TheBigShort
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,789
I don't have a strong view as to what should be the exact balance between the two or at what rate benefits should diminish over time. I'm really just trying to establish the principle that the current balance is wrong.
In the absence of any specifics, I have no inherent objection to what you are saying. I'm merely pointing out, as you can see from other posters, that there is a wide variance of ideas and, to my mind, contradictory set of ideas being put forward. From German style welfare programs to monitoring the coffee habits of welfare recipients!
Those who contribute more should get more out of the system - that is the mantra, I have no issue there. But if someone who has contributed more then books a cheap flight to Madrid and funds a break from their own resources, then it's 'cut their welfare!" In other words, those that have contributed taxes are not to get more out of the system. They are to get the same, or even perhaps less than someone who hasnt contributed as much, or someone who has worked but squandered their own resources.
In the end, it's a complex business. I'll simply calling out the stupidity of thinking where a person who works 30yrs + working long shifts, supplementing that income at weekends, paying taxes, paid off mortgage, put two kids through college, is considered as someone with a 'devil may care' attitude and is 'reaping what he sowed!' If you can't agree that that level of thinking is nonsense, then yes, we are at an impasse.