[Politics] Labour Party meltdown incoming.......

[WATFORD zero]

Do you have access to a different number than Age UK?

"We strongly oppose the means-testing of the Winter Fuel Payment because it means as many as 2 million pensioners who badly need the money to stay warm this winter will not receive it and will be in serious trouble as a result."​

​

2 million out of 10 million is only 20% obviously. So 80% don't need it. Let's kick on.

2 million people. 2 million old people - poor, in many cases with health concerns of varying significance. Proud people at a stage of their lives where they really shouldn't be having to worry about whether they can afford to put the central heating on for 15 minutes when it's below freezing.

2 million people.

If the Tories did this you'd be breaking the world records for most use of the word "cabal" and sarcastic emojis in 24 hours.

Here you go for some stats

https://www.yourmoney.com/retiremen...ber-of-pensioners-paying-higher-rates-of-tax/

and this lot believe there will be more pensioners than workers in the higher tax band in a couple of years

https://www.pensionsage.com/pa/One-in-five-pensioners-to-be-brought-into-higher-rate-tax-band.php

I don't disagree with anything you've said.

As I have said a number of times, I'd like the cut off to be a bit higher but can't come up with any implementable way of doing it and have been welcoming alternative suggestions to raise a similar amount but haven't heard of any. I do think that your and my examples show that it's around the right level and maybe an appeals process could cover what is the relatively small number around the cut off that are struggling.

And if Johnson, Truss or Sunak had done this of course I would have been all over it, because we both know where the money would have gone and it wouldn't have been the NHS, the Care sector, Benefits or even Potholes

 

[cjd]

Really pleased that they didn't bottle it with scrapping the winter fuel allowance for pensioners... it has restored some faith, at least.

I understand that this needs to be tough, but it needs to be fair.

I don't mind paying in my bit, but it needs to be reiterated, it needs to be FAIR.

This very much includes getting money from the wealthy (somehow) and especially the pensioners in £1m+ houses.

If they go after JUST the young and middle classes without making the wealthy older generations pay their way, I am NEVER voting for Labour again.

Oh FFs it's you.

Might as well close this thread now, as we all know sooner or later you,ll be threatening to sue Bozza if all your posts and those you have posted on,are not deleted.


You have zero credibility on this forum.

 

[Bozza]

Here you go for some stats

https://www.yourmoney.com/retiremen...ber-of-pensioners-paying-higher-rates-of-tax/

and this lot believe there will be more pensioners than workers in the higher tax band in a couple of years

https://www.pensionsage.com/pa/One-in-five-pensioners-to-be-brought-into-higher-rate-tax-band.php

I don't disagree with anything you've said.

As I have said a number of times, I'd like the cut off to be a bit higher but can't come up with any implementable way of doing it and have been welcoming alternative suggestions to raise a similar amount but haven't heard of any. I do think that your and my examples show that it's around the right level and maybe an appeals process could cover what is the relatively small number around the cut off that are struggling.

And if Johnson, Truss or Sunak had done this of course I would have been all over it, because we both know where the money would have gone and it wouldn't have been the NHS, the Care sector, Benefits or even Potholes

You e done it again.

I have no interest in rich pensioners - they absolutely don’t need a few extra quid each year to spend on luxuries. This debate isn’t about them.

This is about poor pensioners who will genuinely struggle to make ends meet, or spend their winter believing they can’t afford to heat their homes.

How many of them are there?

 

[Baldseagull]

The government, "prints" new money every day whenever it spends. The Exchequer and Audits Department Act of 1866 gives parliament the powers to instruct the Bank of England to create new money via the consolidated fund whenvever it wants to spend. There is no connection between this and tax receipts which are an entirely seperate process. MMT economists have never argued that the government can "print" as much as it likes without consequences and have put at the forefront as their only policy proposal the job guarantee which is specifically intended to control inflation alongside the use of taxation. If you dont beilieve me I suggest you read the "Self Financing State" published by UCL, If you think theres something incorrect with this I`m sure the authors would love to know.

I really dont want to do this all again. But, you said a Government can never run out, as it can just create more, its quite key to your point of not needing to cut winter fuel payments.

 

[beorhthelm]

The government, "prints" new money every day whenever it spends. The Exchequer and Audits Department Act of 1866 gives parliament the powers to instruct the Bank of England to create new money via the consolidated fund whenvever it wants to spend.

that would be when we were on the gold standard. tell us how the Victorian Exchequer created money, did they grow it or transmute it from finest Green?

 

[WATFORD zero]

You e done it again.

I have no interest in rich pensioners - they absolutely don’t need a few extra quid each year to spend on luxuries. This debate isn’t about them.

