State Pension Qualifying Years

Conceded.

Quite so, as I touched on below.

This might well prove that a certain payment had been made, but might not necessarily make it possible to conclude that the payment was for *that* flight and whether it did or did not include a meal.

In particular, if it's the kind of airline for which the fare goes up as the plane becomes fuller, there could be no way of telling from the amount paid whether it was for a cheaper ticket with meal or a more expensive ticket without.

On the other hand, I suppose it's conceivable that the meal surcharge was put through as a separate payment transaction.

Only if they could get money for that uneaten meal... unlikely, I'd have thought.

They'd be doing it more so if the cost to them was greater than it had to be.

It is really? So what were they supposed to do with the heated meal which they could have refused me? Waited till the plane lands and flog it in the airport? Or save it for the return journey, for which they'd probably already got supplies? I really wonder what planet you are on sometimes.

Oh I see, so if only a few people get freebies, then that's "fair", but if a lot of people get freebies then that's "not fair". Riiight.

And I bought The Times before the flight, but then found they were giving out The Times free on the flight. Boo hoo, it's not fair, they never told me.

"Mike Barnes" wrote

No, they wouldn't have had to serve it in the first place.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

So do you think the answer is not to give away *any* free meals? Fair enough!

"Andy Pandy" wrote

You ask the wrong question... Obviously, they should not have heated it up in the first place.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

What would they have done with it if there had not been a problem with booking system? Not heated it and used it another time?

"Andy Pandy" wrote

The feeling is mutual, I'm sure.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Where do you think I said that? You really should stop pretending that I say things that I haven't said.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

If you are giving away lots of freebies to people, but specifically decide not to give the freebies to a group on the tenuous basis that they paid you more than the others, then yes - of course that's not fair.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Did they refuse to give you a free copy as well, simply because you had already bought one?

If so then yes, it wasn't fair. But if you could have had a free copy from them, like the other passengers, then no - that would still be fair.

But they'd still have provided it even if they didn't heat it up. It's not clear to what extent they can keep unheated meals for use on subsequent flights. It may be that they'd have to throw them away or, if that's what they do, recycle them into pig swill.

Timmy, don't you think it's past your bedtime? Now you've had lots and lots of fun talking to the grown ups, but you're obviously very tired now, so off you go.

Isn't that exactly what you were arguning yourself when you said earlier "Yes, so some people get more than they expected, others get exactly what they were expecting."

If there is a large age gap and people know what to expect well in advance, then they can plan for it, but there is no need for unfairness if there is a gradual transition and equitable distribution of money. The problem we are dealing with here is an anomoly between two groups of almost the same age with the same contributions and the same expectations.

Toom

That is a subjective and one-sided interpretation. Whatever finite pot is available shoud be divided equitably in a transition form one set of rules to the other. For any given amount of money, some get more and some get less when you you do it this way, rather than only one set getting more That is fair when people have made substantially the same contributions.

In general transition should be fair and equitable.

It has been obvious for decades that birth rates were falling and life expectation was rising, and it has been predicatable since the late

Toom

"iardo" wrote

Tee hee - I see what you're trying to do ... pretend that I'm just a kiddy to attempt to debunk my points.

But it didn't work, and just looks like you have no answer to my comments, showing that you've lost the argument.

You think the woman shouldn't have a free meal because "she already agreed to pay for it", but although Andy had "already agreed not to have a meal", then he can have one. One rule for one and another for the other? That's what unfairness is all about...

Why go against the woman's wishes when she'd agreed to pay for it, and why shouldn't Andy change his mind?

Well, now what you've identified the problem that life isn't fair, and never has been, will you please go to bed. After all, it really was bugger all to do with you.

You won't be allowed to stay up this late again, you know.

"iardo" wrote

Equally if Andy can change his mind, then why shouldn't the woman also change her mind? She can be given a refund, and then accept the free meal instead.

"iardo" wrote

Before 5pm is hardly late! Anyway, I'll probably be working for another few hours yet today...

Quite so. But we don't know whether the lady in question asked for her free meal in addition to her paid-for meal, and, if so, what the response was, and if not, why not.

I'm sure the airline acted in the shareholders' best interests. The probably realised, in the circumstances, it was better to give away free meals than risk not giving people what they paid for. Therefore they just gave everyone a meal.

What would you have done in these circumstances, Tim?

Oh, I see. So not knowing how many people have ordered meals, are they supposed to guess? Or do they go down the plane asking who ordered meals hoping people are honest, and waste time they could have been using to flog duty frees?

Duh, they obviously wouldn't have taken the extra meals on the flight in the first place, would they?

"fair", ...

It's the obvious implication of what you wrote above. To anyone who has the mental capability of a child above 9 anyway.

So how much is "lots" then. Come on, let's have a definition.

If 1 person is upgraded from economy to first calls free of charge, is that "fair" on first class passengers? What about 3? 10?

The whole analogy is inappropriate anyway. The actual analogy is that both the women have paid the same for a deal that offers them one- course meals from a certain age for the rest of their lives, but someone has decided that one should get three-course meals because she is a few months younger. Any reasonable arbiter would want to know why they shouldn't both be given two-course meals as a fairer settlement. And it is not some ploy by a private company free to impress one customer with a freebie - it is public money which should be distributed with due regard to fair treatment.

Toom

anomoly,

What about people who have a low life expectancy compared to people who are perfectly healthy? They contribute the same but end up with vastly different total pensions.

retiring

treated

contribution

proportion

someone

The above examples weren't. Tell us how they could be made to be, using rules most people can actually understand.

proportion

explain

Really? So you expected people in the 50's and 60's to know what the birth rate in the 90's would be?

Duh, yes, but that's not the point. The point was the ratio of pensioners to taxpayers, which was not predictable.

It's not "cobbled together" at all, it was just about the most sensible thing this government has done. As such, Brown didn't like it because he likes all his means tested complicated crap like pension credit etc, but he was forced into accepting it because just about everyone else was in favour.

The only inequity is that the transition is overgenerous towards a small minority of people who are

a) reaching state pension age shortly after Apr 2010, and b) have a partial contribution record, and c) won't be entitled to means tested top ups like pension credit/housing benefit etc.

The money that overgenerousity is costing is probably worth it in order to avoid complexity and make the system simple to understand.

You really are particularly stupid, aren't you? There's generally no point in having two copies of the same newspaper, now, is there, so why should I have wanted a second copy?

Now you can think up some unlikely scenarios where having two copies of the same newspapar may be of some use.