General Discussion
From what I have read time and time again is that the cost of means testing pensioners would outweight any savings gained, though it would of course depend what level of income is decided to be the cut-off for receiving the benefits. If the figure was set very low then maybe savings could be achieved. Your comment that "they get more than their monies worth from the NHS" is a gross generalisation, ...
Neilh is trying to put word into other people's mouths. Quote So I guess in their eyes... unquote You guess wrong neilh.
@neilh You cannot ignore a major contribution to the rising UK population: immigration. That has a bearing on the rest of your response to me. I would also say that the elderly are not non-contribututors, my pensioner mother pays income tax and spends money in the town, how is that non-contributory?
Whichever way you look at it the population of the UK is increasing, some would say alarmingly, I don't think there is ever going to be a shortage of people to do the jobs that Libby mentioned.
You are seriously saying the population of the UK is decreasing? I suggest you look at past census figures.
This country (and planet) is bursting at the seams, it's laughable that some people think we could have a problem with under-population in the future.
@Lynne Nobody mentioned the concept of deserving/undeserving retired until you did. Not sure it would enter most people's heads.
If people can't afford to have children, or are not prepared to put up with the financial hardship, then just don't have any. I don't see why the state should subsidise people who choose to have kids.
I'm talking about child benefit, I don't see why people should be "rewarded" just for having kids.
If you want to bring kids into this world then be prepared to pay for them out your own pocket, don't expect others to subsidise you.