[Politics] Would YOU be happy to pay more income tax so OAPs could keep their fuel payments?

[Weststander]

The Guardian now report that the failure to impact assess means:

 

[The Clamp]

The Guardian now report that the failure to impact assess means:

View attachment 188905

That is idiotic.

Labour trashing their own good policy by failing to do due diligence.

Disabled and vulnerable pensioners must and should be looked after.

Utter fail for Labour in than respect.

If you aren’t measuring it, you can’t manage it.

Not good.

 

[golddene]

Well, they’re out there. And they’re laughing at us.

Winter fuel payment: We spend it on holidays, say some pensioners

Some pensioners say they don't need the extra cash of up to £300 - and want better means testing.

www.bbc.co.uk

Jesus you are a right plum sometimes Clampy, hope you never find out about pensioners Xmas bonus you’ll have a heart attack !

 

[The Clamp]

Jesus you are a right plum sometimes Clampy, hope you never find out about pensioners Xmas bonus you’ll have a heart attack !

It’s my opinion and I’ll live with it.

I am well aware that it is not a popular opinion and I accept any criticism coming my way.

Of course, the fact that I’m correct makes it that bit easier.

 

[Hamilton]

Which OAPs?

I would be happier if there was a way of ensuring all OAPs on low incomes took the benefits to which they are entitled and so were then able to take the WFP.

So, because the question relates to all OAPs my answer would be No. Rephrase the question to ‘Would I pay more tax so that OAPs on low incomes could have WFP?’ and it would be Yes.

I’d pay more tax to make sure young working families on low incomes got more support.

 

[Zeberdi]

Tax gap. Ascertained some reliable official figures.

2009/10 £35b or 7.9% of what should’ve been collected.
Now, £35.8b or 4.9%.

If 14 years of Labour rule struggled to close the gap, I wonder why it’s fraught?

But encouraging to see the % fall. I think IT enabled targeting, plus believe or not Osborne closed tax avoidance schemes through DOTAS and other legislation.

Why go back to before the Tory government, that was before there was an effective infrastructure to clamp down on money laundering and tax. The HMRC operates regardless of who is in power but they can only do what the law allows them to in chasing down perpetrators.

The reason I said not enough is being been done to close the tax gap today is because after the Panama Papers in 2016, the law was changed allowing the enablers of off shore tax havens to be prosecuted more easily and shut down amongst a range of other measures. So there is no excuse why the tax gap is still getting larger . Before 2014, there was a limit to HMRC getting data on overseas accounts but the law was also changed that year introducing cross border institutional cooperation with sharing data.

If you want to make this partisan (well at least a little dig at Labour ) , the question isn’t why Labour didn’t do enough before 2010 but why despite the changes to the law in 2014 and 2017 making the prosecution of stinking rich people squirrelling their money away in offshore accounts much easier, the Tories didn’t do more to reduce the tax gap and it in fact rose under their governance.

This all goes back to my original point on the Labour meltdown thread and that we should make fuel companies subsidise/reduce bills from the windfall tax on billions £££s profits they make from the consumer. Pensioners shouldn’t even need WFPs. Likewise, if we closed the Tax gap even by 10% with the legislation that is already there for that purpose, there would be no need to start asking people like you and I if we would be happy to pay more income tax to help the elderly stay warm in their homes.

Redistribution of wealth - The bigger picture.

 

[worthingseagull123]

Stop putting asylum seekers in hotels. We can have warehouses with bunk beds like in Germany.

Offer no welfare payments to anyone who has not made financial contributions to income tax or NI, unless they have 10 years residency in the UK, or were born here.

How many billions have I just saved?

 

[drew]

The Guardian now report that the failure to impact assess means:

View attachment 188905

I'm not sure being disabled or over 80 means you are poor. It may do but equally you could also be well off that you don't need the WFP. The only criteria should be financial, ie deciding those that financially need it and those that don't.

 

[schmunk]

Perhaps a compromise, to save money and to appease some of the backlash, would be to limit the universal (as opposed to those on pension credit) to an older age group - the older people get, the more heating they generally need, so perhaps make it universal for, say, the over 85s?

My wife's 93-year-old granny is a millionaire. Why does she need an extra £300?

 

[5Ways Gull]

I am a pensioner with effect end June this year. I have no issue with not getting the heating allowance as I am lucky enough to not need it. Pensioners that do, need to be supported in accessing the other benefits available to them.

 

[studio150]

Maye as an alternative, rather than fiddling around with the income tax rate, just reverse the NI reductions that The Tories introduced in an attempt to bribe voters to vote or them, when they would clearly have known that they didn't have the money to fund this giveaway.

 

[beorhthelm]

Maye as an alternative, rather than fiddling around with the income tax rate, just reverse the NI reductions that The Tories introduced in an attempt to bribe voters to vote or them, when they would clearly have known that they didn't have the money to fund this giveaway.

is odd to not reverse tax cut. still the autumn budget to come though.

