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

WATFORD zero · Sep 13, 2024

Bodian said:
The Council Tax is a bit of an odd one though. My Avenue of 14 houses are all in Council Tax Band B. I know all my neighbours - none actually 'need' the WFP, as they are all on okay pensions. So, again, not a perfect solution.

And I also didn't know until just now that the £300 that everyone talks about is only for over-80s. Under-80s only got £200. So, when we're bandying about figures, I guess really we should be saying £200-300 rather than a straight £300.

The problem is finding a level without introducing the huge costs of means testing this actual benefit, so you are reduced to simple measures, or blunt instruments. I have said all along that the benefits cut off is too low but Martin Lewis thinks that introducing the council tax bands A-C would reduce the savings from £1.9B to £1B next year. The figures need to be checked and verified (he talks of the allowance being £500 net, and I can't see where that comes from), but it's the nearest thing I have seen to an implementable solution.

As you point out it means that people who don't need it will still get it (my previously mentioned mum being one) but better to overpay than underpay. To my mind, the underlying problem still exists though in the people on low incomes who aren't claiming what they are entitled to :shrug:

Weststander · Sep 13, 2024

mejonaNO12 aka riskit said:
Genuine question, what do people think the threshold should be before you lose the payments?

I’d thought about this.

Impossible to say. Some oap households pay rent, some have their mortgage paid off, some in flats with (these days) huge service charges due to insurance/cladding etc.

beorhthelm · Sep 13, 2024

mejonaNO12 aka riskit said:
Genuine question, what do people think the threshold should be before you lose the payments?

one place might be around the number of for poverty or absolute poverty, 60% or 40% of median earnings. would pay out somewhere bewteen 15-20k.

though such a target would highlight state pension is quite a way below that.

the main problem is no system to check, have to do some claim with income evidence or self assessment tax rigmarole like the child benefits for higher tax payers.

mejonaNO12 aka riskit · Sep 13, 2024

I'd base it on if they watch Netflix or buy avocados. That's the reason young people can't buy houses.

chip · Sep 13, 2024

Bozza said:
We all enjoy seeing Jonathan Pie expose hypocrisy and hold callous government policy decisions to account, don't we?

I think starmer is right.

It is the sense of insecurity and uncertainty that eats away at people. They seem to be creating a lot of this and haven't appreciated that sudden (unannounced) changes with no consideration of their impact disturbs people. It could have all been done so much better, maybe even with humility and compassion?

It's not a good look outing your new MPs as hypocrites so soon. It's almost makies me think .... they are all the same

i don't think anyone is holding Labour to higher standards than the Conservatives; merely judging on the evidence, or lack of, that is on display. Maybe it will all get better, one day.

dsr-burnley · Sep 13, 2024

Bodian said:
The Council Tax is a bit of an odd one though. My Avenue of 14 houses are all in Council Tax Band B. I know all my neighbours - none actually 'need' the WFP, as they are all on okay pensions. So, again, not a perfect solution.

And I also didn't know until just now that the £300 that everyone talks about is only for over-80s. Under-80s only got £200. So, when we're bandying about figures, I guess really we should be saying £200-300 rather than a straight £300.

Mind you, last year there was a £300 bonus for all so the amount they will lose this year is £500 - £600 per household.

The quick and easy way to save a bit of money without the furore would have been to pay it as they do now but make it taxable. Pensioners at basic rate would pay 20%, higher rate taxpayers more. People with nothing but a bog standard pension would still pay no tax on it. It wouldn't save anything like as much but it wouldn't be controversial.

[edited because I put "receive" this year instead of "lose"]

chip · Sep 13, 2024

mejonaNO12 aka riskit said:
Genuine question, what do people think the threshold should be before you lose the payments?

I think it needs to be set at a level such that people have a sense of dignity and self-determination, that they can make some choices rather than be forced to behave in a specific way (eating or heating). It could also be household based. Say £24K/32K single/couple. I also think it should be tapered so you don't get the cliff edge and its fairer around the boundary.

