Just saying 
Financial cost to the country is relatively little.
Financial cost to the country is relatively little.
Financial cost to the country is about 7 to 8 million pounds per day.
They aren’t basing means testing on the ‘super rich’.If that was the case they could set the threshold at the higher rate income tax band.So no state pension for train drivers.
If the state pension is supposedly enough then the minimum wage would need to be no higher either.
@carryfast, there are a couple of basic things wrong with your two posts. I can’t be bothered to point them out though, so I will check back later to see if anyone else has.
Ok but I didn’t say they actually were, but maybe there would be nothing wrong with that.
I was pointing out the futility of the likes of Rod Stewart getting paid to keep warm.
Sorry but what I actually said was “bigger kids” 
but you see what I mean in that CF has aspirations to be part of a group (it gets lonely out there in that other dimension)
Franglais can look after himself in a discussion, but to a casual observer it does read like you an Maoster kinda “gang up” on him.
Someone would need to how me where I wrote something that could be taken that way, I can’t see it
I’m no longer Tyneside resident, haven’t been since 2007, these days I’m in the land of the Smoggies - despite having said many times in my youth that you couldn’t pay me to live down here 
Those on the full State Pension ,might be receiving other benefits too, such as housing benefit.
Some people in full time employment still get benefits, such as housing benefit.
Neither the minimum wage, nor a pension are enough for all cases.
Effectively the UK tax payer subsidises poorly paying employers.
You suggested paying MPs less.
So who would want the job?
Some would be selfless and competent people.
Some would be rich people with no need for further funds who like the idea of bossing around the plebs.
Some would be those who reckon on changing rules so their cronies can make more cash (and pass it back)
Also some would avoid the job.
Those competent ones who can earn more for their family elsewhere.
Those who want to do good, but also seek to better themselves and can do so only in private business.
Paying less would not get the best grafters, it wouldn’t get many except those who have been born with or amassed substantial funds, it wouldn’t get many representing us, would it?
It would mostly get the greedy, corrupt, and egoists.
Cutting pay would make the HoC worse not better.
State Pension around the £200 per week mark. Housing benefit for those in rental accommodation might be available on top. Other benefits may be available.
Asylum seekers £49-18 per week if in state accommodation, with no food provided.
Or £8-68 per week if meals are provided.
No surprise, there.
But others are interested in the real world, and they might like to check up on some facts for themselves.
Aye ok, but I wasn’t being entirely serious.
I’ll check out with CF and see where he lives instead 
…or lightbulb moment ! move next to Franglais, yeah I’d lurrrve to ‘discuss and clarify’ a couple of points he has made to me in the past with that one., and at least I’d be safe with his cardigan clad neighbourhood watch squad
As for ‘ganging up on him’, nah not sure about that, but don’t encourage him ffs, I reckon everything he gets on here he asks for.
And what exactly do YOU know about ‘The real world’ exactly.
You are so good at trawling through people’s past posts to ‘prove your point’,have a trawl through (most of)your own to prove that one…good luck.
You are beyond help mate, shove your figures and look at the 6 7 8 mill a day to keep your mates…surely that would help towards Starmers 25 bill black hole…if it actually existed.
‘If no meals provided’ That kinda illustrates more than what I could ever say about how out of touch you actually are…Still I would reckon no Middle Eastern criminals whatsoever on the mean streets and ghettos of your Nirvanic leafy suburb eh, so what would anybody expect.
This is the guy that used rural Gloucestershire as an example of how the knife amnesty amongst hardened gangs was a success.
@franglais Yes housing benefit available for over pension age. No NI on earnings and if on basic state pension it will come under personal tax allowance. In some ways better to be in housing association / council property if in the situation of being on just the basic state pension.
If you consider what you actually have to pay for in that situation, yes the basic state pension doesn’t allow for much activities and each will be a trade for another. For example a cheap runaround car would come at the price of a few pints a week. However, you can live on it and it isn’t a coincidence that it is set at such a rate.
If the triple lock continues it could become a serious drag on the public finances because of life expectancies rising.
Why is it a ‘drag’?
The fact that these people, the backbone of past society if you will, have contributed taxes for 50 so years, refutes that…also many others who have contributed did not live long enough to enjoy their pensions.
Again…look in another direction for drag on the economy and public finances, who deserve wrath, and leave the old people alone I would say
A person who has no savings, and no assets, paying rent, will certainly receive more income from the State, than a home owner. In that limited (income) sense it might be better to be in a rented home.
UK life expectancy is still rising, but the birth rate is not, so the situation when the welfare system was set up: those in work for 50 years, paying for those who are retired for about 5 years, has changed to workers employed for 45 to 50 years paying for retirements of 15 to 20m years.
The whole scheme is creaking badly.
And it is cheaper to import working age healthy individuals, rather than produce babies who need expensive education and health care before they start earning their keep.
is there no bounds to starmers stupidity… apparently he was angry that prisoners were popping champagne after being let out early… what the dickens did he think they would do take avow of celibacy and join a monastery exaggerated eye roll emoji
@robroy, the government would say now they have introduced automatic enrolment, so the basic state pension shouldn’t be all that people have. Employees actually have to specifically opt-out of the scheme in order not to save into a workplace pension.
They would say this is actually more rewarding to those that contribute more NI, because it is actually proportional to how much you earn, rather than a flat rate pension.
The issue with, say, raising the basic state pension en-bloc would be similar to the winter fuel payment, not everyone needs it. Then if you means-test it, this becomes very costly to operate and defeats the purpose.
No matter how much NI you contribute, you still only get a qualifying year and the same basic state pension as everyone else (well everyone else the same age as you anyway). Say you earn more than average, you have contributed more in NI than someone else. Wouldn’t you rather put money in a private pension to have a bigger pension than someone who didn’t contribute as much as you?
‘It makes me angry’ he says…Ahhh bless.
It will give him an idea of how a large amount of the population feel about him and his shower of sh…and dare I say it especially the ‘far right working class’ and the pensioners.
Ok maybe I get all that.
But it does not alter the fact of my previous and main point on all this.
That what is tantamount to stealing from pensioners, to save money, while at the same time a prevalent drain on our economy and society is not only conveniently ignored as a real problem, but actually encouraged as an incentive.
It is not only a bad pr excercise from their pov, but morally wrong on all levels.
The State Pension and a Private Pension are two very different beasts.
Whoops pressed too soon.
that’s the way it has been since 2017 you have to physically opt out of the workplace pension
I would agree that where money is being spent on housing asylum seekers, it is a huge cost that depletes resources, not even Franglais would deny that. I would also agree with your sentiments, that Britain should make efforts to stop making the place so attractive that people are literally willing to risk dying in a boat to get here.
It could be something like a tent city on Rannoch Moor. Make it clear that each asylum seeker has to carry his own tent 50 miles with basic rations and a bottle of water to get there sort of thing. Make the nearest available water 20 miles from the tent city. Whatever it takes to discourage arrivals.
Nah…that is being too charitable towards them.