Thought you said you get a pension?

That is hardly the same thing at all, now is it?

Of course it is. A state pension is paid out of current NI contributions
and taxes. In exactly the same way as unemployment benefit or universal
credit.

NI contributions do distinguish between pension fund and other benefits.
The Pension fund was running a £50bn surplus (and rising) until Gordon
Brown stole it in 2006 by transferring it to an account with the
commissioner for the reduction of the National Debt.It had previously
invested in interest earning gilts
--
bert

In article , Fredxx
writes
On 05/02/2018 19:45, Bob Eager wrote:
On Mon, 05 Feb 2018 17:01:55 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Fredxx brought next idea :
Perhaps state benefits should be withheld from you too.

That might be difficult, because I don't get any at all, not a penny
:-)

Thought you said you get a pension?
Pensions aren't 'benefits', although many try to claim they are.
They are paid into (even the state one) and then they are paid out.

Not enough has been paid in, and workers wages pay your pension.

It was but Gordon Brown firstly reduced the amount being paid in under
the guise of environmental tax in 2004 then stole the whole pot in 2006.
It is a state benefit, even if you don't like it called one.

I think you will find all taxes are paid in, and then paid out again,
usually more than the monies paid in.


--
bert

On 05/02/2018 21:29, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , "dennis@home" wrote:

On 05/02/2018 20:40, Brian Reay wrote:
On 05/02/2018 18:27, Fredxx wrote:
On 05/02/2018 18:01, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) was thinking very hard :
Thought you said you get a pension?

That is hardly the same thing at all, now is it?

It is very much the same thing. The state fund is empty, those who
work pay your pension.


The 'state fund' has ALWAYS been empty for the simple reason it never
existed.

Pension funds exist for workers in the State Sector- lots of
different ones. Contrary to popular belief they aren't all 'free'
either. Some have done very well and aren't in the mess funds like BT
are, far from it.

I don't think any of the pension funds are big enough to meet their
liabilities if the workers stop paying in.

This is the big mistake with our pensions.

All pensions should be personal. When you start work, you should be
paying into your *own* pot that has therefore no need to move when you
change jobs. All pensions should be managed by *pensions* *companies*,
it should be illegal for others to have pension schemes.

After all, pensions are hardly the core business of the likes of BT,
are they. Defined benefit and final salary arrangements are just Ponzi
schemes.


I am being paid from a final salary scheme and it is funded without
relying on the current workers.
It would be over funded by a lot if Blair's government hadn't done the
great pensions robbery.

In article ,
Bob Eager wrote:
On Mon, 05 Feb 2018 17:01:55 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Fredxx brought next idea :
Perhaps state benefits should be withheld from you too.

That might be difficult, because I don't get any at all, not a penny
:-)

Thought you said you get a pension?

Pensions aren't 'benefits', although many try to claim they are.

They are paid into (even the state one) and then they are paid out.

And the difference with unemployment benefit is? With the exception of
those who have never paid NI contributions. But then they can't get
unemployment benefit either.

--
*And don't start a sentence with a conjunction *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Brian Reay wrote:
My issue is with wasters who refuse to work etc. and/or abuse the system.

Quite. But there are ways of stopping that. However policing it to the
extent some would want might cost more than any money saved. Rather the
same as having 'secure' borders.

--
*Even a blind pig stumbles across an acorn now and again *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 12:23:26 PM UTC, Bob Eager wrote:
On Mon, 05 Feb 2018 04:18:16 -0800, whisky-dave wrote:

Yes big business wanting slave labour I';m suprired we don't go back to
the days of slavery it was certainly better for the country and
empoyers,
perhaps T i m can explain why slavery came to an end. It does seem that
some want to bring this sort of workforce back.

The workers I saw being interviewed said that if they worked hard, they
were getting £800 a week.

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

If they were getting £10 per hour for an 80 hour week.

On 06/02/2018 00:05, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Brian Reay wrote:
My issue is with wasters who refuse to work etc. and/or abuse the system.

Quite. But there are ways of stopping that. However policing it to the
extent some would want might cost more than any money saved.

Even if that were true in the short term, there is a long term case for
not having people refusing to work. Plus, once the idea that 'being a
waster' is acceptable diminishes and you just have a 'hard core' of
wasters, the cost of enforcement dwindles.

Rather the
same as having 'secure' borders.


Interesting, the left are always keen to blame others for only
considering cost but will do exactly that when it is convenient.

Secure borders are not just about economic migrants- or don't you follow
the various serious crimes committed by those who have 'come here'? We
have our own criminals, we really don't need any more.





