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

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



Bozza

You can change this
Helpful Moderator
Jul 4, 2003
57,542
Back in Sussex
It rises to 57 in 4 years time. :wink:

I know your response it to another poster, but the thrust of the WASPI argument seems to be they didn’t get a letter from the HMRC. :shrug:

I have tried to understand thier issue, I’m happy to be enlightened, but I don’t understand how this can be the basis of compensation. Aligning pensions was in the news at the time. Surely most, if not all, knew this? Surely people seek their own advice on pensions, professionals and/or friends or family, and don’t wait for a letter from the Pensions Dept?
Look, I'm not arguing the payments should be made - I said as much in my first post.

My main beef was the bandwagon-jumping opportunism undertaken in opposition, which has now been shown for what it was - utterly shameless.

A lot of people do seem to be concerned about the government's refusal to follow the (politically-) independent ombudsman recommendations. I don't know if this is the first time this has happened, but the word "unprecedented" is being bandied about a lot.

The reports and summaries are there for all to read, and I'm sure those who have a genuine interest will.

My mum is just a bit older than the WASPI generation but I know for certain that if she'd been impacted by this, she'd have no idea.

I think you're giving far too much credit to a lot of people who won't be as financially-astute nor sophisticated as you.

I like to think I'm quite switched on financially. - certainly compard to my mum and similar - but pensions have always been my black hole. I mean it when I say I genuinely didn't know I could access some of my pension in the very near future until a few months back.
 




Kalimantan Gull

Well-known member
Aug 13, 2003
13,564
Central Borneo / the Lizard
Nor is anyone, and noone has suggested we should.

What about those on just over £11k a year, no savings and for whom the £200/£300 was a lifeline to help them get through the winter months with a small amount of heating on the very coldest days?
Every single government policy has people who are find themselves on the edge who we can feel sorry for. If the threshold was £15k a year we'd be upset for those instead. If the farm inheritance policy is anything to go by, if the threshold was £1 million pounds a year we'd find somebody somewhere complaining

But I'm not being an arse. The fact we have these people struggling in the first place is exactly why you have to get the economy delivering for them so they can afford to pay for essentials, not relying on handouts. There is little substantive difference between the WFA and Food Banks. Neither should exist in a fair society.

So. You either give it to everyone, which is a huge waste of money, or you have a cut-off. You then have to find where the cut-off is. I would have no problem increasing that threshold, but the question then becomes how you do it - would need a lot of forms being filled in, a lot of bureaucracy - thats expensive and difficult, hence giving it to those people claiming pension credit as an absolute black/white divider. I would not have an issue with more people receiving pension credit, and hence more people getting the WFA, but like everything you have to get the money from somewhere. I also wouldn't have a problem with VAT being reduced, tax thresholds raised, essential services subsidised, renewable energy subsidised, so on and so forth. I think there is far more scope for windfall taxes, corporation taxes are criminally low and tax avoidance by large companies is ridiculous. But I wasn't elected
 
Last edited:


Kalimantan Gull

Well-known member
Aug 13, 2003
13,564
Central Borneo / the Lizard
So give a f*** about people who get £1 over the pensions credit limit...... Good for you.
There is always going to be a cut-off - that's unavoidable unless we're just giving money to everybody or nobody. No-one here or anywhere else for that matter is going to be able to come up with a cut-off number that everyone agrees is completely fair.
 


Bodian

Well-known member
May 3, 2012
14,721
Cumbria
I know your response it to another poster, but the thrust of the WASPI argument seems to be they didn’t get a letter from the HMRC. :shrug:

I have tried to understand thier issue, I’m happy to be enlightened, but I don’t understand how this can be the basis of compensation. Aligning pensions was in the news at the time. Surely most, if not all, knew this? Surely people seek their own advice on pensions, professionals and/or friends or family, and don’t wait for a letter from the Pensions Dept?
When I started work, my pension date was going to be 65. It's now 67 - but I don't remember receiving any letters about this.

My wife took out income protection insurance to end when she was 60 (her pensionable age at the time) - it's now been activated. Pensionable age is now 67 - so we have a 7 year gap between the end of the income protection and pension beginning. I never envisaged that we could possibly be entitled o any compensation or anything like that. It's just a change that we lose out on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cjd






Bozza

You can change this
Helpful Moderator
Jul 4, 2003
57,542
Back in Sussex
Every single government policy has people who are find themselves on the edge who we can feel sorry for. If the threshold was £15k a year we'd be upset for those instead. If the farm inheritance policy is anything to go by, if the threshold was £1 million pounds a year we'd find somebody somewhere complaining

But I'm not being an arse. The fact we have these people struggling in the first place is exactly why you have to get the economy delivering for them so they can afford to pay for essentials, not relying on handouts. There is little substantive difference between the WFA and Food Banks. Neither should exist in a fair society.

