The State is not your friend

The sense of anger is exacerbated by geographical anomalies. Half of pensioners who live abroad – those in France, Spain and the US, for instance – receive annual increases to their state payments.

But others in South Africa, Australia, Trinidad, New Zealand, Canada and nearly every other Commonwealth nation do not.

Some pensioners in these regions in their 90s receive as little as £17 a week; one 102-year-old receives less than £7 a week.

Creating a level playing field is deemed too expensive by the Government. It would cost £590m to “unfreeze” the pensions for the next year.

Yep.

That you’ve paid in for 40 years to a contributory pensions matters not. If they need the money to pay for duck houses then that’s what they’ll do.

Fuckers.

And seriously, there is no justification for this at all other than that they prefer to do other things with the cash. All the explanations they offer are just weaseling around this simple fact.

12 thoughts on “The State is not your friend”

  1. “If they need the money to pay for duck houses then that’s what they’ll do.”

    That was turned down. And even then I’m not sure it cost half a billion.

  2. Bearing in mind how much it costs to give old people health care we should be encouraging them to emigrate, not stopping them.
    I wonder how many people in Canada or Mexico claim they live in the US.

  3. ‘they prefer to do other things with the cash’

    What cash? You mean they prefer to borrow cash for other purposes?

  4. Pensioners expect the government to keep its promises.
    What touching naivety! Do they also believe in Father Christmas?

  5. Richard Murphy’s justification for not raising the NIC threshold was the contributory principle. Ergo, no NIC deduction; no pension. “Is that what you want?” was his cry. I laughed that argument out of my head so this proof doesn’t really change anything.

    P.S. The arguments against raising IT personal allowances were even more arse wiped.

  6. To be fair, and not wishing to make excuses for government idiocy, but people really should research this stuff when they decide to up-sticks and move. Every country has its pros and cons that really need to be factored into the decision, but there’s not much point in moving in full knowledge, complaining about it, and then having to move back home again.

  7. “If they need the money to pay for duck houses then that’s what they’ll do.”
    It is regrettable that trope, along with moat cleaning & & few others, prosper. Those were expenses disallowed. They obscure the ones were allowed.

  8. @Tim Newman
    Many of those affected may have moved decade(s) ago [unchecked assertion]. What happens after all the research, the emigration, resettling, when after a number of years the promises are broken; the agreement unilaterally altered?

  9. Bloke in Costa Rica

    £590 million is about what the State spends between breakfast and a late lunch. A day. You could find that much money down the back of the sofa in 10 Downing Street. It’s obviously nothing to do with budgets.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *