Of course it can. If £70 a week JSA can be used as an alternative lifestyle choice then why can't £104 a week pension be? Other people slave away and provide for a pension themselves whilst others just rely upon the state pension? Surely the state pension is there to provide the basics for people who reach a certain age? If pensioners are spending their benefits on M&S products, garden centres and tour holidays then surely that is just as much a waste of taxpayers money as frivolously wasting money on children through child benefit?

The difference is that old folk are not in a position to earn money themselves. I don't care what they spend theirs on - most of them have earned it anway, through years of putting into the system. If they haven't then it's just £34 extra on top of JSA they will have been receiving anyway.

Really? You sure about that?

Really? So pensioners can't work or receive income on investments?
Most people on JSA and other benefits have paid into the system too. If its not going on basics why are taxpayers funding pensioners lavish lifestyles?

I don't know any pensioner who doesn't buy food, or pay for heating. Do you?

Is that it, then? A pensioner is to be provided with nothing except sufficient for the basics of food, heating "etc" until they die? Subsistence kind of thing? Perhaps a temperature regulator with a maximum of say 60F should be compulsorily fitted, and vouchers for calories of no more than 2000 a day food should be obligatory.

A radio costs a penny or two a day electric to run. Is that a basic thing, or should their pension leave them unable to afford the luxury?

Can they have an extra pound per month above subsistence / basics, so they may share a glass of stout, or is that OTT for the public purse?

I think you may have misunderstood.

I'm not surprised, Him's point is very obtuse. I have called for tighter controls on what people spend their CHILD benefit on - ie their kids. He's trying to draw a comparison with the state pension, which is a totally different animal altogether.

That's factual nonsense.

My parents are pensioners. My father, however, continues to do some work, for which he is paid.

There are myriad other examples too, including rather more famous ones such as many actors.

And the unemployed are ?

Why? Both are payments from the public purse, so if the taxpayer gets a say in how one is spent why not the other?

As Rock God says I think you've misunderstood me, I don't think that at all, I was just making the point why should certain benefits be restricted and people on certain benefits patronised and demonised but not others.

As others point out, why is it a totally different animal? It's a benefit provided by the taxpayer. The aim of the state pension is to ensure pensioners can afford the basics. The aim of Child Benefit is to ensure parents can afford the basics for their kids. If Child Benefit is to be restricted, why not the State Pension? Or any other benefit for that matter. Is it because its harder to demonise pensioners than unemployed people on council estates?
Despite the fact that the State Pension bill is bigger than Housing Benefit, Disability Living Allowance, Income Support, Attendance Allowance, Incapacity Benefit, Council Tax Benefit, Child Benefit and Job Seekers Allowance combined.