State Pension Qualifying Years

Quote:

"You suggested that increases for just one group are better than decreases for just (the other) group. I don't agree. Increasing one group is just as unfair between groups as decreasing the other group."

"iardo" wrote

I tell you what, next time you go to the supermarket, and pick up any "buy one get one free" offers, I'll have the free one and you can pay for the other one. After all, you will get what you pay for, and you shouldn't "throw a wobbly" just because I "strike lucky" and get all the same stuff for free - should you?

Hint - she wasn't complaining on the grounds of being a shareholder.

And where does that say that it's "better to benefit nobody that only benefit some people"?

The statement you quoted merely shows that the difference between the two groups is the same whether the first group benefits or the second group loses out.

You're not very good at analogies, are you? BOGOF offers are to get people to buy who wouldn't otherwise have bought, either to promote the product or to con people into thinking they've got a bargain whereas it could just be a hideously overpriced product. This wouldn't really work if someone else got the free one, now, would it?

The correct analogy would be with someone who bought the day before the BOGOF offer and so didn't get the free one, compared to someone who bought on the day the BOGOF offer came in. It's not fair, boo hoo.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

So? She was likely complaining because you got a free meal and she did not. Why shouldn't they give her a free meal, as they did to you?

anything

You are whining that "it's not fair" if some change benefits one group of people but is neutral to another. For instance a drug that can help some people live longer but not others.

Perhaps you'd prefer a gradual phasing in of the wonder drug so there isn't a sudden change in life expectancy between the two groups?

shareholder.

Pathetic. I found a pound on the pavement, you didn't, na na na na na! Go track down the person who dropped it and demand they give you a pound too.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

No, I didn't say anything about any drugs - that was you.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

There you go being pathetic again!

"Andy Pandy" wrote

The difference is that the pavement is not providing a service to customers for payment, as the airline you used was.

You really aren't very good at these analogy things, are you!

And? Everyone got the service they paid for. The airline is entitled to give some passengers freebies on top, just like the pavement.

You can't even think up your own insults!

Which is nothing to do with the situation of the whining woman in flight.

In the supermarket situation I'm paying a specific agreed price for two items, albeit 50% less than I would normally pay. This doesn't mean that I'm duty bound to pass my discount to some dosser who's too mean to buy anything at all, or who's seething with jealousy because I got the last of the BOGOFs on offer, with only one item remaining on the shelf.

Because she'd already agreed to pay for it.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Just because they are "entitled" to, doesn't make it *fair*. Don't you know the difference?

Why didn't the airline give *everyone* on the flight a free meal, and refund those that had already paid?

How could they refund the money when their records of who had paid were lost? The best they could do is offer those who still had their receipts the opportunity to *ask for* the meal money to be refunded. That, in turn, would be unfair to those who hadn't bothered to retain their receipts.

entitled

Why should they? Then the shareholders would be whining "it's not fair". They took the most cost effective way to ensure everyone got what they paid for.

Airlines often upgrade economy class passengers to business/first class, either because economy is overbooked or they want to fill out business with "suitable" people. That's "not fair" either, is it? Should all business/first class passengers then get a refund on the price difference just because a few people got a free upgrade?

"iardo" wrote

And the others had already agreed NOT to have a meal...

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

They might only have been unavailable at the time of the flight, at the location of the flight. But even if the airline no longer had *any* records, they could accept records from the passengers instead.

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

There are other forms of proof of payment; just as for the SOGA where a receipt is not required, they could show a bank / credit card statement instead to prove payment.