This is about poor pensioners who will genuinely struggle to make ends meet, or spend their winter believing they can’t afford to heat their homes.

How many of them are there?

I have no idea, but we do know it isn't even close to any sort of majority of pensioners, so . I have said many many many times I think the cut off should be higher, but nobody seems to have a suggestion, let alone an answer. And 'picking on the most vulnerable in society' is bollocks.

For the reasons I've given in my previous posts, I believe the level is about right. Now the number of pensioners we are talking about is certainly not large, but need to be protected. The simple question is how.

I've suggested an appeal process, I haven't seen any better suggestion on NSC or anywhere else :shrug

I know we're not going to agree but I believe we both want the same thing

 

[nevergoagain]

I have no idea, but we do know it isn't even close to any sort of majority of pensioners, so . I have said many many many times I think the cut off should be higher, but nobody seems to have a suggestion, let alone an answer.

For the reasons I've given in my previous posts, I believe the level is about right. Now the number of pensioners we are talking about is certainly not large, but need to be protected. The simple question is how.

I've suggested an appeal process, I haven't seen any better suggestion on NSC or anywhere else :shrug

Not being close to a majority can still equal millions of pensioners ? (pointless emoji)

 

[Weststander]

I have no idea, but we do know it isn't even close to the majority. I have said many many many times I think the cut off should be higher, but nobody seems to have a suggestion, let alone an answer.

For the reasons I've given in my previous posts, I believe the level is about right. Now the number of pensioners we are talking about is certainly not large, but need to be protected. The simple question is how.

I've suggested an appeal process, I haven't seen any better suggestion on NSC or anywhere else :shrug

The charity link provided by @Bozza said 2m.

Unless the criteria in Labour’s new cut-off is changed, there’s no basis for 2m appeals.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

When parents couldn’t afford to feed their kids, they were told by Reform MPs to budget better and eat beans or tinned potatoes

When the young can’t afford deposits for houses they were told to budget better and stop drinking Starbucks & costa, cancel Netflix

When people who have worked 40-50 years haven’t saved enough for retirement ??

I don’t understand it - make it means tested, give it to those that need it like all benefits

When parents couldn’t afford to feed their kids, they were told by Reform MPs to budget better and eat beans or tinned potatoes

When the young can’t afford deposits for houses they were told to budget better and stop drinking Starbucks & costa, cancel Netflix

When people who have worked 40-50 years haven’t saved enough for retirement ??

I don’t understand it - make it means tested, give it to those that need it like all benefits

Both of those statements were ridiculous and shouldn't be used to try and defend this mistake by Labour.

 

[Springal]

Both of those statements were ridiculous and shouldn't be used to try and defend this mistake by Labour.

Why? What’s the difference ? I think it’s hypocritical for the same people to bemoan some areas of society for complaining about things but be outraged about others.

 

[pocketseagull]

How many of these policies will Labour adopt before being 'forced' to make cuts?

Six wealth tax policies that could raise £50 billion - Tax Justice UK

The government could raise up to £50 billion by reforming the way it taxes wealth, according to our new research with Patriotic Millionaires UK. There is a growing consensus that higher taxation of wealth could help solve current economic crises – from low productivity growth to crumbling...

taxjustice.uk

 

[Weststander]

Why? What’s the difference ? I think it’s hypocritical for the same people to bemoan some areas of society for complaining about things but be outraged about others.

That’s assuming the many people here sad about this policy, didn’t want the housing crisis, mental health crisis etc prioritised when they sought change at the ballot box. The raft of charities, union bosses, left wing politicians angry with this policy can hardly be accused of opposing action on the unrelated matters you mention.

 

[BenGarfield]

I really dont want to do this all again. But, you said a Government can never run out, as it can just create more, its quite key to your point of not needing to cut winter fuel payments.

Indeed the government can`t run out of money but equally it can`t put as much money into the economy as it likes, without a job guarantee or taxation because of of infationary risks. The main thinking on this board seems to be the neo-liberal, household concept of goverment finances, initiated by the Callaghan and Thatcher goverrnents of the seventies, "There is no such thing as public money; there is only taxpayers' money." (1983).

So most on here think the economy is like a a big cake. So if you give one group of people a big slice then others will have a smaller share. This is competely untrue. The money produced within the economy expands and contracts in response to the needs of the economy both from the private and public sector. Private banks create money through loans and central government via the mechanism Ive already outlined. There is no way, therefore, that spending 1.4 billion,which is peanuts with respect to total goverment spending, on the winter fuel allowance makes any real difference to this inflation risk.