So. You either give it to everyone, which is a huge waste of money, or you have a cut-off. You then have to find where the cut-off is. I would have no problem increasing that threshold, but the question then becomes how you do it - would need a lot of forms being filled in, a lot of bureaucracy - thats expensive and difficult, hence giving it to those people claiming pension credit as an absolute black/white divider. I would not have an issue with more people receiving pension credit, and hence more people getting the WFA, but like everything you have to get the money from somewhere. I also wouldn't have a problem with VAT being reduced, tax thresholds raised, essential services subsidised, renewable energy subsidised, so on and so forth. I think there is far more scope for windfall taxes, corporation taxes are criminally low and tax avoidance by large companies is ridiculous. But I wasn't elected
Tell me you really don’t understand this without telling me you really don’t understand this.
 




Rdodge30

Well-known member
Dec 30, 2022
774
I'm 53 and I've only just found out I can take some of my pension in two years' time. What a f***ing idiot I am. (I actually am
Your workplace or personal pension, not your state pension you will need to be 67,68,69,70 etc etc to get that 😊
 




Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
63,063
The Fatherland
Look, I'm not arguing the payments should be made - I said as much in my first post.

My main beef was the bandwagon-jumping opportunism undertaken in opposition, which has now been shown for what it was - utterly shameless.

A lot of people do seem to be concerned about the government's refusal to follow the (politically-) independent ombudsman recommendations. I don't know if this is the first time this has happened, but the word "unprecedented" is being bandied about a lot.

The reports and summaries are there for all to read, and I'm sure those who have a genuine interest will.

My mum is just a bit older than the WASPI generation but I know for certain that if she'd been impacted by this, she'd have no idea.

I think you're giving far too much credit to a lot of people who won't be as financially-astute nor sophisticated as you.

I like to think I'm quite switched on financially. - certainly compard to my mum and similar - but pensions have always been my black hole. I mean it when I say I genuinely didn't know I could access some of my pension in the very near future until a few months back.
I don’t think it’s about being financially astute…in my mind it’s more to do with who’s responsible….the individual to find out, or the government to send a letter? You didn’t know about being 55 but, to a degree, I feel this is down to you….it’s not the governments responsibility to ensure you know. I do agree something like this should be announced in the media….which it was. It all seems very opportunistic.

Anyway, point taken your beef is not about the compensation so I’ll leave it here.
 


Kalimantan Gull

Well-known member
Aug 13, 2003
13,564
Central Borneo / the Lizard
Tell me you really don’t understand this without telling me you really don’t understand this.
I fear I'll end up sounding like the same kind of utter wanker as many of those who live and breathe these threads.

That's not to say any of us are actually utter wankers, just these discussions tends to have us acting like one.
Your fears may be coming true.......

Just tell me where you think I'm factually wrong, I like a debate and no, I don't pretend to understand every nuance of the issue.

How do we give people in need support without wasting large sums on people who don't need it. Feels like the crux of the issue to me
 


WATFORD zero

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 10, 2003
27,957
Look, I'm not arguing the payments should be made - I said as much in my first post.

My main beef was the bandwagon-jumping opportunism undertaken in opposition, which has now been shown for what it was - utterly shameless.

A lot of people do seem to be concerned about the government's refusal to follow the (politically-) independent ombudsman recommendations. I don't know if this is the first time this has happened, but the word "unprecedented" is being bandied about a lot.

The reports and summaries are there for all to read, and I'm sure those who have a genuine interest will.

My mum is just a bit older than the WASPI generation but I know for certain that if she'd been impacted by this, she'd have no idea.

I think you're giving far too much credit to a lot of people who won't be as financially-astute nor sophisticated as you.

I like to think I'm quite switched on financially. - certainly compard to my mum and similar - but pensions have always been my black hole. I mean it when I say I genuinely didn't know I could access some of my pension in the very near future until a few months back.

IIRC a significant part of the £22B 'black hole' was Independent Ombudsman Recommendations on pay rises for the public sector which the Government of the day ignored and then didn't budget for.
 






fly high

Well-known member
Aug 25, 2011
1,795
in a house
There is always going to be a cut-off - that's unavoidable unless we're just giving money to everybody or nobody. No-one here or anywhere else for that matter is going to be able to come up with a cut-off number that everyone agrees is completely fair.
You have to apply for pensions credit so why not make the same rule for WFA. Cut off point? How about somewhere near what someone on pensions credit gets in extra help & not just the WFA.
 


Titanic

Super Moderator
Helpful Moderator
Jul 5, 2003
39,964
West Sussex
Labour losers bunged peerages... same old same old...

A series of Labour MPs who lost their seats or stood down at the last election will now join the House of Lords - including Thangam Debbonaire, Julie Elliot, Lyn Brown and Steve McCabe.

