I don't think this version of Labour is really Labour at all, just a shade of Tory similar to that of David Camerons party tempered by the Lib Dem coalition. They had many choices to raise money from other means and as I have said before there's tons of our money swilling around and finding it's way to the mega rich but this version Labour have set out their stall that they are happy for that to continue whilst punishing the working/middle classes.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Labour Party meltdown incoming.......
- Thread starter nevergoagain
- Start date
So what does that leave the shortfall and where are you getting it from?
As @Zeberdi has already posted the proper answer would be heating discounts for OAPs provided by the energy companies out of their huge profits. As always, too many focussed on the tiny flame and ignoring the burning building.
Mellor 3 Ward 4
Well-known member
What's that got to do with pensioners?
I guess that as you've lost the argument on WFA you're onto something else.
I don't disagree with you on PIP BTW
Baldseagull
Well-known member
You won't see icicles, but thousands of old people do die every year in the UK from hypothermia, that is as things are.They are going to be fine.
People are painting this image of thousands of old folk being found dead with icicles hanging off their noses.
I think I’m going to leave this thread, it’s frankly hysterical nonsense.
We might get lucky and have a mild winter, it will still kill some older people though.
KZNSeagull
Well-known member
By the shortfall I assume you mean the fiscal black hole? I assume the government are going to clatter the rich during the budget, which will include rich pensioners, not pensioners just over the pension credit threshold. I am sure that the government could clatter the energy companies too if they wanted to.
[Politics] - Sunak's benefits shake up
Listening to him now on radio 5. As always he sounds reasonable and his proposals sound superficially appropriate. I assume I am missing something. What do people who understand the benefit system think? I was alerted to the presentation by a prior bit of chat on Nicky Campbell's programme...
www.northstandchat.com
Pretty easy to find out
Uh_huh_him
Well-known member
- Sep 28, 2011
- 11,655
But the upper tax bracket is miles above the level of pensioners struggling to make ends meet.
Dishing out a £300 handout for pensioners with a personal income of £50,000 is ridiculous.
This is not protecting poor old dears. It's giving money to over 65s living off a very good income.
KZNSeagull
Well-known member
Yes but, in the absence of something better that we have already discussed, refusing to give £300 to people living off £12k a year is worse.
Uh_huh_him
Well-known member
- Sep 28, 2011
- 11,655
My post was in response to a claim that support for this approach was purely based on political bias.
The level of anger at this Labour measure is significantly more than the outrage to a Tory Policy aimed at denying benefits to disabled people who were judged as "Fit for work". The financial impact was far greater and directly led to a number of deaths..
The assessment was outsourced to a private company, to manage.
Labour are considerably better than the Tories.
The two measures are not even remotely comparable. However Starmer is under a great deal more pressure than Cameron ever was.
But apparently : "Sure two wrongs make a right, gotcha" is how we should feel about disabled people having their benefits removed in comparison to a £300 handout being stopped.
Baldseagull
Well-known member
Maybe the halfway is that everyone on Pension credit gets it, and every oap that isn't a higher rate tax payer can apply for it, and get it without being means tested?
BenGarfield
Active member
I agree with the OFGEM comments but the government is not short of money because it is the monopoly supplier of the pound and can never run out, go bust. borrow its own money, throw our grandchildren to the wolves because of the interest rate , which it sets, or any of that doom laden nonsense.Absolutely all of this
Furthermore, a government deficit is a private sector surplus. Reducing the deficit reduces the surplus. Cutting government spending makes people poorer and reducing people’s spending power recesses the economy. The “national debt” is our money supply, our savings.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,826
pretty sure that's the root of this. having chosen the strategy and set out their narrative, picked the wrong battle, and then stuck with it to avoid early claims of a u-turn. i still half expect them to turn about on it and introduce some higher threshold at least, but there's no easy way to implement, why they went at the level they did.
Nobby Cybergoat
Well-known member
- Jul 19, 2021
- 8,256
Nahh, they've got through the worst of it
I was replying to another poster who mentioned PIP.
If you’re going to try and pick holes, read things properly.
I haven’t lost anything because it’s not an argument or a competition. It’s a discussion. My view is the minority. That’s fine. I might be wrong. I might be right but let’s not get personal.
cjd
Well-known member
There's no "might" about it I'm afraid.I was replying to another poster who mentioned PIP.
If you’re going to try and pick holes, read things properly.
I haven’t lost anything because it’s not an argument or a competition. It’s a discussion. My view is the minority. That’s fine. I might be wrong. I might be right but let’s not get personal.
- Jul 10, 2003
- 27,350
As I've stated before, I would like to see the cut off a little higher, but don't know of any simple way of measuring it. Higher rate tax will currently hit 10% which would not achieve any significant savings, council tax band will measure accumulated wealth with absolutely no regard to income. If there is a fairer way to achieve similar savings, I haven't heard it.
However, these two posters experiences, both close to the currently proposed cut off, seem to have got the right result with regard to WFP.
I always look at my Mum as a prime 'cut off line' example. Single Council tenant, state pension, just above the £16k savings limit, so no benefits. She insists she doesn't need it and who am I to argue with my Mum
But seriously, any ideas for a simple, implementable cut off slightly higher than that proposed ?
With the numbers involved of course there will be situations that will be badly affected, but it's certainly not 'the majority' and the idea that the Government is 'picking on the most vulnerable in society' is simply nonsense. 10% of pensioners currently pay the higher rate income tax. In three years time, if the triple lock and tax limits remain it will be 20%, far more than the percentage of working people who pay the higher rate (and this is simply income, with no regard to accumulated wealth). As @Weststander posted (and corrected me), 1 in 4 pensioners are currently millionaires.
Now I would hope this may encourage more to claim the benefits they are entitled to, and would like to see some appeal process put in place, but given our current tax/benefits/council tax bandings etc, I can't see a way for significant savings to be be achieved
To repeat once more, I'd like to see a level slightly higher than the current cut off, but haven't seen a single implementable alternative which would achieve similar levels of savings suggested on this thread or elsewhere
Last edited:
Baldseagull
Well-known member
Please f*** off with your magic money theory, lettuce lady economics.
- Apr 5, 2014
- 25,415
It is important to protect the most vulnerable whilst realising that millions of pensioners own their own homes, have plenty of savings and other incomes. The whole thing was badly constructed in the first place. To get votes, successive governments have given constant freebies to millions of older folk who didn't need them whilst working folk struggled to make ends meet.
Uh_huh_him
Well-known member
- Sep 28, 2011
- 11,655
Any pensioner on an income of £50k is (presumably) living off a very large pension.
I'm not sure anyone who has access to that find of income in retirement, is in need of £300 to cover their bills.