Hello.Kitty

hence it's going to be painful... the pensions pot is losing money like nobody's business, cos we're all just to darned healthy! In the 50s, life expectancy was at around the 65-70 years mark, so in reality, people would only receive state pensions for 5-10 years (on average)... whereas now, we can expect to live 10-15 years longer.

Much as I hate to say it, because obviously I'd like to retire one day with no financial worries and everything paid for me, but I really think it simply has to be phased out over the next 10-20 years. The current set-up simply doesn't work.

Norm_uk

A reversion to a more middle eastern approach? So they invented the concept of looking after their family? I think a reversion to more traditional western cultural values is what you mean...I have no intention of becoming a polygamist mysogynist surrounded by fat birds dressed in black (well unless they are in black leather then I might reconsider!).

But seriously stop most benefits and people will automatically start working hard and looking after each other a lot more. No need to become middle eastern - we were doing that in Britain since our way back pro-Celtic and Germanic ancestors settled the islands.

And Lionheart rightly pointed out that people who pay into the national kitty deserve some sort of pension...again reducing and stopping benefits will free up cash for that. I think we can also stop giving tax payers money to religious institutions and schools and cut back on foreign aid too...the big one would be to stop giving money to the EU - that's a huge and pointless bill we don't need to pay.

N.

Hello.Kitty

I was referring to the fact that ME families look to each other first and foremost and are very insular (is that the right word?). We don't see that often in Europe any more... although it is slightly more prevalent in continental Europe.

It's interesting to note though, that the Right Wing parties (FN in France and UKIP in UK) advocate a return to traditional, gender-specific roles within the family unit in order to reduce spending on benefits. Certainly, the FN, in its 1996 manifesto, advocated encouraging women not to work to enable them to concentrate on home and family. A few minor logistical (and logical) hurdles stood in the way of that one, but it's not for want of trying.

It would be an interesting study to see what benefit Benefits have actually brought to our societies - they allow more people to study (don't have to go out to work to earn your keep asap), put a stop to child labour (?), allowed women to work, created a level playing field for healthcare, allowed greater individual independence... but I guess also they could be partially responsible for fracturing the family unit.

Hmmmmanyway, enough musing. It's breakfast time.

Jeeper

Not if it's set up such that they don't pay into it for 30-40 years.

Remove pension contributions from the tax take and make the person save for their own retirement.

Trouble is - people won't...and then what? they get support anyway?

pauldxb

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...ent-girls.html

coffindodger

Its ok this muppet David Cameron saying he will do this and that.
Most of these brain dead spongsers know the law inside out, and the uk has gone to soft.
They will just appeal against any new law that may be passed against these spongers.
The EU (What a spineless set of people they are) will just find in favour of these spongers and most likely due to there human !!! yea right !!! rights has benn removed. and wayyyy heeeeyy back to normal nothing will change, it s the system thats at fault, and we know it will never change its all tooo late.