Luciana Berger and Phil Wilson, two Labour MPs who lost their seat at the 2019 election are to become peers, as is Margaret Curran who lost her Glasgow East seat in 2015.
Last month, Gray had decided not to take up a post as the prime minister's envoy to the nations and regions that she was offered.

In 2022, Labour said it planned to abolish the 805-member Lords, replacing it with a "new, reformed upper chamber".
 




LamieRobertson

Not awoke
Feb 3, 2008
48,708
SHOREHAM BY SEA
Multi millionaires exploiting Tax loopholes to avoid paying a fair share is exactly the type of people this elector wanted targeted.

And the simple fact is that even after this, these multi millionaires will still only pay half of what I (and anyone else) will have to pay, with three times the tax free allowance I (and anyone else) will get, and 10 years to pay it (when anyone else will have to pay immediately), but it seems a little fairer to me.

And, for completeness, I don't agree with compensation on Waspi and I agree with means testing WFA, but believe the level of cut off has been set too low. The need to invest to rebuild our crumbling country in all areas, requires people to step up and pay their fair share and that includes everyone.

Of course there is a way to avoid all these constant cuts and tax rises, but you know me, I don't like to mention it
Hi

well you mention multi millionaires…..if it’s who I think you are referring to then you won’t get me disagreeing with that….but I think if you read what I typed I thought I had made it clear that I was referring to farmers who didn’t fall into that bracket (some may well b asset rich…but are cash poor).

re WASPI….well I know someone who has campaigned for years about this….so can see another side of the argument ….but I think the poster was referring to KS changing his parties policy yet again …he and Raynor made it quite clear that no government should be treating these people as the last (tits) were…..and yet here we are

I note your comments re WFA and don’t disagree …..and it still remains a section of society who have been wrongly targeted

“everyone pay there fair share” ….well I guess it’s what you determine is ”fair” ….you and I don’t get to decide on that ..unless of course every budget of the parliament is set out before we vote ..obviously impossible…but re the first budget.i .don't recall a lot of the last budget being put forward as policy before the election 🤔

…and the last bit LOL :)
 
Last edited:


LamieRobertson

Not awoke
Feb 3, 2008
48,708
SHOREHAM BY SEA
Nor is anyone, and noone has suggested we should.

What about those on just over £11k a year, no savings and for whom the £200/£300 was a lifeline to help them get through the winter months with a small amount of heating on the very coldest days?
I think some people need to be put into those positions and maybe they might think again
 


darkwolf666

Well-known member
Nov 8, 2015
7,728
Sittingbourne, Kent
Your workplace or personal pension, not your state pension you will need to be 67,68,69,70 etc etc to get that 😊
The state pension age is going to follow similar ones to the proposed age restricted smoking idea of increasing by a year at a time. Basically every year, the pension age will be pushed back a year, so, at some point in the future people will NEVER reach pension age!

Only joking - or am I...

 


sussex_guy2k2

Well-known member
Jun 6, 2014
4,341
Plenty of time to continue to treat pensioners with utter disdain and keep the lies-a-coming.
Pensioners in this country are in the best position they’ve ever been, yet working people continue to struggle, and many have continued to struggle throughout the Tories’ tenure (of course there are exceptions). The Waspie women were warned and were given years to adjust to the incoming changes and to plan financially for their retirement. Most of them simply haven’t worked and haven’t planned, and I see no reason why working people in this country, many of whom are up against it, should be made to cover them whilst they continue to bleed the country dry.

It’s this kind of thing that’s leading to the ever increasing generational divide we see in this country. They’ve been given something - they should be bleeding grateful for it considering the fortuitous position many of them find themselves in, and the position many of them have put the country in with their voting choices over the past decade.
 




sussex_guy2k2

Well-known member
Jun 6, 2014
4,341
Nor is anyone, and noone has suggested we should.

What about those on just over £11k a year, no savings and for whom the £200/£300 was a lifeline to help them get through the winter months with a small amount of heating on the very coldest days?
Of course these are the exceptions, and they should be covered. But they would be supported by other means which are means tested correctly, no?
 


Rdodge30

Well-known member
Dec 30, 2022
774
Edit. Unintended quote

Pensioners in this country are in the best position they’ve ever been, yet working people continue to struggle, and many have continued to struggle throughout the Tories’ tenure (of course there are exceptions). The Waspie women were warned and were given years to adjust to the incoming changes and to plan financially for their retirement. Most of them simply haven’t worked and haven’t planned, and I see no reason why working people in this country, many of whom are up against it, should be made to cover them whilst they continue to bleed the country dry.

It’s this kind of thing that’s leading to the ever increasing generational divide we see in this country. They’ve been given something - they should be bleeding grateful for it considering the fortuitous position many of them find themselves in, and the position many of them have put the country in with their voting choices over the past decade.
Wow😳
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top