Heating benefits for ex-pat elderly to be cut

[Richard51]

It's an attitude of mind.  Some of the most wealthy people I know are also the most miserable ..and vice versa.

Mrs R51

[powerdesal]

Being poor definitely affects the state of mind.

Worrying about how to pay utility bills or buy food for a family does not put anyone in a happy frame of mind. Unless you have experienced it ''up close and personal'' (as they say) then you cant really comment.

 

 

edit. I am not poor - now !

[velcorin]

By "Money", I meant squillions!

I once lived on a packet of Cornflakes for a week, no milk, no suger, nothing[:D] Not fun. I also shared a study at school with my best friend who inherited squillions at 21 from his trust fund. Dead 2 years later. Drove his Porsche into a motorway bridge, deliberately. Apparently it's called the "Tyranny of Choice". When you have the means to do whatever you want, you can't make your mind up, and end up doing nothing, get depressed, etc, etc. It's not the drugs, booze, wild activities, but a kind of boredom that kills.

[mint]

Oh no, Velcorin, I've just talked about boredom on another thread!

Don't fancy having the doc write BOREDOM when they have to fill in the "cause of death".  Wouldn't look good in the inquest either.

Someone, get me out of this place PDQ, or my fate is sealed!!![+o(]

[powerdesal]

'Tyranny of Choice',   I just love that phrase,  chance to experience it would be nice.

[Gluestick]

[quote user="Russethouse"]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/sep/20/uk.freedomofinformation

Shame he didn't take after his father

[/quote]

Mark Thatcher not only earned upwards of £1.5 millon from the University of Oman contract as a "Civil Engineering Consultant" - which in itself is somewhat suspect, since his only professional studies were as a Chartered Accountant: where he failed his intermediate exam - later on, he was courted by a devious Lebanese Arms Dealer called Wafic Said, and took him "Home to meet my Mum for tea" at Chequers.....:his father, of course, after he retired as a director of Burmah-Castrol also became an arms dealer; pimping off the back of his wife who just happened to be Prime Minister....

Mr Laws managed to retired at 28: a multi-millionaire: he was a banker.

Which speaks legions for a wholly dysfunctional commercial system: even such as Bill Gates was unable to emulate such a feat.

Denis Thatcher was awarded a Baronetcy: and Mark has naturally inherited this: which means his brats and their brats will do likewise.

Which in itself is sufficient condemnation of an honours system gone mad; other than sit in the background, what did Denis Thatcher actually do to deserve this?

Thus whilst Norm and I rarely agree, I would not denigrate his comment as rant: objective, not silly rant.

 

[woolybanana]

Denigrate? That was a compliment for Normie![:P]

[NormanH]

Cheers Gluesick [B]

[Iceni]

[quote user="Will"]

Anyway, the heating allowance is payable only to those who were UK resident before reaching the age of entitlement, so far from all Britsih over-60s in France are eligible even now.

[/quote]

Will, perhaps you meant "having reached" rather than "before reaching". As neither my wife nor I qualify for this handout we have no qualms about it's being cancelled forthwith.

John

[ebaynut]

[quote user="powerdesal"]

 

edit. I am not poor - now !

[/quote]

Spare an old soldier a few pounds ( Euro's) for a cup of tea, please gov'nor????? [:)]

[powerdesal]

[quote user="ebaynut"][quote user="powerdesal"]

 

edit. I am not poor - now !

[/quote]

Spare an old soldier a few pounds ( Euro's) for a cup of tea, please gov'nor????? [:)]

[/quote]

I can let you have a hexi stove and an old rat pack, will that do? [:P]

[Gluestick]

As  with all political expediency, it is worth remembering, perhaps, where and how the Old Aged Pension (As it was originally titled), started.

This was the People's Budget of Asquith in 1909. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Budget

Whilst the sentiment was good, Eric Arthur Blair (George Orwell) explains how and why OAPs invariably resided in common lodging houses, despite their Old Age Pensions in the 1930s. ("Down and Out in Paris and London": George Orwell.

