Pensioners and Intelligence

Chuck Stone

Freddie59 wrote: »

I would agree, in general, with that principle. But looking at what's gone on in this country, it would appear that the pensioners are being viewed as soft targets. And that is morally wrong.

Soft targets?

The political parties are afraid of pensioners. Perhaps more afraid of pensioners than any other demographic.

Pensioners tend to vote.

Freddie59

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Soft targets?

The political parties are afraid of pensioners. Perhaps more afraid of pensioners than any other demographic.

Pensioners tend to vote.

They do indeed. But I feel that this time around the Government have taken the view that they will have forgotten it in four years time.

Capt'n Midnight

ejmaztec wrote: »

OAPs should be comfortable because they've put up with decades of sh1t from one fuckwit government to the next.

It's a miracle that anyone actually reaches retirement age with what the dickwads have squeezed out of them over the years.

lets be brutally honest about this OAP's are proportionally more likely to vote, more likely to vote for the status quo , more likely to vote for cheap tricks like pension increases , if you take into account mortality rates then surviving pensioners are less likely to come from disadvantaged sections of the community, pensioners are also more likely to vote against certain types of social reforms

in short pensioners have been bought off cheaply by decades of governments

Capt'n Midnight

let's not forget the free line rental

what % of eircom's revenue comes from this ?

Einhard

Freddie59 wrote: »

I would agree, in general, with that principle. But looking at what's gone on in this country, it would appear that the pensioners are being viewed as soft targets. And that is morally wrong.

Oh apologies Freddie, I had assumed you lived in Ireland, where pensioners have been practically exampted from even modest cuts over the past few budgets, and where their basic income has been totally untouched while every other section of society has endured often brutal cutbacks.

Obviously though, you live somewhere else, in a land where pensioners are seen as soft options, and therefore targeted accordingly. England perhaps?

Raging_Ninja

Freddie59 wrote: »

I would agree, in general, with that principle. But looking at what's gone on in this country, it would appear that the pensioners are being viewed as soft targets. And that is morally wrong.

Pensioners have never been viewed as soft targets. Aren't they the only ones who never saw a single cutback since the start of the recession. Whereas the real soft targets, the single parents, are the ones who get hit hardest year after year.

Take a look at the statistics yourself:

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/silc/2010/prelimsilc_2010.pdf

Look at the figures for households with 1 adult with children under the age of 18, and compare it to the figures for households where there is 1 person over the age of 65 and houses with 2 people, one of whom is over the age of 65.

Edit - put statistics in a more readable format:

later12

Freddie59 wrote: »

The old saying "look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves" comes to mind.

That mindset would have prevented us from getting into this mess, but it won't get us out of it. You're taking it way out of context.

While the pennies must be looked at and dealt with accordingly, we really do not have €18 billion worth of pennies. I would rather see means testing of senior citizens' benefits than see one more cent deducted from a worker's or a family's income in taxes.

Cú Giobach

later10 wrote: »

But my point is you're only focusing on the end, and neglecting the means. This does a dis-service tho those of the elderly who remain in or close to poverty, and to the principle of a more equal society for the elderly.

Yes, the universal tide of welfare transfers has lifted all boats by a certain amount across the board. But because of its universal nature, and therefore the resources of which it deprived (and deprives) the most vulnerable, it's more like a process one ought to regret than of which one can feel proud.

Ignoring the process which achieves only a little for the least well off, and being proud of the end result regardless of what might be instead, is a very hollow level of pride.

You "trolled" me in another thread recently, so surely you don't expect me to get into discussion with you again.

Father Damo

People seem to forget that for an elderly person who has the mortgage long paid for/ doesnt pay rent, doesnt drive (or drives very short distances), barely drinks anymore (because a tenners worth will have them ,ocked even if they do) doesnt eat a massive amt etc etc etc it isnt that expensive to live off the state pension!

tayto lover

Father Damo wrote: »

People seem to forget that for an elderly person who has the mortgage long paid for/ doesnt pay rent, doesnt drive (or drives very short distances), barely drinks anymore (because a tenners worth will have them ,ocked even if they do) doesnt eat a massive amt etc etc etc it isnt that expensive to live off the state pension!

So there should be a smaller Child benefit paid to babies. After all they don't eat as much as a bigger child. Will you cop on to yourself.

Sky King

Ah old people have been playing the stupid card for years... bastids are outwitting the whole lot of us constantly and we don't even know it!

