Search results

So why continue to pay anything then, it’s just not logical. The fact that have paid NI for all that time counts for little. They are still British, unlike some living off the state.

Those things are awful and definitely not justifiable when illegal arrivals in this country are being put up in hotels at taxpayer expense.

So why do they pay the pension at all, the approach is totally illogical. And why was child benefit being sent back to Eastern Europe when the kids weren’t in the UK? The double standards are unbelievable.

Because they have paid NI for 40 plus years, unlike some who claim benefits.

I know reciprocity is the enabling factor, I really don’t understand why that should be.

That’s not a justification of the rule.

Why should people who arrive illegally in the UK receive benefits having never contributed a halfpenny?

It is fascinating how this overwhelmingly socialist forum is so mean to older people.

On what basis is the “deal” fair or reasonable. Still waiting on an answer from @Sky Blue Pete

One of them Obesity and development of diabetes being another two.

If they aren’t going to get the full benefit earned by their contributions, they ought to get a partial refund.

I have no idea what the rationale was. I was a baby at the time. It feels wrong to me because these people have made full qualifying contributions to the system. You are avoiding answering the question I posed to you by asking another question. So, to go back to my question to you. On what...

Yep. Just think of all the benefits of pensioners emigrating. Reduced pressure on NHS and social services. Additional housing stock released to the market. Can bring in an immigrant professional to fill key gaps in public services without increasing the population. Less boomers around to wind up...

Hmmm. Not sure anything could be too harsh for him. Blood on his hands methinks. Dodgy dossier. David Kelly.

What a bizarre take on it! They have made the qualifying contributions etc. And it isn't “kinda the deal” and shouldn’t be.

It has been the rule for 70 years. On what basis do you think it makes sense? They have made the same qualifying contributions as anyone else, but are not burdening the state with, for example, healthcare costs. It makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.

I thinks we are supposed to be angry at the principle of the frozen pensions, and the fact that Starmer is so tone deaf as to not agree to meet her if only for 10 minutes. To be fair to him, he probably is a bit busy as he has spent so much time in the air since he became PM.

You only have to look on the front of the packet.

It’s not even the children who buy the foods anyway. Im not sure Ozemoic stops tooth decay.