You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Pensioners up next on the Government hit list?
November 23 2024 7.28pm

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Pensioners up next on the Government hit list?

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 8 of 8 << First< 4 5 6 7 8

  

jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 07 Oct 15 10.39am

Quote Hoof Hearted at 07 Oct 2015 10.20am

Quote silvertop at 07 Oct 2015 9.16am

Quote Mapletree at 05 Oct 2015 12.39pm

Quote Hoof Hearted at 05 Oct 2015 11.29am

Quote silvertop at 05 Oct 2015 11.24am

Quote Hoof Hearted at 05 Oct 2015 11.16am

Quote aquickgame2 at 05 Oct 2015 11.14am

Quote susmik at 05 Oct 2015 10.55am

Quote matt_himself at 05 Oct 2015 9.35am

Quote Kermit8 at 05 Oct 2015 7.25am

[Link]

1) "because they might die before the next election so can't vote."

2) "because they will probably forget who did it to them"

What a delightful group.

What an unintelligent post.

Pensioners are the richest age group in the country. Benefits are universal and not means tested, as a result the poorest pensioners get the same as those who go on regular cruises.

The fact is that that universal benefits for pensioners is not fair. The system needs reviewing and change.


I suppose then that all the public service workers are OK to get their gold plated pensions when they retire?
I am not alone on these boards as a "fully paid up" pensioner. We had our rough times in our youth and had to fight to get a mortgage and a job but we did it instead of just bleating about hard done we were. We did not have all the technology that is around today and we still brought up our children in a decent manner. If more youngsters and some older people got off their fat behinds and actually went out looking they would find a job and start like we had to.... from the bottom rung!!


Now this is a real spot bollock


Definitely hits the spot!


With Matt on this one; save that there are many pensioners in poverty. The issue is not one of taking money away; it is one of not giving to those who are wealthy and channelling resources to those who actually need it. Universal benefits to the elderly is just one of the sacred post war cows that needs to be gently led to the knacker's yard.

As long as Public Sector pensions are led to the knacker's yard at the same time.


Agree with that. At least they are moving to average salary I believe, I guess you would know better than I.


Already there in local government.

There is a great deal of ignorance about public sector pensions. The cliché of retired generals, high court judges and senior civil servants retiring on pensions greater than most people's working pay represents such a tiny % in terms of both number and amount as to be all but vanishingly small. Most are pretty meagre sums; local government is certainly contributory [I pay about 7%].

Hoof, do you really begrudge a wheels on meals lady her average salary pension after 40 years low pay service that she has contributed fully to? I am aware that is the other end of the spectrum but that is what your sweeping statement appears to say. In short, there is very wide a spectrum and your targets are at the far end and representing a very narrow band.


The private sector has had to adapt to make their schemes financially viable.

My Mrs works for Lloyds Bank as a pretty lowly paid admin clerk. Her pension entitlement has been hit as Lloyds have frozen her pensionable salary at the level it was in 2012.

I don't see why any public service employee should be exempt from changes necessary to make their scheme financially viable too... especially as the tax payer funds a significant part of it.

As for Judges and other high ranking government officials - their level of benefits is obscene and should have been cut back drastically years ago.

A bizarrely socialist argument here, somewhere.


 


"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
Hoof Hearted 07 Oct 15 10.41am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 07 Oct 2015 10.39am

Quote Hoof Hearted at 07 Oct 2015 10.20am

Quote silvertop at 07 Oct 2015 9.16am

Quote Mapletree at 05 Oct 2015 12.39pm

Quote Hoof Hearted at 05 Oct 2015 11.29am

Quote silvertop at 05 Oct 2015 11.24am

Quote Hoof Hearted at 05 Oct 2015 11.16am

Quote aquickgame2 at 05 Oct 2015 11.14am

Quote susmik at 05 Oct 2015 10.55am

Quote matt_himself at 05 Oct 2015 9.35am

Quote Kermit8 at 05 Oct 2015 7.25am

[Link]

1) "because they might die before the next election so can't vote."

2) "because they will probably forget who did it to them"

What a delightful group.

What an unintelligent post.

