According to the British National Party website the British National Party will try to achieve the following if they gain power at the 2010 general election: The conditions in which many of Britain’s old people are forced to live are a national disgrace. We are pledged to ensure that all our old folk are able […]
Continue Reading BNP Policies : BNP Pensioners Policy
The British National Party is the only hope left for the People of this country to save the British from the corrupt multiculturalist Politicians of the Old Guard parties, by using common sense policies on a broad front , that PUT THE BRITISH PEOPLE 1ST!!!!!!
That doesn’t exactly discuss the BNP pensions policy.
Have you ever considered how much money the average British person pays in taxes in their life time and then compared it to what a retired person gets after the age of 60/65?
I’ve thought about it, but have not got enough information to do serious statistical analysis. Even so lets do some very basic maths, lets say I earn £400 a week and lets say 50% goes to the government in various taxes (including hidden taxes). Lets assume I’ve worked 40 years at that rate before I retire.
Some of that money will go to things I’ve used, (so can’t realistically expect it back, I used the services) NHS, schools for my children, roads built, police to protect me etc… and some will go to pay for things I don’t use or agree with, but that’s life in a democracy.
Lets imagine of that £200 a week that’s taken half is ‘saved’ for my old age (£100 a week). Saved in the sense it goes to retired people now and when I’m old other younger working people will pay towards my retirement.
So I hit 65 and retire, I’m no longer paying significant taxes. How long will my £100 a week for 40 years (about £200,000) last me?
I don’t know the answer to that question, (would love to know the answer with better figures?) but I can see it’s not going to last very long, certainly not until I reach 85 years of age (more and more people are living longer).
Currently 15% of the UK are of retirement age, by 2033 it’s estimated 5% of our population will be 85 years of age or older.
5% of our population will have been receiving retirement related financial help for at least 20 years (since women survive longer than men it’s really more than 20 years).
I can not see how even paying taxes for your entire life can pay for 20+ years of retirement unless you had a high paid job and paid a LOT of taxes.
So how on Earth can we afford to pay pensioners even more?
BTW I think we should treat old people with respect and try to give them a good life at retirement age, my point is it’s clear as our population ages we can not afford to give them more. Most likly what will happen is they will as a group recieve less and less, which is going to be a problem.
David
View Comment
I note your comments, and valid as they are I seeno comment so far as the present 11 million or so old age pensioners are concerned. What about them and their immediate needs? The present basic State-Pension is not enough for them to live on with any level of dignity, and even where those who paid SERPS are concerned, given that its worth was halved by the last Tory government, are still not paid enough. A few, like my self, have a small private pension but even that does not suffice. I own my own house, a 2up-2down terrace type, which I would like to leave to my daughter, but fat chance of that should I have to into care. I am seventy four years of age and therefore had two live through most of the Thirties and the depression with a father to ill to work and a mother having to look after him ad three other children. Then along came WW2 and all the attendant difficulties associated with that,rationing, poor educational standards, no Health Service. In 1938 my family and I were removed under the Slum-Clearance Act and put into better accomadation, hot and cold water on tap, inside toilet, a bath,mains electricity, what luxury. This,however, was not provided by the State
but by a private philanthropist by the name of William Sutton. He built many house through a £1.000.000 legacy for the poor of Stoke-on-Trent in particular. Where was the State during this time – trying to appease Adolf Hitler. After he had been sorted out at much cost of blood and treasure, came the Election of 1945 at which time we, who were young then, were promised many things which the then Labour Government strove to bring about much to Clement Attlee’s credit and others.But the one thing that did not, and has not, improved commensurate with the effort that was put into bringing about a succesful end to WW2,the beginning of the Welfare-State by my generation and the previous one – was the State-Pension. You talk about how present young people should prepare themselves for their old-age and how they pay for it. For those who are in work the less they are payed, the less they will be prepared. There is no point in talking about private pensions when the cost of them, like mortgages, are beyond their means.Of course, the better paid should provide for themselves, but those who are not so priviledged will have to be provided for by the State, but who pays? and where does the money come from? Taxation is the the only answer But how do you persuade an already over-taxed nation to do that. One source of contention has always been and will always be the banking system and those who work in it, more particularly those who run the banks and are responsible for the obscene profits and bonuses that are paid accordingly. When that activity is controlled by Goverment and the are regulated accordingly then no doubt a lot of Renenue will be available there. Off-Shore banking activity is another area that should be controlled and it should not be beyond the wit of any Government to devise methods of doing it without bringing the economy crashing down. I could go on-and-on. but I will bring my diatribe to an end inthe hope that someone takes note.
View Comment
What is there not to like about this? You say it will be expensive but isn’t £825 billion on banks steep?
What is more important, the Pensioners who have paid taxes with the promise of a living pension or the banks that have lost said pensioners their pensions?
All about priorities, init?