Father Damo

tayto lover wrote: »

So there should be a smaller Child benefit paid to babies. After all they don't eat as much as a bigger child. Will you cop on to yourself.

Thats 30 odd quid a week. They go through more clothes. Childcare/ education fees. Usually supported by at least one working parent.

Seriously. Just....wow.

kincsem

Gubbermint departments talking to each other. About time. It only took ninety years.

tayto lover

Father Damo wrote: »

Thats 30 odd quid a week. They go through more clothes. Childcare/ education fees. Usually supported by at least one working parent.

Seriously. Just....wow.

You've been spending too long with Dougal.

Einhard

Freddie59 wrote: »

The old saying "look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves" comes to mind. That is a third of one billion. A good and valid starting point.

It may be a great start, but it'd be a tiny start nonetheless.

And if it's a choice between overpaid civil servants and pensioners, well the pensioners get my vote. Every time.

There is no choice. That's the point.

So you would think it easy to live on €30 approx. per day? Mind if I ask what your take home is weekly?

Assuming that one has one's mortgage paid off, then yes, €30 a day is more than adequate. As to my take home pay well, when I worked I was approx €350 per week. Of that €110 went on rent and bills. So i was left with about €240 discretionary income. And I had more than enough. I then had to quit my job and sign on. I got €186 pw. I moved home and again, i had more than enough to live on. I've now gone back to college, have a loan, and survive, on approx €170 pw in Dublin.

In answer to your question therefore, yes, €30 per day should be more than adequate for a person to live adequately. I mean, pensioners were living adequately five years ago when it was less than that. The cost of living is now lower than it was then, so why wouldn't they be able to live as well.

I get the feeling that those who are against cuts would be against them were the pension €500!

You mention that your gran lives with you and she only hands up €40. That is a decision taken (and accepted) by your parents. Not all pensioners have that luxury.

Most pensioners don't have mortgages, and their bills are subsidised by the state. They get hugely generous pensions, and can afford, in general, to have them cut.

As I already said, I have no problem with targetting pensioners. as long as all the other aforementioned hangers-on are dealt with first.

Jesus, did a PS worker murder your family? You really seem to have a thing against them. Incidentally, the aunt I mentioned earlier retired from the HSE (a nurse). No doubt you'd love to see her pension cut. Or is your hatred of the PS outdone by your blind, illogical desire to see all pension entitlements preserved in perpetuity, no matter how man autistic kids go without SNAs?

policarp

Einhard wrote: »

It may be a great start, but it'd be a tiny start nonetheless.



There is no choice. That's the point.



Assuming that one has one's mortgage paid off, then yes, €30 a day is more than adequate. As to my take home pay well, when I worked I was approx €350 per week. Of that €110 went on rent and bills. So i was left with about €240 discretionary income. And I had more than enough. I then had to quit my job and sign on. I got €186 pw. I moved home and again, i had more than enough to live on. I've now gone back to college, have a loan, and survive, on approx €170 pw in Dublin.

In answer to your question therefore, yes, €30 per day should be more than adequate for a person to live adequately. I mean, pensioners were living adequately five years ago when it was less than that. The cost of living is now lower than it was then, so why wouldn't they be able to live as well.

I get the feeling that those who are against cuts would be against them were the pension €500!




Most pensioners don't have mortgages, and their bills are subsidised by the state. They get hugely generous pensions, and can afford, in general, to have them cut.



Jesus, did a PS worker murder your family? You really seem to have a thing against them. Incidentally, the aunt I mentioned earlier retired from the HSE (a nurse). No doubt you'd love to see her pension cut. Or is your hatred of the PS outdone by your blind, illogical desire to see all pension entitlements preserved in perpetuity, no matter how man autistic kids go without SNAs?

I hope you don't depend on a pension for your latter years.
After paying PRSI etc. all your working life. . .
Why are you paying PRSI and other taxes now?
Why pay health insurance?
Waste of money?

later12

Cú Giobach wrote: »

You "trolled" me in another thread recently, so surely you don't expect me to get into discussion with you again.

lol

amacachi

policarp wrote: »

I hope you don't depend on a pension for your latter years.
After paying PRSI etc. all your working life. . .
Why are you paying PRSI and other taxes now?
Why pay health insurance?
Waste of money?

Sweet Jesus this post typifies the response to anything about pensioners.

