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

[Guinness Boy]

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.

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.

You're pushing the same message again and there's no point discussing it with you. However, it's factually incorrect to state that government sets interest rates in this country.

Of course, that might not be what your word salad means.

 

[Weststander]

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.





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 earlier, 1 in 10 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

1 in 4.

 

[BenGarfield]

Please f*** off with your magic money theory, lettuce lady economics.

Nothing like a reasoned response - oh and what is the connection with "lettuce lady economics"

 

[cjd]

Okay. I see.

I thought you said you were leaving this thread...?...lol.

Do you think the three witches of the Labour Party would also consider a U turn ...?


PS: Sir Keir Starmer is merely their puppet.

 

[The Clamp]

I thought you said you were leaving this thread...?...lol.

Do you think the three witches of the Labour Party would also consider a U turn ...?


PS: Sir Keir Starmer is merely their puppet.

We can have a discussion. We don’t have to agree. But let’s not take it back to the days of the Bear Pit. Very unpleasant.

 

[pocketseagull]

PIP is an appallingly run system. I’ve seen key-workers doing the paperwork to get their heroin addicted clients onto 10k in PIP back payments. And not just now and again. Two or three clients a week.

If they're eligible for assistance then it's right they're able to claim.

 

[KZNSeagull]

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.

I am not disagreeing about that, means testing benefits etc is the right thing to do. I am disagreeing about the governments method of means testing. Someone just over the means testing limit set by pension credits (£11400) will not now get the WFP. You may be happy with that, I and many others are not.

 

[The Clamp]

If they're eligible for assistance then it's right they're able to claim.

Well quite.

My point was that any system that allows someone to blow £10k of PIP money on crack and heroin when it’s purpose is to help people who require a bit extra to live a normal life, needs overhauling.

 

[pocketseagull]

That'd then be an argument of the state dictating how any benefits are spent. Which would be wrong imo.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

I am not disagreeing about that, means testing benefits etc is the right thing to do. I am disagreeing about the governments method of means testing. Someone just over the means testing limit set by pension credits (£11400) will not now get the WFP. You may be happy with that, I and many others are not.

It depends on your outgoings and personal circumstances though doesn't it.?
If you are living on your own and paying rent.... yeah you're f***ed.

If you are in a couple and live in your own, paid off, property.
It's a reasonable income.

 

[cjd]

We can have a discussion. We don’t have to agree. But let’s not take it back to the days of the Bear Pit. Very unpleasant.

There really is no point in a discussion with you. Have a good read back on your deeply offensive posts towards the elderly.

I'm neither Labour or Conservative, but under no circumstances could I argue, discuss, or debate this disgusting vindictive decision by one of the three witches..

Just so you have some grasp of where I'm coming from....... My working life was for the elderly. I think I was reasonably good at it too. I don't receive WFA, neither do I need it. But I do have an inkling about how the elderly view their income against expenditure....and the lengths they will go to stay within bounds of their finances.

It is that, why I care about this bitch,s vindictive decision. The Labour Party have been in power for 5 minutes. I waited 14 years for something better to happen.

So far......an absolute f***ing shambles. It doesn't bode well for the future.

 

[The Clamp]

That'd then be an argument of the state dictating how any benefits are spent. Which would be wrong imo.

It’s a very specific benefit meant for very specific things.

It should not be spent on illegal substances.

 

[beorhthelm]

I am not disagreeing about that, means testing benefits etc is the right thing to do. I am disagreeing about the governments method of means testing. Someone just over the means testing limit set by pension credits (£11400) will not now get the WFP. You may be happy with that, I and many others are not.

it goes to the heart of our welfare state not to do means test. we dont like it, stigma apparently, though people actually needing benefits seem happily enough to claim. except perhaps that older generation most affected by this policy. either way, this is highlighting there isn't a practical system today for sensible, easy to adjust and administer means testing. needs large overhaul.

 

[The Clamp]

There really is no point in a discussion with you. Have a good read back on your deeply offensive posts towards the elderly.

I'm neither Labour or Conservative, but under no circumstances could I argue, discuss, or debate this disgusting vindictive decision by one of the three witches..

Just so you have some grasp of where I'm coming from....... My working life was for the elderly. I think I was reasonably good at it too. I don't receive WFA, neither do I need it. But I do have an inkling about how the elderly view their income against expenditure....and the lengths they will go to stay within bounds of their finances.

It is that, why I care about this bitch,s vindictive decision. The Labour Party have been in power for 5 minutes. I waited 14 years for something better to happen.

So far......an absolute f***ing shambles. It doesn't bode well for the future.

I think you’re far too emotional about the topic.
I’m sorry you feel you are unable to debate but I can see why. And I respect that.

 

[KZNSeagull]

1 in 4.

Does that include money in pension pots?

 

[cjd]

I think you’re far too emotional about the topic.

Unbelievable !

 

[BenGarfield]

You're pushing the same message again and there's no point discussing it with you. However, it's factually incorrect to state that government sets interest rates in this country.

Of course, that might not be what your word salad means.

Why is that word salad? What you mean is you cant argue with me because you dont have an argument. The government does set interest rates via the Bank of England monetary committee who are agents of the government. According to The Bank of England Act 1998, the Bank of England is part of the wider public sector, has some independance but states specifically that it has none "in respect to monetary policy".

 

[Weststander]

Does that include money in pension pots?

Defined contribution, yes.

Defined benefit, no.

 

[Weststander]

Why is that word salad? What you mean is you cant argue with me because you dont have an argument. The government does set interest rates via the Bank of England monetary committee who are agents of the government. According to The Bank of England Act 1998, the Bank of England is part of the wider public sector, has some independance but states specifically that it has none "in respect to monetary policy".

Government, as in 10 and 11 Downing Street and the ruling political party, have no say in setting interest rates.

 

[BenGarfield]

Government, as in 10 and 11 Downing Street and the ruling political party, have no say in setting interest rates.

Oh no completely independent - of course.

They`d soon get their marching orders in they didnt toe the line.- as i pointed out they dont have independence by the 1998 Act

"The Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) is made up of nine members – the Governor, the three Deputy Governors for Monetary Policy, Financial Stability and Markets and Banking, our Chief Economist and four external members appointed directly by the Chancellor."