I'm not so sure that means testing is that hard, I had child benefit removed years ago.

dsr-burnley · Sep 13, 2024

chip said:
I think it needs to be set at a level such that people have a sense of dignity and self-determination, that they can make some choices rather than be forced to behave in a specific way (eating or heating). It could also be household based. Say £24K/32K single/couple. I also think it should be tapered so you don't get the cliff edge and its fairer around the boundary.

I'm not so sure that means testing is that hard, I had child benefit removed years ago.

You only get child benefit removed if you want it removed. If you have too much income to be entitled to child benefit, you can still receive it anyway and pay it back on the end of year tax return. It shouldn't be forcibly taken off you.

If you want to means test, then the "easy" way is to visit every pensioner who doesn't fill in a tax return and ask them in detail about their income. Or, of course, to make every pensioner fill in a 243 question questionnaire like they do now. Possibly it could be done more easily, but it isn't at present.

fly high · Sep 13, 2024

chip said:
I think it needs to be set at a level such that people have a sense of dignity and self-determination, that they can make some choices rather than be forced to behave in a specific way (eating or heating). It could also be household based. Say £24K/32K single/couple. I also think it should be tapered so you don't get the cliff edge and its fairer around the boundary.

I'm not so sure that means testing is that hard, I had child benefit removed years ago.

You are right about the cliff edge, same should apply to carers allowance, earn a penny more & you loose the lot.

Chicken Run · Sep 13, 2024

dsr-burnley said:
Mind you, last year there was a £300 bonus for all so the amount they will receive this year is £500 - £600 per household.

The quick and easy way to save a bit of money without the furore would have been to pay it as they do now but make it taxable. Pensioners at basic rate would pay 20%, higher rate taxpayers more. People with nothing but a bog standard pension would still pay no tax on it. It wouldn't save anything like as much but it wouldn't be controversial.

OT but can i just say that i thoroughly enjoyed M2Burnley and Mr Pace seems like a really nice guy, having watched the show i now have a better understanding of how important Burnley FC is to the town, if you don’t like Pace then i apologise

Bozza · Sep 13, 2024

mejonaNO12 aka riskit said:
Genuine question, what do people think the threshold should be before you lose the payments?

I have no idea.

Perhaps if the government had commissioned and, in the spirit of transparency, published an impact assessment then we would have some data to work with.

Tackling the universality of this benefit is clearly the right thing to do, but not in a manner that deprives some of the poorest and most vulnerable pensioners along with the richest who'll not even notice.

£1.4bn is a lot of money, obviously, but it's also not a lot in the context of the British economy. If we've managed to pay this benefit every year since Gordon Brown introduced it in 1997, including through the years of Tory austerity, surely we could pay it for one more, whilst we put in a bit of effort to ensure we can reform it more appropriately?

Bozza · Sep 13, 2024

WATFORD zero said:
To my mind, the underlying problem still exists though in the people on low incomes who aren't claiming what they are entitled to

Part of the problem, not all of the problem.

The cliff-edge nature of this is illustrated by the Scottish lady who applied for Pension Credits, trying to access the Winter Fuel Payment, but was refused as her income was £3 too high.

It can't be right that if her starting position had been £3 worse off, she'd subsequently be hundreds of pounds better off.

It would be like getting a pay rise that bumps you into a higher income tax bracket, only to discover that the higher rate of tax applied to all of your income, not just the extra bit above the threshold.

chip · Sep 13, 2024

dsr-burnley said:
You only get child benefit removed if you want it removed. If you have too much income to be entitled to child benefit, you can still receive it anyway and pay it back on the end of year tax return. It shouldn't be forcibly taken off you.

If you want to means test, then the "easy" way is to visit every pensioner who doesn't fill in a tax return and ask them in detail about their income. Or, of course, to make every pensioner fill in a 243 question questionnaire like they do now. Possibly it could be done more easily, but it isn't at present.

