benefits and Pensions

I love ringing my friend Liz as we seem to have great discussions on everything that is going wrong with the world and our Country.

It is so annoying that we are a country that gives out so much to those who are willing to do so little or claim for everything and work on the side. 

I said that if those who worked got everything free, school meals to heating allowances, full pensions and free prescriptions suddenly all those who are capable of working would soon be off their arses and doing something.

It's true, we are all born to take care of ourselves yet most think it is the job of someone else.  It would be nice if no one had to worry about putting food on the table or wood on the fire but that isn't going to happen, we threw that away when greed entered the equation of life. 

Why should everyone be entitled to the same standard of living if some work for it and others don't?  If Joe bloggs likes to have nice things and works hard to buy them why should Bob smith get the same for staying at home all day by choice.

Benefits were brought in to help those who couldn't work through injury or job loss at an older age, these days you are better off on benefits than going to work and putting in 40 hours. 

I heard the other day that a lady, I'll call her (a) has two children and both her and her husband work, they are paying a mortgage and are struggling to make ends meet, her sister, lady (b) has 2 children, neither work, live in a council house and have no money worries.  The kids get free school meals, all school trips are paid for etc.  Lady A's kids asked why they couldn't go on a trip and their cousins could, infact the cousins got more new clothes than hers did.  It doesn't make sense does it.

When my parents decided to have children they had to afford the want themselves, and that was the day protection from pregnancy had little to offer.  I think you got child benefit of next to nothing and it didn't double as another child came along.  Today most people think that having children should be borne on everyone else paying for them, especially the young who believe its the way to a council house (fully furnished and paid for!)

What about the couples who don't have children, they don't get any tax relief for not using the education system or claiming child benefit, maternity leave etc.  Maybe they have a better standard of living because they aren't having to bring up children (in most cases it wasn't their choice) and have savings so in old age they get penalised more.  What is wrong with this country and the way it works out who gets what?

It seems that those on this 16 hours before their benefits get affected are the worst kind.  They receive the same amount of money as those who work 40 hours in a regular office job.  I take my hat off to a lady that was told how to do this when her husband left but instead she carried on working her normal job.  What incentive is that.  I know another lady that worked the 16 hours and had the rest made up but her wage slips were only checked every so often so the 6 weeks prior to the checks she would be doing 24 hours and still received the same amount of benefit.  There is always a way to get more out and even worse its explained to claimants how to do it. 

Yet if you have worked all your life and suddenly at 50 you lose your job but you own your house you have to lose everything you have worked for before you get any help - these are the people who should be given everything so they don't have to sell their properties and worry themselves to death about paying bills.

I know that circumstances aren't the same for everyone and some people are just unlucky not to have employment and therefore they need to be looked after but then why penalise those who have worked all their lives and make them sell up and become homeless before help is given.

Maybe there should be a point system brought in where if you have worked for so many years you are allowed so much back in benefits if you need them, this would save the homes of those who have worked hard all there lives and it might be an incentive to those who work a few months then ensure they get fired so they can go back on benefits again for another 6 months.

It's like pensions, why should those who have saved all their lives and contributed be so heavily taxed on the pensions and indeed the state pension be reduced.  They have paid into the State Pension and should be entitled to the full payment back. 

Which brings me to the next rant.  The NI was introduced so we all had health care and a state pension.  Employers pay 13% tax per pound per employee towards this.  Next year employers will also have to contribute into their employees pensions another 3%, and employees will also have to pay this, even though they have NI deducted from their wages for this very same thing. 

For the likes of you and I who have a personal pension we only get so many 60th's of what we worked and then a % of that, for the public workers, ie

Well I certainly feel a lot lighter for getting that off my chest.  If I have provoked you one way or the other, good - it means you will go out and have a discussion about it.