Where to start I don't know.
PRSI is for when someone becomes unemployed, not when they retire.
Taxes all your life are for roads, healthcare, teachers' salaries, looking after kids and the like.
Health insurance is an insurance over our (admittedly quite poorly run) state-funded health service.

And for the love of Allah just think for a second, please, just stop and think about what is being proposed. People are now going to be expected (even though they were meant to be doing so all along but the government turned a blind eye) to pay income tax on an investment they made during their working lives that, and this is the kicker, they didn't pay income tax on in the first place.

You can stop thinking now, though it'll probably take you a minute to gather the pieces of your brain off the floor and wall that I put there by blowing your mind. The current proposal, nevermind how coddled pensioners are in general, the current proposal is that since people were encouraged to pay into a pension by not having to pay tax on whatever they put in provided they paid tax on what they took out is a proposal to enforce the fucking system already in place.



The only thing wrong with this country is the people in it.

Pdfile

McCruiskeen wrote: »

The reaction of a lot of people to this tax that some pensioners now owe seems to be:

"ah the poor pensioners, how would they have known they had to pay tax on their income, they are being screwed over by the government"

This worries me!!!

I am still youngish and have been lucky enough so far that every year I learn a little bit more and get a little bit wiser (despite occasional alcohol fueled teenage like **** ups)

So at what age will I start to lose my marbles and think that I don't have to pay tax on my income anymore?

Or is the "poor pensioner" attitude just a bit condescending to the many intelligent and sharp older people out there.

Enda Kenny will be 65 in 4 years so if he doesn't declare his income then, would the attitude be "ah sure how could he have known he had to pay tax on his income, he is so old and thick"

you begin to lose you're marbles around 24 years of age,


he is a politician even what he declares is 1/5th of what he earns, like the rest of this Cowardly cnutfaced country.

EUSSR

Pdfile wrote: »

you begin to lose you're marbles around 24 years of age,

Sources?

Freddie59

Einhard wrote: »

It may be a great start, but it'd be a tiny start nonetheless.

As I said already you have to start somewhere. Or do you just do nothing?

Einhard wrote: »

Assuming that one has one's mortgage paid off, then yes, €30 a day is more than adequate. As to my take home pay well, when I worked I was approx €350 per week. Of that €110 went on rent and bills. So i was left with about €240 discretionary income. And I had more than enough. I then had to quit my job and sign on. I got €186 pw. I moved home and again, i had more than enough to live on. I've now gone back to college, have a loan, and survive, on approx €170 pw in Dublin.

In answer to your question therefore, yes, €30 per day should be more than adequate for a person to live adequately. I mean, pensioners were living adequately five years ago when it was less than that. The cost of living is now lower than it was then, so why wouldn't they be able to live as well.

Correct me if I'm wrong - I'm assuming you're relatively young (late 20s early 30s?) so things like heat, medication, etc would not assume the same urgency for you as an ill, housebound pensioner. Agreed? Then try living (and running central heating etc) on €30 a day.

Einhard wrote: »

I get the feeling that those who are against cuts would be against them were the pension €500!

Definitely not. All people are asking is that the ones bleeding money from the Government coffers for little return are targetted first.

Einhard wrote: »

Most pensioners don't have mortgages, and their bills are subsidised by the state. They get hugely generous pensions, and can afford, in general, to have them cut.

According to yourself. I refer you to my reply above.

Einhard wrote: »

Jesus, did a PS worker murder your family? You really seem to have a thing against them. Incidentally, the aunt I mentioned earlier retired from the HSE (a nurse). No doubt you'd love to see her pension cut. Or is your hatred of the PS outdone by your blind, illogical desire to see all pension entitlements preserved in perpetuity, no matter how man autistic kids go without SNAs?

No, they murdered my wage packet!:p Seriously, the PS wage bill HAS to be tackled first, along with the ludicrously generous SW bill. Then you can look at the pensioners. And my 'hatred' as you describe it is directed at the overly generous positive discrimination practiced towards these people and their 'entitlements'. Simple as that.

FFS, contracts which can't be altered, increments which have to be "honoured", ridiculous pension entitlements, tax free lump sums for some,it's a fcuking disgrace.:mad: And as long as that carry-on persists we will continues to have an €18bn deficit. And keep following our own tails.