--

Suspect someone is claiming a benefit under false pretences? Incapacity
Benefit or Personal Independence Payment when they don't need it? They
are depriving those in real need!

https://www.gov.uk/report-benefit-fraud

On 05-Feb-18 5:55 PM, Ash Burton wrote:
On 05/02/2018 17:20, RJH wrote:
On 04/02/2018 22:11, dennis@home wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-engl...bs-in-cornwall


If they're in reasonable physical condition, they could do it. Even I
used to work in a factory over the summer, unloading pop from conveyor
belt to pallet. The only rest breaks were when the machine jammed. So
by that yardstick . . . :-)

I'd think the biggest issues for a lot of British people would be
housing (where they live in-season, and what happens to their
permanent home), social networks, and uncertainty of temporary work.
For relatively poor migrant workers these relatively basic needs are
compromised.


Not if you recruit in the locality. When i did crop picking a lorry
collected us from the town and took us to the farm location, no
accomodation required.

Which is fine, if you have enough workers locally. OTOH migrant workers
are, by definition, willing to move to where the work is.

--
--

Colin Bignell

In article ,
Brian Reay wrote:
Quite. But there are ways of stopping that. However policing it to the
extent some would want might cost more than any money saved.

Even if that were true in the short term, there is a long term case for
not having people refusing to work. Plus, once the idea that 'being a
waster' is acceptable diminishes and you just have a 'hard core' of
wasters, the cost of enforcement dwindles.

I'd love to know the accurate figures about those who 'refuse' to work.
Chances are there aren't any, as benefits can be stopped if that really is
the case.

However, the idea that all unemployed must take any job on offer is the
sort of thing Express readers have wet dreams over.

--
*If a pig loses its voice, is it disgruntled?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Monday, 5 February 2018 18:13:44 UTC, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
whisky-dave formulated the question :
A friends niece only lived 8 miles from where she was going to be employed
but there was no public transport so had to take out a loan to buy a car for
her first job, this was up north in staffordshire.

My first job was a similar distance from home. There was public
transport, but I bought a bike, then a moped, then a motorbike to get
me there - to save the cost. A car would have been far to expensive.

I guess that was when horses and carts were a popular mode of transport ;-)
Her parents lent her money to buy a car, as they didn't want her cycling along the very busy roads espeacally when it was dark and the weather was bad.
But she left that job after a few weeks and now teaches English (well the novern version) in Tokyo and enjoys it far more, been there nearly a year now.

On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 21:24:35 +0000, soup
wrote:

On 05/02/2018 10:47, T i m wrote:


We
could see over a million burdensome pensioners back from Spain when we
leave the EU?

In what way burdensome if they come back to the UK, or do you mean they
are a burden now.

Now, to Spain as they are old and statically going to be a higher
burden on the medical system, even if not financially if they bill our
NHS (and not be paying NI) etc?

You mean the ones who claim a UK state pension ?

That and 'burdening' their / our heath systems (physically).

Would they then spend that money here.

The money they lose when getting out of Spain you mean?

Keeping the money in the UK
economy (Trickle down: Keynesian economics).

As they ****ed away all the 'spare' cash they gained from selling up
in the UK and buying cheaper places in (say) Spain, if they can sell
their places at all, they will come back with far less than they went
out with and so likely to end up under some sort of support / benefit
system.

Cheers, T i m

On 06/02/2018 05:01, Road_Hog wrote:
On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 12:23:26 PM UTC, Bob Eager wrote:
On Mon, 05 Feb 2018 04:18:16 -0800, whisky-dave wrote:

Yes big business wanting slave labour I';m suprired we don't go back to
the days of slavery it was certainly better for the country and
empoyers,
perhaps T i m can explain why slavery came to an end. It does seem that
some want to bring this sort of workforce back.

The workers I saw being interviewed said that if they worked hard, they
were getting £800 a week.

--
My posts are my copyright and if @diy_forums or Home Owners' Hub
wish to copy them they can pay me £1 a message.
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

If they were getting £10 per hour for an 80 hour week.


They were doing piece work and were picking more than ten times as fast
as the UK workers.

On Tuesday, 6 February 2018 13:39:59 UTC, T i m wrote:
On Mon, 5 Feb 2018 21:24:35 +0000, soup
wrote:

On 05/02/2018 10:47, T i m wrote:


We
could see over a million burdensome pensioners back from Spain when we
leave the EU?

In what way burdensome if they come back to the UK, or do you mean they
are a burden now.

Now, to Spain as they are old and statically going to be a higher
burden on the medical system, even if not financially if they bill our
NHS (and not be paying NI) etc?