Pensioners are the richest age group in the country. Benefits are universal and not means tested, as a result the poorest pensioners get the same as those who go on regular cruises.

The fact is that that universal benefits for pensioners is not fair. The system needs reviewing and change.


I suppose then that all the public service workers are OK to get their gold plated pensions when they retire?
I am not alone on these boards as a "fully paid up" pensioner. We had our rough times in our youth and had to fight to get a mortgage and a job but we did it instead of just bleating about hard done we were. We did not have all the technology that is around today and we still brought up our children in a decent manner. If more youngsters and some older people got off their fat behinds and actually went out looking they would find a job and start like we had to.... from the bottom rung!!


Now this is a real spot bollock


Definitely hits the spot!


With Matt on this one; save that there are many pensioners in poverty. The issue is not one of taking money away; it is one of not giving to those who are wealthy and channelling resources to those who actually need it. Universal benefits to the elderly is just one of the sacred post war cows that needs to be gently led to the knacker's yard.

As long as Public Sector pensions are led to the knacker's yard at the same time.


Agree with that. At least they are moving to average salary I believe, I guess you would know better than I.


Already there in local government.

There is a great deal of ignorance about public sector pensions. The cliché of retired generals, high court judges and senior civil servants retiring on pensions greater than most people's working pay represents such a tiny % in terms of both number and amount as to be all but vanishingly small. Most are pretty meagre sums; local government is certainly contributory [I pay about 7%].

Hoof, do you really begrudge a wheels on meals lady her average salary pension after 40 years low pay service that she has contributed fully to? I am aware that is the other end of the spectrum but that is what your sweeping statement appears to say. In short, there is very wide a spectrum and your targets are at the far end and representing a very narrow band.


The private sector has had to adapt to make their schemes financially viable.

My Mrs works for Lloyds Bank as a pretty lowly paid admin clerk. Her pension entitlement has been hit as Lloyds have frozen her pensionable salary at the level it was in 2012.

I don't see why any public service employee should be exempt from changes necessary to make their scheme financially viable too... especially as the tax payer funds a significant part of it.

As for Judges and other high ranking government officials - their level of benefits is obscene and should have been cut back drastically years ago.

A bizarrely socialist argument here, somewhere.



I try to suppress my liberal/left side Jamie, but on some occasions it leaks through my Tory thick skin.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
Lyons550 Flag Shirley 07 Oct 15 10.47am Send a Private Message to Lyons550 Add Lyons550 as a friend

Quote Hoof Hearted at 07 Oct 2015 10.20am

Quote silvertop at 07 Oct 2015 9.16am

Quote Mapletree at 05 Oct 2015 12.39pm

Quote Hoof Hearted at 05 Oct 2015 11.29am

Quote silvertop at 05 Oct 2015 11.24am

Quote Hoof Hearted at 05 Oct 2015 11.16am

Quote aquickgame2 at 05 Oct 2015 11.14am

Quote susmik at 05 Oct 2015 10.55am

Quote matt_himself at 05 Oct 2015 9.35am

Quote Kermit8 at 05 Oct 2015 7.25am

[Link]

1) "because they might die before the next election so can't vote."

2) "because they will probably forget who did it to them"

What a delightful group.

What an unintelligent post.

Pensioners are the richest age group in the country. Benefits are universal and not means tested, as a result the poorest pensioners get the same as those who go on regular cruises.

The fact is that that universal benefits for pensioners is not fair. The system needs reviewing and change.


I suppose then that all the public service workers are OK to get their gold plated pensions when they retire?
I am not alone on these boards as a "fully paid up" pensioner. We had our rough times in our youth and had to fight to get a mortgage and a job but we did it instead of just bleating about hard done we were. We did not have all the technology that is around today and we still brought up our children in a decent manner. If more youngsters and some older people got off their fat behinds and actually went out looking they would find a job and start like we had to.... from the bottom rung!!


Now this is a real spot bollock


Definitely hits the spot!


With Matt on this one; save that there are many pensioners in poverty. The issue is not one of taking money away; it is one of not giving to those who are wealthy and channelling resources to those who actually need it. Universal benefits to the elderly is just one of the sacred post war cows that needs to be gently led to the knacker's yard.