NIC was first introduced in 1911 by the National Insurance Act: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Insurance_Act_1911

As always, successive governments sieze on any excuse to move the goalposts, remove benefits already paid for and increase the cost, in order to serve their own short-term fiscal incompetence and profligacy.

As velcorin has already pointed out, the system of Graduated Contributions and Benefits introduced by Wilson's government in their overhaul of the Social State (and the adoption of a Social Security System to emulate those already partially or wholly created by such as Germany, France, Sweden and even to some degree the USA) was jumped on with green eyes by the Grantham Mauler and whilst the graduated benefits were mainly withdrawn (And SERPS re-engineered), the contributions (Hitherto a flat rate for basic NIC) were escalated to the stratosphere!

So you are still expected to pay the graduated contributions: yet deprived the graduated benefit.

Pay more and receive less: remember, "We are the party of low taxation!"? Absolute lie: except for the high earners.

Perhaps the very worst current excesses of Thatcher's legacy are firstly the self-employed paying Class IV NIC on profits (For which there is absolutely no benefit whatsoever!) and secondly, employers forced to pay Employer's NIC on those above retirement age who themselves pay no NIC at all!

Interestingly, one can ascertain the notional value of the "National Insurance Fund": excepting, of course, it doesn't exists, 'cos profligate governments spent it all many years ago.

This forward cost plus the awesome capital value of Britain's public sector pensions (For which again, there is no "Fund", despite many classes of civil servants paying in to the scheme, sorry, "Scam"!), which are paid from gross national revenue, are two facets invariably ignored by commentators and analysts comparing national debt, PSBR and GDP.

Neither can persist for very much longer in their present guise.

 

[mint]

Gluey, spot on on every point; I applaud you!

Public Sector pensions: yes, indeed, I daren't say more in public or they'll certainly lynch me.

[Hoddy]

When I became a public servant in the 70s I said that I did not want to join the pension scheme because I thought I could find a better deal privately. I was just laughed at and told that the choice was not available. As it turns out the govrnment pension has been good for me, I'd take a dim view of cuts though in view of the fact that I didn't want it in the first place.

Hoddy

[Gluestick]

I very much fear, Hoddy, that cuts are unavoidable: since Britain is effectively bankrupt, thanks to NuLabour's fiscal insanities and open-handed largesse.

As with Greece, Spain et al, we will all have to face swingeing cuts on various benefits, whether we paid for 'em or no!

Sadly and erroneously, the collective opinion seems to be that no state sponsored benefit or service can be cut and ought properly to be considered as sacrosanct.

Unfortunately, the blunt reality, surely, is there is no difference, fundamentally, between a state obligation and that of say a pension fund in the private sector.

When the Kent steel workers lost their company pension entitlement, OK, eventually the state sponsored Pension Protection Fund (PPF), stepped in: to a degree.

Trouble is now, the PPF itself has mirrored earlier experience with the US Federal PPGC (Pension Protection Gurantee Corp): far too many claims (Airlines and steel corporations) and too little revenue means little remaining fluid capital.

Same with those who worked (And contributed) to Turner and Newell (Owned by the defunct US giant, Ferodo): and many others..

Skint is skint: no matter the obligation.

 

[ebaynut]

[quote user="powerdesal"]

I can let you have a hexi stove and an old rat pack, will that do? [:P]

[/quote]

I would prefer cash if you don't mind. (saves the postage costs)

If you don't have the time to send it yourself, please forward your Bank details, PIN and DOB, mother's maiden etc, and I can arrange it all for you.

No need to thank me, I am glad to help. [:-))]

[Hoddy]

Gluestick I understand, of course, that cuts are probably unavoidable although I wouldn't agree with your analysis of how we got into this mess.

I was merely trying to counter what seems to be a widely held belief that public servants' pensions are non-contributory.

[velcorin]

I find some of Gluey's statement most entertaining on a very boring Friday afternoon.

Go on, I'm a glutton for punishment, how can a sovereign country be "effectively bankrupt"? You may want to consider Japan, French nuke decommissing and quasi-state company pensions, and all European public sector worker pension schemes in your answer. Professionally I see absolutely likelihood in my lifetime of the UK defaulting on it's debt obligations. I offer the OECD reports, CDS rates, and Gilt costs as evidence.