You mean the ones who claim a UK state pension ?

That and 'burdening' their / our heath systems (physically).

Would they then spend that money here.

The money they lose when getting out of Spain you mean?

Keeping the money in the UK
economy (Trickle down: Keynesian economics).

As they ****ed away all the 'spare' cash they gained from selling up
in the UK and buying cheaper places in (say) Spain,

Ah so they are buying places, I thought like the spanards (I only know 2) coming to the UK, whether working for the NHS or anyone else have they too ****ed thier spare money up.
Because when they do arrive they haven't any money, the two I knew lived in squats until they recieved 'dole' money from the government.

So you do see the differnce in a so called united EU.



if they can sell
their places at all, they will come back with far less than they went
out with and so likely to end up under some sort of support / benefit
system.

Which is almost how every EU citizen starts when they arrive in the UK if they haven't got a job.



Cheers, T i m

whisky-dave brought next idea :
I guess that was when horses and carts were a popular mode of transport ;-)

Not quite, but then you got there as best you could, within your means
and without complaining. Not working was never on the list of options.

On Tuesday, 6 February 2018 16:26:55 UTC, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
whisky-dave brought next idea :
I guess that was when horses and carts were a popular mode of transport ;-)

Not quite, but then you got there as best you could, within your means
and without complaining. Not working was never on the list of options.

I wouldn't want the UK to go back to that system. You work or you die isn't very applealing, it's what made the rich richer no wonder the 'country' prefers it.

On 06/02/2018 09:38, Nightjar wrote:
On 05-Feb-18 5:55 PM, Ash Burton wrote:
On 05/02/2018 17:20, RJH wrote:
On 04/02/2018 22:11, dennis@home wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-engl...bs-in-cornwall


If they're in reasonable physical condition, they could do it. Even I
used to work in a factory over the summer, unloading pop from
conveyor belt to pallet. The only rest breaks were when the machine
jammed. So by that yardstick . . . :-)

I'd think the biggest issues for a lot of British people would be
housing (where they live in-season, and what happens to their
permanent home), social networks, and uncertainty of temporary work.
For relatively poor migrant workers these relatively basic needs are
compromised.


Not if you recruit in the locality. When i did crop picking a lorry
collected us from the town and took us to the farm location, no
accomodation required.

Which is fine, if you have enough workers locally. OTOH migrant workers
are, by definition, willing to move to where the work is.


*If* you have enough local workers - while rural numbers have remained
quite stable over the past 20 years (while the rest of the population
has increased), those that are there are getting older - especially the
over 65s.

And rural 'local' is very different to town and city local - getting
about is far more difficult if you don't have a car. Unless as in the
example above - the farmer lays on transport.

--
Cheers, Rob

tim... pretended :
the problem is in work benefits

not unemployment benefit

The problem is caused by both benefits. The in work benefits set the
level for what work is worth it to take up, the unemployment benefits
make not taking up any work an option for many. Include what can be
earned by someone willing to cheat the system and many are much better
off being unemployed. I suspect there are many doing this, hence so
many people never having a job in their lifetime.

Sitting at home doing no worthwhile work, should never be an option for
anyone.

Brian Reay laid this down on his screen :
Combine the NI and tax system- the current dual system is both pointless and
wasteful.

Tighten up some benefits on contributions/work record. Obviously some need to
be universal- some people can't ever work due to health / disability and they
shouldn't be penalised. The aim should be to ensure that those who can
work/contribute do.

'Importing' (so called) cheap labour in the form of migrants when we have
people claiming they can't find work is crazy.

+1

Dave Plowman (News) wrote on 06/02/2018 :
Quite. But there are ways of stopping that. However policing it to the
extent some would want might cost more than any money saved. Rather the
same as having 'secure' borders.

Even if true, does it really matter? Policing often does cost more than
the sums saved, the point is the number who will be deterred by the
simple act of policing. A pound not spent on the unworthy, is probably
worth £20 to the system.

Dave Plowman (News) explained :
I'd love to know the accurate figures about those who 'refuse' to work.
Chances are there aren't any, as benefits can be stopped if that really is
the case.
I am aware of a few who though perfectly fit to work, choose life on
the dole as a lifestyle choice.

However, the idea that all unemployed must take any job on offer is the
sort of thing Express readers have wet dreams over.

Initially no, but after an extended time spent not earning, then yes -
any job offered.

Fredxx was thinking very hard :
Deserved? Paid by others who do work?

I have paid considerably more than my share into the system in the
years I worked.


Everyone can say they "have done more than my bit".