As long as Public Sector pensions are led to the knacker's yard at the same time.


Agree with that. At least they are moving to average salary I believe, I guess you would know better than I.


Already there in local government.

There is a great deal of ignorance about public sector pensions. The cliché of retired generals, high court judges and senior civil servants retiring on pensions greater than most people's working pay represents such a tiny % in terms of both number and amount as to be all but vanishingly small. Most are pretty meagre sums; local government is certainly contributory [I pay about 7%].

Hoof, do you really begrudge a wheels on meals lady her average salary pension after 40 years low pay service that she has contributed fully to? I am aware that is the other end of the spectrum but that is what your sweeping statement appears to say. In short, there is very wide a spectrum and your targets are at the far end and representing a very narrow band.


The private sector has had to adapt to make their schemes financially viable.

My Mrs works for Lloyds Bank as a pretty lowly paid admin clerk. Her pension entitlement has been hit as Lloyds have frozen her pensionable salary at the level it was in 2012.

I don't see why any public service employee should be exempt from changes necessary to make their scheme financially viable too... especially as the tax payer funds a significant part of it.

As for Judges and other high ranking government officials - their level of benefits is obscene and should have been cut back drastically years ago.

Yeah but those shares will fly over the next 18months. you'll be fine on the dividends

 


The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Hoof Hearted 07 Oct 15 12.30pm

Quote Lyons550 at 07 Oct 2015 10.47am

Quote Hoof Hearted at 07 Oct 2015 10.20am

Quote silvertop at 07 Oct 2015 9.16am

Quote Mapletree at 05 Oct 2015 12.39pm

Quote Hoof Hearted at 05 Oct 2015 11.29am

Quote silvertop at 05 Oct 2015 11.24am

Quote Hoof Hearted at 05 Oct 2015 11.16am

Quote aquickgame2 at 05 Oct 2015 11.14am

Quote susmik at 05 Oct 2015 10.55am

Quote matt_himself at 05 Oct 2015 9.35am

Quote Kermit8 at 05 Oct 2015 7.25am

[Link]

1) "because they might die before the next election so can't vote."

2) "because they will probably forget who did it to them"

What a delightful group.

What an unintelligent post.

Pensioners are the richest age group in the country. Benefits are universal and not means tested, as a result the poorest pensioners get the same as those who go on regular cruises.

The fact is that that universal benefits for pensioners is not fair. The system needs reviewing and change.


I suppose then that all the public service workers are OK to get their gold plated pensions when they retire?
I am not alone on these boards as a "fully paid up" pensioner. We had our rough times in our youth and had to fight to get a mortgage and a job but we did it instead of just bleating about hard done we were. We did not have all the technology that is around today and we still brought up our children in a decent manner. If more youngsters and some older people got off their fat behinds and actually went out looking they would find a job and start like we had to.... from the bottom rung!!


Now this is a real spot bollock


Definitely hits the spot!


With Matt on this one; save that there are many pensioners in poverty. The issue is not one of taking money away; it is one of not giving to those who are wealthy and channelling resources to those who actually need it. Universal benefits to the elderly is just one of the sacred post war cows that needs to be gently led to the knacker's yard.

As long as Public Sector pensions are led to the knacker's yard at the same time.


Agree with that. At least they are moving to average salary I believe, I guess you would know better than I.


Already there in local government.

There is a great deal of ignorance about public sector pensions. The cliché of retired generals, high court judges and senior civil servants retiring on pensions greater than most people's working pay represents such a tiny % in terms of both number and amount as to be all but vanishingly small. Most are pretty meagre sums; local government is certainly contributory [I pay about 7%].

Hoof, do you really begrudge a wheels on meals lady her average salary pension after 40 years low pay service that she has contributed fully to? I am aware that is the other end of the spectrum but that is what your sweeping statement appears to say. In short, there is very wide a spectrum and your targets are at the far end and representing a very narrow band.


The private sector has had to adapt to make their schemes financially viable.

My Mrs works for Lloyds Bank as a pretty lowly paid admin clerk. Her pension entitlement has been hit as Lloyds have frozen her pensionable salary at the level it was in 2012.