If people are concerned about richer pensioners getting the heating allowance, the fairest way to claw back the money, (using the neo-liberal model), would be to do it via the tax system. Personally, I think the state Retirement Pension should be set at such a rate that these somewhat ad hoc addtions should be unneccesary and that the basic pension should be enough to live on, so that any claims for Pension Credit would be unneccesary, and Pension Credit potentially abolished.

 

[Mustafa II]

My main concern with this scrapping of the winter fuel payments by Labour is that it is merely a smoke screen to distract from what is about to happen to the working and middle classes.

In the grand scheme of things, pensioners are STILL way better off despite this, due to the disgraceful triple lock, which if Labour are true to their ideals, they will remove next year.

I'm all for the inevitable increase in capital gains and inheritance taxes which are inevitably coming in the October budget... but we NEED to see more contributed by the wealthy, in particular the wealthy pensioners who contribute very little to the economy but are sitting on great wealth and have benefited for so long at the expense of the younger generations.

This is a huge time for Labour. They could get this very right and become the UKs main party for at least the next two terms, or get it very wrong and lose the electorate to some radical far-right party like Reform.

 

[Baldseagull]

Indeed the government can`t run out of money but equally it can`t put as much money into the economy as it likes, without a job guarantee or taxation because of of infationary risks. The main thinking on this board seems to be the neo-liberal, household concept of goverment finances, initiated by the Callaghan and Thatcher goverrnents of the seventies, "There is no such thing as public money; there is only taxpayers' money." (1983).

So most on here think the economy is like a a big cake. So if you give one group of people a big slice then others will have a smaller share. This is competely untrue. The money produced within the economy expands and contracts in response to the needs of the economy both from the private and public sector. Private banks create money through loans and central government via the mechanism Ive already outlined. There is no way, therefore, that spending 1.4 billion,which is peanuts with respect to total goverment spending, on the winter fuel allowance makes any real difference to this inflation risk.

If people are concerned about richer pensioners getting the heating allowance, the fairest way to claw back the money, (using the neo-liberal model), would be to do it via the tax system. Personally, I think the state Retirement Pension should be set at such a rate that these somewhat ad hoc addtions should be unneccesary and that the basic pension should be enough to live on, so that any claims for Pension Credit would be unneccesary, and Pension Credit potentially abolished.

This cut isn't the whole package, tax rises will be coming.
I don't like the system, but unless you want to go North Korea route, you can't just ignore how the rest of the world views money.

 

[BenGarfield]

that would be when we were on the gold standard. tell us how the Victorian Exchequer created money, did they grow it or transmute it from finest Green?

Yes it was on the gold standard then, but so what. Its still the law now, and hasnt changed. The BoE must make the payments when instructed to do so by Parliament irrespective of any payments made into the consolidated fund.

 

[BenGarfield]

This cut isn't the whole package, tax rises will be coming.
I don't like the system, but unless you want to go North Korea route, you can't just ignore how the rest of the world views money.

Maybe so - tax increases or even tax cuts at the moment could be justified on equality, or health grounds. I fail to see what North Korea has to do with this discussion. The whole world doesnt have one view about what money is, nor how monetary operatons work within fiat based currency economies. I have many people from all over the world that agree with the MMT analysis.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Why? What’s the difference ? I think it’s hypocritical for the same people to bemoan some areas of society for complaining about things but be outraged about others.

Ones the PM making the changes after saying the below and brought it up in Parliament



The others in a party that won't get close to power and no one really takes that seriously, most sensible people thought Anderson is an idiot after those comments.

if the Tories had brought this in, I imagine quite a few on here would be calling them granny killers.

 

[Baldseagull]

Maybe so - tax increases or even tax cuts at the moment could be justified on equality, or health grounds. I fail to see what North Korea has to do with this discussion. The whole world doesnt have one view about what money is, nor how monetary operatons work within fiat based currency economies. I have many people from all over the world that agree with the MMT analysis.

Because when the rest of the world loses faith in our currency, it will be worthless.

 

[The Clamp]

Ones the PM making the changes after saying the below and brought it up in Parliament



The others in a party that won't get close to power and no one really takes that seriously, most sensible people thought Anderson is an idiot after those comments.

if the Tories had brought this in, I imagine quite a few on here would be calling them granny killers.

Yes because the Tories would have done it to line their own pockets and not to fix the economy.

I think the bottom line is that the U.K. pension is pathetic.

Lowest in Western Europe, I think.

At least Labour are upping it. Not by enough but it’s something .

Either way, if we had a decent state pension then we wouldn’t have people scrabbling around for bits and bobs to heat their houses and buy food.