If we’ve money for the banks, we should have money for everything on this green earth, including our old folk. Remember, immigrants get old too so we can’t just import more people like some sick form of people ponzi.
View Comment
Unless society changes some how in the future (I don’t know how) we won’t be able to provide better services etc… for retired people who haven’t planned in advance, we’ll struggle to provide what we provide today!
You can’t compare bailing out the banks to providing better pensions.
Firstly the banking crisis is a one off, the cost of supplying old age pensions etc… is going to increase year on year forever.
Secondly to bail out the banks the country had to go in debt, which our children will be paying off for years. No one in their right political mind would suggest going into debt to give pensioners more money now.
David
View Comment
I only brought up the banks and it isn’t a one-off, with all that interest, this will be a real money maker for the Banking sector. The British Government has lumbered us with £825 billion’s worth of debt for what? So the Banks can still operate and make enormous amounts of money for producing very little?
Come on, our entire economic policy needs to be re-thought and putting the people before banks is the first step. After that, all else will follow.
And again, we cannot just keep increasing the tax base to pay for the elderly, as I said, even those immigrants won’t be young forever.
View Comment
I agree with you.
The government had little choice, but to do something about the banks, (if they went under WE all loose out) however giving them pretty much a blank cheque with few strings attached was weak.
I can not understand why the government didn’t let the banks almost hit the wall and take any over (buy their shares for example) that couldn’t survive without help (it’s called business and something the banks understand and embrace). Banks are profitable when run well, so they’d be a great investment for the countries future if the government owned them.
You know what it is, Labour was so afraid the Conservatives could play the old Labour want to re-nationalise everything card they were too afraid to do the strong thing.
We should have benefited from the banks failure, not the other way around! Now the government are on the back foot talking about windfall taxes that will barely scratch the surface of the debts the banks failures have saddled us all with!
David
View Comment
What you also have to remember concerning the Bank Bailout is this:
1. The money HAS to be paid back at some point
2. If we had NOT carried out this damn expensive bail out the banks concerned would now have gone bankrupt, and all those people with savings personal pensions etc would have LOST all that money.
3. You may not like the bail out, but there would have been far more damage caused if it had NOT been done.
View Comment
David,
You cannot work it out without statistical information that only the government hold.
What you can say is that this country throws billions of spare cash away, squanders it on stipid schemes, art projects, foreign aid, military adventures etc etc.
I think the BNP are simply saying that some of this wasted money will be redirected to help us old folk.
The current regime(s) have always been such parsimonious penny-pinching scrooges I always feel guilty when my pension comes.
Vote BNP for a better future.
View Comment
PS Quote David “etc… for retired people who haven’t planned in advance,”
Not sure what you mean by that.
I paid National Insurance contributions and employers pension schemes for all my working life, having been assured of three things, –
1) The NI contributions are compulsory, for my OAP.
2) When my state pension was worked out, they counted how much I had paid in over my working life.
3) No matter how long I live, I won’t get it all back.
The employers schemes all vanished into the mist.
So what do you mean by “haven’t planned in advance”?
View Comment
A lot of people see NI and taxes almost as a savings account for their future, well some of that money is spent on us as soon as it’s collected, roads, NHS, wars, education, unemployment benefits etc…
You might not agree with where all the money goes (I know I certainly don’t), but to work from the principle I paid in X money so should get X money out when I’m retired is completely forgetting about the fact we all use services from day one, actually before we are born.
If you were born here you’ve received a full education that was paid by the money the government collects, used the NHS in the past, again that’s money collected by the government.
So to work on the principle “I’ve paid far more in than I’ll ever take out” is a very simplified way of looking at things!
I currently make a very good living (above the national average wage) and pay quite a bit in NI and taxes, but I think I’ve not paid in (won’t pay in) as much as I’ll eventually take out of the system if I live well past retirement age and haven’t saved money for the future.
Lets do some basic maths, these are not precise figures, just an idea of what a person might pay in through their life time and doesn’t include council tax (although you could argue this all goes to services) and other taxes (VAT for example) that are harder to say the average person pays X extra taxes. So the true contribution figures are going to be higher than my quick calculation.
For our example we’ll take someone who dies on their 85 birthday and has worked from the age of 18 to 65 years of age, with a couple of years off work (unemployment/disability…) so this person has worked 45 years of their life and being retired for 20 years of their life.
Median earnings of full-time male employees were £531 per week in April 2009, so lets take that as our weekly earnings figure.
In this persons life time they’ve earned ~£27,500 a year or £1,290,330 in their working life time.
Using this calculator:http://listentotaxman.com/
Yearly figures
Net wage: £20,898.65
Tax due: £4,205.00
National Insurance: £2,396.35
Lifetime figure
Net wage: £940,439.25
Tax due: £189,225
National Insurance: £107,835
These figures aren’t going to be 100% accurate, but they are good enough for a rough calculation.