I don't see why any public service employee should be exempt from changes necessary to make their scheme financially viable too... especially as the tax payer funds a significant part of it.

As for Judges and other high ranking government officials - their level of benefits is obscene and should have been cut back drastically years ago.

Yeah but those shares will fly over the next 18months. you'll be fine on the dividends


They're stalling at the moment... were 89p a few weeks back........ 77p today.

Hopefully you'll be right.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
rob1969 Flag Banstead Surrey 07 Oct 15 1.07pm Send a Private Message to rob1969 Add rob1969 as a friend

Quote jamiemartin721 at 05 Oct 2015 9.49am

Quote Mapletree at 05 Oct 2015 9.33am

Protected, cossetted group sitting fat and happy on final salary pension schemes that they didn't pay nearly enough for and massive housing equity growth.

In the very pleasant position of being able to dole out their largesse to the coming generation as they see fit, maintaining control over them. And they can avoid inheritance tax if they do that too.

I see no reason they should get special treatment either way but I would err on the side of redistribution of wealth rather than giving them free bus journeys and fuel benefits without means testing.

I actually fail to see why they are exempt from National Insurance payments (even when they are still working), they take so much out of the system it's hard to understand why they should consider that they have 'already paid their dues'.

The politic of envy.

My immediate thought too on reading some of these comments.

Don't know whether it is just sad - or more worrying then that - the attitude of some contributors towards the older generation who they seem to consider 'owe' them.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
twist Flag Miami, Florida 07 Oct 15 1.14pm Send a Private Message to twist Add twist as a friend

Sounds like Illinois where they gave a bunch of tax breaks to businesses, then when they realized 12 months later they had a budget shortfall, they tried to go after retirement income!!!

Corporations pay less and less % of the entire tax bill each year with creative accounting, yet its the government pensions they go after. They have no balls.

Here is an interesting article from CNN:

[Link]

In 1950, Corporations paid 30% of the total US tax bill. Today they pay 11%

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Mapletree Flag Croydon 07 Oct 15 1.19pm Send a Private Message to Mapletree Add Mapletree as a friend

Quote rob1969 at 07 Oct 2015 1.07pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 05 Oct 2015 9.49am

Quote Mapletree at 05 Oct 2015 9.33am

Protected, cossetted group sitting fat and happy on final salary pension schemes that they didn't pay nearly enough for and massive housing equity growth.

In the very pleasant position of being able to dole out their largesse to the coming generation as they see fit, maintaining control over them. And they can avoid inheritance tax if they do that too.

I see no reason they should get special treatment either way but I would err on the side of redistribution of wealth rather than giving them free bus journeys and fuel benefits without means testing.

I actually fail to see why they are exempt from National Insurance payments (even when they are still working), they take so much out of the system it's hard to understand why they should consider that they have 'already paid their dues'.

The politic of envy.

My immediate thought too on reading some of these comments.

Don't know whether it is just sad - or more worrying then that - the attitude of some contributors towards the older generation who they seem to consider 'owe' them.


Why would I envy such people, I am one of you. I just find it distasteful that my generation and its immediate predecessor have a large group within them that will receive something they never fully paid for and that my children and their children will have to fund.

I am highly pro-pensioner. I also wholly approve of people investing in pensions. I just don't like what happened with Defined Benefit schemes. They ended up giving excessive and unfunded benefits that are requiring coming generations to make good on the schemes. And this happens to coincide with other good fortune such as the ridiculous increase in the value of housing. The younger generation is becoming increasingly dependent, especially as the housing stock is locked up by us oldies.

And don't forget coming generations have to pay for their own education and won't get MIRAS.

We have fooked our children. Still, who cares...

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
rob1969 Flag Banstead Surrey 07 Oct 15 1.42pm Send a Private Message to rob1969 Add rob1969 as a friend

Quote Mapletree at 07 Oct 2015 1.19pm

Quote rob1969 at 07 Oct 2015 1.07pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 05 Oct 2015 9.49am

Quote Mapletree at 05 Oct 2015 9.33am

Protected, cossetted group sitting fat and happy on final salary pension schemes that they didn't pay nearly enough for and massive housing equity growth.