44leto

Reading some of the boo hoo hoo stories in the sindo, what is it about this country that somehow gives people a sense of entitlement while at the same time they dodge tax as if it is a national sport.

I have absolutely no sympathy to tax dodgeing pensioners who feel put out by been asked or compeled to pay the tax they are meant to be paying.

Freddie59

amacachi wrote: »

Taxes all your life are for roads, healthcare, teachers' salaries, looking after kids and the like.
Health insurance is an insurance over our (admittedly quite poorly run) state-funded health service.

I've bolded the two biggest, most inefficient money guzzlers in the State which need to be tackled ahead of ANY pensioner.

amacachi wrote: »

The only thing wrong with this country is the people in it.

Some people. Who can't see the wood for the trees.

Freddie59

44leto wrote: »

Reading some of the boo hoo hoo stories in the sindo, what is it about this country that somehow gives people a sense of entitlement while at the same time they dodge tax as if it is a national sport.

I have absolutely no sympathy to tax dodgeing pensioners who feel put out by been asked or compeled to pay the tax they are meant to be paying.

I don't think anyone would. But classify 'tax dodging' among pensioners please? Compared to what's going on in the country for the past four years.

amacachi

Freddie59 wrote: »

I've bolded the two biggest, most inefficient money guzzlers in the State which need to be tackled ahead of ANY pensioner.

I agree, let's cut the medical expense. Here's an idea, if someone has an income of over 700 a week we'll take the medical card off them. Sorry, wait, not if they're over 65. Jesus.

44leto

Freddie59 wrote: »

I don't think anyone would. But classify 'tax dodging' among pensioners please? Compared to what's going on in the country for the past four years.

Well please, what was going on??
But isn't it good that they are finally catching some of them.

I am in my 40s and I have a private pension scheme, but I am under absolutely no illusions, there is no way on Earth I will enjoy the same generous benefits that pensioners receive now.

Pensioners in this country, they are not that vulnerable, they are definately one of the most powerful groups in this country. No government want to take on the grey power, till now. Fair balls to the government is what I say,

Freddie59

amacachi wrote: »

I agree, let's cut the medical expense. Here's an idea, if someone has an income of over 700 a week we'll take the medical card off them. Sorry, wait, not if they're over 65. Jesus.

Bit of a hysterical response methinks. I would agree with the removal of a medical card from someone with that income though. But why are you treating pensioners with such disdain, given the amount being bled from the State coffers by the PS and SW bills?

Freddie59

44leto wrote: »

Well please, what was going on??
But isn't it good that they are finally catching some of them.

I am in my 40s and I have a private pension scheme, but I am under absolutely no illusions, there is no way on Earth I will enjoy the same generous benefits that pensioners receive now.

Pensioners in this country, they are not that vulnerable, they are definately one of the most powerful groups in this country. No government want to take on the grey power, till now. Fair balls to the government is what I say,

I certainly wouldn't agree. A "Labour Party" condoning a witch hunt like this says it all about this "Government".

I am also in a private pension scheme for the past 28 years, and I fear likewise. But all I am pointing out is that other groups, as previously mentioned, are not being targetted, because the "Government" hasn't the balls to do so.

44leto

Freddie59 wrote: »

I certainly wouldn't agree. A "Labour Party" condoning a witch hunt like this says it all about this "Government".

I am also in a private pension scheme for the past 28 years, and I fear likewise. But all I am pointing out is that other groups, as previously mentioned, are not being targetted, because the "Government" hasn't the balls to do so.

Others are been targeted, in the article I read they are also pursueing lone parent cheats, also 16000 dole cheats were caught last year.

I don't know if you are up on current affairs but we are living on IMF/ECB money which will run out in 2 years.

And how is pursueing any kind of tax dodgers or social welfare cheats a "witch hunt", you go after any law breakers.

Freddie59

44leto wrote: »

Others are been targeted, in the article I read they are also pursueing lone parent cheats, also 16000 dole cheats were caught last year.

I don't know if you are up on current affairs but we are living on IMF/ECB money which will run out in 2 years.

And how is pursueing any kind of tax dodgers or social welfare cheats a "witch hunt", you go after any law breakers.

I think anyone who looks around them will realise that 16,000 is just the tip of a huge iceberg. It would be more prudent - and fair - to target these ahead of pensioners. These cnuts are ripping the place off for years....and then some.

But it's easier to go after the pensioners. I hope the government suffer a huge backlash because of this. The pricks.