So our example person has paid in £297,060 over their 85 years of life to pay for everything they ever benefited from (like a ‘free’ education).
Of those 85 years this person had paid in £3,495 per year (averaged over the 85 years).
So has the average 85 year old who has earned an average wage of £27,500 per year for 45 years used on average £3,495 of services etc…. a year or is there a massive over payment?
This money has to cover their education, health care, pension, roads, MP wages etc… doesn’t matter if this person doesn’t agree with how governments have spent the money paid in, that’s the nature of government spending.
So do we think our average person will ‘use’ £3,495 of services etc…. a year?
I honestly don’t know, my main point is we all pay in for all our working life and it might not be as much as we thought it was, £3,500 doesn’t sound a lot for everything that goes on in the country in a year.
The single persons state pension is currently £90.70 a week, or £4,716.4 a year or £94,328 over 20 years of retirement. £94K is a BIG chunk out of the just under £300K paid in.
I’d have to do a lot more research to go beyond these rough figures, still if a person lives for 85 years and earns the national average wage, the amount they pay in over a life time doesn’t add up to that much money when you consider what needs paying for.
I had an operation on my back earlier this year, was in hospital for almost a week, must have cost £20,000+ on the NHS to have the operation. Then there’s the after care, follow ups with my surgeon, X-rays, pain killers (still on morphine for pain), physiotherapy etc… it’s all costly stuff.
I suspect the average person who lives to a ripe old ages takes out more than they put in. I don’t have a problem with that, what irritates me is when people assume they’ve paid in far more than they’ve received.
David
View Comment
Just a thought but have you allowed for all those who have paid into the system all their lives but dident live to reach retirement age, and when you think further into it theres lots of other similer ways the government makes money. We need a party such as BNP to sort our country out before its too late if its not already too late!, remember Enoch Powel? if he had been listened to there wouldent be this problem, if BNP dont get in our chidren will be saying the same !!
Re pensions
David, I AM a pensioner,I have paid NI & taxes all my life, when I got into management I contributed to company pension schemes as well, ( fortuneately for me still liquid, unlike many schemes such as the Maxwell or Mirror group that were defrauded by the bosses). I still pay tax on my pensions now, the annual increases are 2% to 3% per annum, cost of living increases recently have been 5% plus per annum, which means in real terms I am getting poorer every year. The state pension increases are a much smaller % than that. The current govt continues to fiddle expenses, vote themselves huge pay rises & squanders Billions on the bailing out banks, an unnecessary war, the EU & foreign aid, most of which falls into the pockets of corrupt politicians. Immigrants can come here and without contributing 1 penny to our country get FULL benefits, often over the needs of the poor second class white Briton!
View Comment
I agree 100% with your comments. The vast majority of MP’s and Peers are crooked. Also, the few that are not on the fiddle, but refuse to expose the crooks, are culpable in this mass all-party conspiracy. These traitorous Parliamentarians are guilty of treason, genocide and ethnocide.
The people of this once great realm await a leader of strength, virtue and integrity. One that can’t be bought by big business; trade unions, nor power lust. Nick Griffin, of the BNP fits the bill.
Arise Sir Nick of Griffin and save this realm.
View Comment
We are all being fleeced, we could get all these public services for free simply by coining and printing our own money instead of Borrowing it from the PRIVATE Bank of England. Cameron, Clegg and Brown are front men placed in Parliament to give us the illusion of choice.
If we had printed EXACTLY the same amount of money as we had borrowed over the past 75 yrs, there would be no Public Borrowing, no Public debt ( currently £2 Trillion ) and hence absolutely no need to for an income tax to pay these ‘loans’ off.
IE our national debt would be ZERO.
This is one of the causes of WWII, when Hitler came to power in Germany, one of the first things he did was to order the German Govt to begin issuing its own money rather than Borrowing it.
This is why Germany became such an economic powerhouse and why the International Bankers used their influence to initiate war with Germany.
View Comment
Without sounding too simplistic some partial answers come from obvious ideas.
The fact of the matter is the State has mismanaged
public funds and continues to appropriate taxpayer’s
and working people’s money to projects that are
costly and non essential.
People mention the yearly cost of maintaining
a military presence in Afghanistan, 3 Billion per
year, well how about the ever increasing and
unchallenged budget for the Department for International Development? This year 9.1 Billion
and increasing!
We have just learned that the State Pension age
has been increased to 68 for men. I should think
that anyone reading this will quickly realise that
the government’s justification for this lack of
funds for a core service is an appalling deceit
since no cutbacks have made from the surplus
activities of the State. Prioritising Foreign Aid
over the State Pension is a gross breach of the
State’s obligation to its citizens.
And that is why the BNP is a clear thinking
right minded party of the people.
View Comment