 

[Gluestick]

And  v, you might well like to consider Britain immediately post WWII: and its fiscal and financial condition.

Then, Britain's industries managed to leverage the country out of its parlous condition: once Clem Attlee and his ideologues were booted out of office.

So, what now pussy cat? (Edit: Tom Jone's song offends the word censor! Shaped like a baby cat and beloved as a descriptor for little kids!) Since, from 2003 onwards, ONS in their annual analysis of Britain's capital values noted residential house stock represented circa 66% of gross national asset value and thus capital, then perhaps we can export houses?

Not really, since in excess of 75% of that value is immovable land.

And BTW, I am already on written (published, public domain) record of suggesting both sovereign risk crises and a Sterling crisis, well before the event.

Naturally, I track, amongst other sources, OECD and yield rates on sovereign risk bonds; which would naturally include Gilt Edged Securities. And further, one has noted how bond holders, such as Pimco, the market leader, went averse late last year...............

The downside risk is that global capital markets become evermore risk-averse on sovereign debt in general and more so on UK new floats: and even if Cameroon and chums manage to float the (estimated) £160+ Billion of debt this year, the rates will be crippling.

Now as a practising accountant, my definition of bankrupt is simply that net assets are outweighed by net liabilities. However, with a nation state, one must employ net current assets and net current liabilities: do the sums.

Net current liabilities: National Debt + (perhaps) £160++ Billion: net Current Assets: diminishing gross tax revenues, minus fixed and variable costs; budgetary deficit (In spades!).

As examples, historically, consider Russian Czarist defaulted bonds: Chinese pre Mao ditto: et al.

Now, perhaps V, you can dope out your own prognosis and picture: keep it simple though!

[:)]

 

[velcorin]

[quote user="Gluestick"]

Now as a practising accountant, my definition of bankrupt is simply that net assets are outweighed by net liabilities. However, with a nation state, one must employ net current assets and net current liabilities: do the sums.

Net current liabilities: National Debt + (perhaps) £160++ Billion: net Current Assets: diminishing gross tax revenues, minus fixed and variable costs; budgetary deficit (In spades!).

[/quote]

Nope. Purely ability to borrow based on the ability to pay interest. Assets and Liabilities have no place here. Hence my Japan note. Current Debt about 250% of GDP. Interest repayments about 15% of Govn revenue. Current UK Debt (OECD figure 28/05/10) 67% of GDP. Interest repayments about 4% of Govn revenue. The lowest figures of the G-7 countries. The idea that a Govn has sufficient Assets to sell to cover it's Liabilities is bizarre, are suggesting that a country's Equity is in some way associated to the Assets of it's citizens? The ability to repay "loans" as would a consumer or corporate borrower is not relevant.

PS PIMCO just love publicity, the bigger players Loomis and Fidelity get on with it. Interestingly PIMCO let last week's Bund auction fail, but are buying Gilts. 

 

[Gluestick]

Nice idea..................

As long as you can find fools to finance your profligacy.

I fear we are now entering a new phase, where fiat currency based nations are reviewed on a different set of metrics.

You see, America and Britain et al, can only operate their Post-Keynsian "Strategy" (If one might so dignify it) of Deficit Financing, as long as China, the Arab OPEC states, Korea and Japan et al are happy to fund the quid pro quo: Goods out and loans out too.

In final analysis, a nation state is no different from a family, a corner shop, a major global corporation, except in one dynamic: it can repeatedly put off the repayment of debt by rescheduling for longer. Just as a man or family can continue on the primrose path to perdition by using credit cards to pay their mortgage.......the only difference is time.

Britain's major core monetary problem is essentially the core reality that the country has failed in real wealth creation for many years: which is precisely why banks had to "Import" capital from the global capital market and mainly interbank market to fund the insane house price rises seen since circa 1999.

As Peston called this after the debacle, the Funding Overhang.

Comparing Britain to Japan is a facile exercise: despite their problems, never has Japan suffered a Balance of Trade Deficit. Which is how come they have increased their overseas investments (Mainly in sovereign risk such as T Bills), in hard, external currencies.

Whereas Britain...............