In the very pleasant position of being able to dole out their largesse to the coming generation as they see fit, maintaining control over them. And they can avoid inheritance tax if they do that too.

I see no reason they should get special treatment either way but I would err on the side of redistribution of wealth rather than giving them free bus journeys and fuel benefits without means testing.

I actually fail to see why they are exempt from National Insurance payments (even when they are still working), they take so much out of the system it's hard to understand why they should consider that they have 'already paid their dues'.

The politic of envy.

My immediate thought too on reading some of these comments.

Don't know whether it is just sad - or more worrying then that - the attitude of some contributors towards the older generation who they seem to consider 'owe' them.


Why would I envy such people, I am one of you. I just find it distasteful that my generation and its immediate predecessor have a large group within them that will receive something they never fully paid for and that my children and their children will have to fund.

I am highly pro-pensioner. I also wholly approve of people investing in pensions. I just don't like what happened with Defined Benefit schemes. They ended up giving excessive and unfunded benefits that are requiring coming generations to make good on the schemes. And this happens to coincide with other good fortune such as the ridiculous increase in the value of housing. The younger generation is becoming increasingly dependent, especially as the housing stock is locked up by us oldies.

And don't forget coming generations have to pay for their own education and won't get MIRAS.We have fooked our children.

Still, who cares...

Speak for yourself. For my family - each generation has done better than the previous. I have achieved more than my parents and my children have already
achieved as much - or more than I have.
Appreciate not everybody may be able to say this but many can.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Kermit8 Flag Hevon 07 Oct 15 1.49pm Send a Private Message to Kermit8 Add Kermit8 as a friend

I am already planning a fairly major downsize in about eleven years to help my kids who are now 11 and 7 get their foot on the property ladder once they leave University.

London, of course, is all but impossible unless you have benefactors or a very high wage. But here even in Devon where average wages are much lower a one bed flat is now usually around 90k-120k.

If my kids were growing up in the south east i would see absolutely no future for them property owning wise.

 


Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]


Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Mapletree Flag Croydon 07 Oct 15 1.55pm Send a Private Message to Mapletree Add Mapletree as a friend

Quote rob1969 at 07 Oct 2015 1.42pm

Quote Mapletree at 07 Oct 2015 1.19pm

Quote rob1969 at 07 Oct 2015 1.07pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 05 Oct 2015 9.49am

Quote Mapletree at 05 Oct 2015 9.33am

Protected, cossetted group sitting fat and happy on final salary pension schemes that they didn't pay nearly enough for and massive housing equity growth.

In the very pleasant position of being able to dole out their largesse to the coming generation as they see fit, maintaining control over them. And they can avoid inheritance tax if they do that too.

I see no reason they should get special treatment either way but I would err on the side of redistribution of wealth rather than giving them free bus journeys and fuel benefits without means testing.

I actually fail to see why they are exempt from National Insurance payments (even when they are still working), they take so much out of the system it's hard to understand why they should consider that they have 'already paid their dues'.

The politic of envy.

My immediate thought too on reading some of these comments.

Don't know whether it is just sad - or more worrying then that - the attitude of some contributors towards the older generation who they seem to consider 'owe' them.


Why would I envy such people, I am one of you. I just find it distasteful that my generation and its immediate predecessor have a large group within them that will receive something they never fully paid for and that my children and their children will have to fund.

I am highly pro-pensioner. I also wholly approve of people investing in pensions. I just don't like what happened with Defined Benefit schemes. They ended up giving excessive and unfunded benefits that are requiring coming generations to make good on the schemes. And this happens to coincide with other good fortune such as the ridiculous increase in the value of housing. The younger generation is becoming increasingly dependent, especially as the housing stock is locked up by us oldies.

And don't forget coming generations have to pay for their own education and won't get MIRAS.We have fooked our children.

Still, who cares...

Speak for yourself. For my family - each generation has done better than the previous. I have achieved more than my parents and my children have already
achieved as much - or more than I have.
Appreciate not everybody may be able to say this but many can.