I suppose they could, but would it be true?

And you expect others to retire at a much later age than yourself and still
say you've "done your bit".

I am only getting back some of what I put into the system - other than
my pension entitlement, I get nothing else from the system at all. No
free rent, no housing benefit, no council tax reductions - nothing. I
was one of those who worked hard, earned well and saved for my
retirement. I always paid full tax and full NI, made no use of the NHS.

Younger people are having to retire later, because they are expected
to live longer than I. This in part a result of the much healthier
world I and those like me have helped create for them. They are not
working longer to pay for me.

dennis@home used his keyboard to write :
The state pension is a benefit provided by the state.
The pension top is another benefit provided by the state.
The NHS, dentists, police, fire service, etc. are all benefits provided by
the state.

I of course use all of them, but then I have paid for them in advance,
that is how the system works, for those who pay tax and NI. I am still
paying for police and fire service as part of my council tax.

Which ones don't you use?

Younger people are having to retire later, because they are expected to
live longer than I. This in part a result of the much healthier world I
and those like me have helped create for them. They are not working longer
to pay for me.

with all the drugs they take I doubt if the chemical generation will.......

Fredxx wrote on 05/02/2018 :
Not enough has been paid in, and workers wages pay your pension.

It is a state benefit, even if you don't like it called one.

I think you will find all taxes are paid in, and then paid out again, usually
more than the monies paid in.

Where the .gov source it from is not my problem, the point is I paid
into the pot when I was working, so that when I retired I would get
some of what I had paid in back.

In article ,
Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Dave Plowman (News) explained :
I'd love to know the accurate figures about those who 'refuse' to
work. Chances are there aren't any, as benefits can be stopped if that
really is the case.

I am aware of a few who though perfectly fit to work, choose life on
the dole as a lifestyle choice.

I hope you've reported them to the authorities, then?

However, the idea that all unemployed must take any job on offer is the
sort of thing Express readers have wet dreams over.

Initially no, but after an extended time spent not earning, then yes -
any job offered.

Would you employ anyone being forced to do a job they didn't want? If so,
you've no experience of business. Or life, come to that.

--
*Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Younger people are having to retire later, because they are expected
to live longer than I. This in part a result of the much healthier
world I and those like me have helped create for them. They are not
working longer to pay for me.

You have a very rose tinted view of the system. The retirement age has
been raised to save costs at that time. And to get people to pay into the
system for longer.

Just because people live longer does not necessarily mean they are fit to
work to a greater age.

--
*If a turtle doesn't have a shell, is he homeless or naked?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Brian Reay wrote :
The 30 year rule is now 35 years and only relates to the State Pension. Even
without a decent record you get a minimum pension under the new scheme which
isn't 'ungenerous' AS UK PENSIONS GO.

I paid into the system for 45 years.


Of course, if you've got over 35 years, you don't get any extra (grrr)

As for 'funded from NI'. Taxes aren't 'ring fenced' in general- they go into
a pot and are allocated.

Correct!

Dave Plowman (News) brought next idea :
And you might need the NHS for something serious at any time in your life.
Regardless of how much you have paid in. If you are unlucky. So absolutely
no different from unemployment benefit.

We all take a gamble paying in, some will need more back, some less -
problem is there are some who make a life choice of not paying anything
into the system at all, yet expect the same benefits as those who do
pay in.

Dave Plowman (News) used his keyboard to write :
Yes. But wanting benefits stopped only applies to others. Those on here
who get them will say they are entitled to them.

If they have paid in, then why not?

After serious thinking Fredxx wrote :
Do you not get a state pension?

A state pension I have paid for, yes! That plus other income. Nothing I
get is means tested, because I made damned sure when I was working of
that.

Perhaps people who are on the dole might say the same as you too.

But how can they possibly say that, if they have spent their life on
the dole?

Ash Burton was thinking very hard :
Not sot, when i was young (mid 1960's and b4 we joind the EEC) ) this work
was done by mainly young british workers. It is the modern day 'snowflakes'
who don't seem to want to do it.

Correct, a time when there was full employment and plenty of jobs to go
around - not working was simply not on the list of options. There are
still lots of job opportunities even now. The difference - Now we have
a system where others come in from outside the UK to fill jobs whilst
those born in the UK sit on their backsides, claiming benefits - a
crazy system.

Nightjar pretended :
Which is fine, if you have enough workers locally. OTOH migrant workers are,
by definition, willing to move to where the work is.

Not exactly a migrant worker, but I worked on contracts all over the UK
and at times into the EU. I was not often at home, apart from passing
visits. I would not have wanted it any other way.