You're right, of course, about the child benefit. It was "removed" as I wouldn't have qualified when I became a single parent so I didn't claim it. I should have been clearer, sorry.

I'm not really a fan of means testing, I was just trying to point out that with child benefit there was a means test and taper with HMRC. Not sure it would be helpful to generate another 10M self assessments though.

pocketseagull · Sep 13, 2024

Reeves has wanted to cut the payment for at least a decade so that maybe explains why she was so quick to get it done.

Crawley Dingo · Sep 13, 2024

If Labour want to be less useless they can start by banning or taxing heavily those loud boy racer exhausts. How the hell were they allowed to become popular? What next? Ben Hur spikes on hub caps?

Bodian · Sep 13, 2024

Bozza said:
I have no idea.

Perhaps if the government had commissioned and, in the spirit of transparency, published an impact assessment then we would have some data to work with.

Tackling the universality of this benefit is clearly the right thing to do, but not in a manner that deprives some of the poorest and most vulnerable pensioners along with the richest who'll not even notice.

£1.4bn is a lot of money, obviously, but it's also not a lot in the context of the British economy. If we've managed to pay this benefit every year since Gordon Brown introduced it in 1997, including through the years of Tory austerity, surely we could pay it for one more, whilst we put in a bit of effort to ensure we can reform it more appropriately?

That's the real missing bit. I'm astounded that they haven't done an impact assessment - even if it was only a relatively broad-brush one. If they had done so, they would surely have chosen a different cut-off point and avoided a lot of the angst.

pocketseagull said:
Reeves has wanted to cut the payment for at least a decade so that maybe explains why she was so quick to get it done.

Even more surprising that she hadn't done a proper impact assessment then.

carlzeiss · Sep 13, 2024

Starting to see the logic of sending the 11+bn overseas to reverse climate change now , by reducing temperatures and making winters colder more pensioners will perish saving the exchequer funds and ensure that they will not be around come next election time to vote Tory . Pure genius really :smile:

Kinky Gerbil · Sep 13, 2024

Bodian said:
That's the real missing bit. I'm astounded that they haven't done an impact assessment - even if it was only a relatively broad-brush one. If they had done so, they would surely have chosen a different cut-off point and avoided a lot of the angst.

Even more surprising that she hadn't done a proper impact assessment then.

On the bottom part

They did one in 2017 to use against the Tories, which they are now denying

Labour have known for two years or so they were more than likely going to be in power at the next election, they have had more than enough time to do this, or work with age UK etc to work out a better way to do it

Kinky Gerbil · Sep 13, 2024

Guinness Boy said:
My intended point was to emphasise how many they'd had and why it made them an ineffective opposition full stop. You're completely right about Sunak of course but I'm not sure Jenrick or Badenoch are going to give them what they need. A lurch to the right where they'll be in direct competition with Reform. If Badenoch wins it'll be like Labour under Corbyn, only with an uber rude version who only opens her mouth to change feet and is, frankly, the wrong colour for many of their target audience.

There's a lot of 'aren't Labour awful' on this thread but the fact is there is zero credible alternative. Greens simply not popular enough. LDs with a decent enough manifesto but you can't put it through while abseiling at Centre Parcs. And then Tory / Reform chaos. That should worry everyone on NSC.

There doesn't need to be a credible alternative for another year or so, no one really pays attention to the opposition in the first year or two of a new Government

Plus I imagine the Tories are quite happy for Labour to do unpopular things and leave them to make the headlines.

Bozza · Sep 13, 2024

Any guesses as to how Peter Lamb, MP for Crawley, voted this week?

]

Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

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

Well-known member

Well-known member

A. Virgo, Football Genius

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Member Since Jul 2003

You can change this

You can change this

Well-known member

Well-known member

Political thread tourist.

Well-known member

Well-known member

Im The Scatman

Im The Scatman

You can change this

Share this page