Lucky them if they each own a house in Banstead and bought it without your help. Maybe they beat the housing inflation crisis. My children will have no chance. That is the point, we have become used to each generation doing better than its forebears. That is unlikely to be the case with the coming generation.

I have some Defined Benefit pension rights in three schemes. Each of those has been requiring top-up payments from the Company for years and that will continue. It will be a long time before investment funds stop being drained by historic pension issues. So I sit on the back of my - and your - children.

Edited by Mapletree (07 Oct 2015 5.47pm)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Lyons550 Flag Shirley 07 Oct 15 2.26pm Send a Private Message to Lyons550 Add Lyons550 as a friend

Quote Hoof Hearted at 07 Oct 2015 12.30pm

Quote Lyons550 at 07 Oct 2015 10.47am

Quote Hoof Hearted at 07 Oct 2015 10.20am

Quote silvertop at 07 Oct 2015 9.16am

Quote Mapletree at 05 Oct 2015 12.39pm

Quote Hoof Hearted at 05 Oct 2015 11.29am

Quote silvertop at 05 Oct 2015 11.24am

Quote Hoof Hearted at 05 Oct 2015 11.16am

Quote aquickgame2 at 05 Oct 2015 11.14am

Quote susmik at 05 Oct 2015 10.55am

Quote matt_himself at 05 Oct 2015 9.35am

Quote Kermit8 at 05 Oct 2015 7.25am

[Link]

1) "because they might die before the next election so can't vote."

2) "because they will probably forget who did it to them"

What a delightful group.

What an unintelligent post.

Pensioners are the richest age group in the country. Benefits are universal and not means tested, as a result the poorest pensioners get the same as those who go on regular cruises.

The fact is that that universal benefits for pensioners is not fair. The system needs reviewing and change.


I suppose then that all the public service workers are OK to get their gold plated pensions when they retire?
I am not alone on these boards as a "fully paid up" pensioner. We had our rough times in our youth and had to fight to get a mortgage and a job but we did it instead of just bleating about hard done we were. We did not have all the technology that is around today and we still brought up our children in a decent manner. If more youngsters and some older people got off their fat behinds and actually went out looking they would find a job and start like we had to.... from the bottom rung!!


Now this is a real spot bollock


Definitely hits the spot!


With Matt on this one; save that there are many pensioners in poverty. The issue is not one of taking money away; it is one of not giving to those who are wealthy and channelling resources to those who actually need it. Universal benefits to the elderly is just one of the sacred post war cows that needs to be gently led to the knacker's yard.

As long as Public Sector pensions are led to the knacker's yard at the same time.


Agree with that. At least they are moving to average salary I believe, I guess you would know better than I.


Already there in local government.

There is a great deal of ignorance about public sector pensions. The cliché of retired generals, high court judges and senior civil servants retiring on pensions greater than most people's working pay represents such a tiny % in terms of both number and amount as to be all but vanishingly small. Most are pretty meagre sums; local government is certainly contributory [I pay about 7%].

Hoof, do you really begrudge a wheels on meals lady her average salary pension after 40 years low pay service that she has contributed fully to? I am aware that is the other end of the spectrum but that is what your sweeping statement appears to say. In short, there is very wide a spectrum and your targets are at the far end and representing a very narrow band.


The private sector has had to adapt to make their schemes financially viable.

My Mrs works for Lloyds Bank as a pretty lowly paid admin clerk. Her pension entitlement has been hit as Lloyds have frozen her pensionable salary at the level it was in 2012.

I don't see why any public service employee should be exempt from changes necessary to make their scheme financially viable too... especially as the tax payer funds a significant part of it.

As for Judges and other high ranking government officials - their level of benefits is obscene and should have been cut back drastically years ago.

Yeah but those shares will fly over the next 18months. you'll be fine on the dividends


They're stalling at the moment... were 89p a few weeks back........ 77p today.

Hopefully you'll be right.

I know, have a crapload in my ISA and have been watching them like a hawk for the last couple of years since I got them

 


The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

  

Page 8 of 8 << First< 4 5 6 7 8

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Pensioners up next on the Government hit list?