 

[GT49er]

My wife's 93-year-old granny is a millionaire. Why does she need an extra £300?

She doesn't. Where did I say she did?

I simply suggested a compromise which would save a little less money but cause rather less outrage and controversy.

 

[BrianB]

Maybe change the pension increase too October ? .. Puts more money in pensioners pockets at the time it's needed...
I'm also sure there's an unforseen problem somewhere..

 

[Super Steve Earle]

Interesting thread. I voted yes.

However I'm, with @Thunder Bolt in general terms in that there should be no reason for a winter fuel allowance.

I would also add that if there is a winter fuel allowance it seems to make sense to means test it (I don't need it) and yet the cost of means testing will offset any savings; the individual sums involved are too small, and the numbers of people who would have to be 'looked at' is vast.

I think Labour have cocked this one up. But I am not sure how they can do anything differently. If they raise the threshold they won't save any money. If they get rid of the allowance and raise basic state pension they won't save any money and those who don't need an increase will nevertheless get an increase. They should have left this alone and focused on something that can be usefully altered.

Despite being an old lefty, I am not in favour of any benefits unless to help people who cannot earn an income owing to illness or disability. Benefits as a solution to low income and savings is wrong.

I would phase out universal benefits in line with moves to ensure wages/salaries are increased. This has to be done in tandem and it will take years.

Putting my old lefty hat back on, the UK is a great place for multinationals and entrepreneurs to make more money than they can elsewhere owing to tax breaks (for the rich), and that can't be right.

We need to 'rebalance' the damage done by the right (and I will admit Blair's excessively relaxed attitude to 'the wealthy' and their rubric is relevant here too), as evidenced most starkly from the relationship between house prices and average income. Actually allow working people the means to pay their way, and stop pretending we can turn the UK into some sort of low wage long hours Hong Kong of Europe, then finding too many are dependent on benefits that are expensive to curate.

 

[Super Steve Earle]

Why go back to before the Tory government, that was before there was an effective infrastructure to clamp down on money laundering and tax. The HMRC operates regardless of who is in power but they can only do what the law allows them to in chasing down perpetrators.

The reason I said not enough is being been done to close the tax gap today is because after the Panama Papers in 2016, the law was changed allowing the enablers of off shore tax havens to be prosecuted more easily and shut down amongst a range of other measures. So there is no excuse why the tax gap is still getting larger . Before 2014, there was a limit to HMRC getting data on overseas accounts but the law was also changed that year introducing cross border institutional cooperation with sharing data.

If you want to make this partisan (well at least a little dig at Labour ) , the question isn’t why Labour didn’t do enough before 2010 but why despite the changes to the law in 2014 and 2017 making the prosecution of stinking rich people squirrelling their money away in offshore accounts much easier, the Tories didn’t do more to reduce the tax gap and it in fact rose under their governance.

This all goes back to my original point on the Labour meltdown thread and that we should make fuel companies subsidise/reduce bills from the windfall tax on billions £££s profits they make from the consumer. Pensioners shouldn’t even need WFPs. Likewise, if we closed the Tax gap even by 10% with the legislation that is already there for that purpose, there would be no need to start asking people like you and I if we would be happy to pay more income tax to help the elderly stay warm in their homes.

Redistribution of wealth - The bigger picture.

I know you are something of a political soul. So what is your definition of wealth that should be taken from the individuals concerned by a government and redistributed?

 

[Zeberdi]

I know you are something of a political soul. So what is your definition of wealth that should be taken from the individuals concerned by a government and redistributed?

My view on this is nothing to do with my politics. I support Labour, I helped get them elected and personally helped get rid of Liz Truss who did more harm to pensioners btw by knocking £425 billion off pension funds with her insanely irresponsible budget.

I do wonder though why are you asking me such a heavily laden question in particular to justify a particular policy that I have not said I agree with?

Repeatedly, I have said there are fairer and more morally sound ways to redistribute wealth than end the £200 per year WFP for pensioners.

Fuel should be cheaper for everyone and the windfall tax of £10 billion the Givernment is getting from the £65 billion profits the fuel companies made last year would more than cover the cost of winter fuel payments instead of them ploughing the money back into the fuel companies as green investments.

I have also said we should use existing legislation to close the tax gap by going after offshore tax evaders as well as ending the avoidance of National Insurance Contributions by making them compulsory not voluntary.

 

[Super Steve Earle]

My view on this is nothing to do with my politics. I support Labour, I helped get them elected and personally helped get rid of Liz Truss who did more harm to pensioners btw by knocking £425 billion off pension funds with her insanely irresponsible budget.

I do wonder though why are you asking me such a heavily laden question in particular to justify a particular policy that I have not said I agree with?

Repeatedly, I have said there are fairer and more morally sound ways to redistribute wealth than end the £200 per year WFP for pensioners.

Fuel should be cheaper for everyone and the windfall tax of £10 billion the Givernment is getting from the £65 billion profits the fuel companies made last year would more than cover the cost of winter fuel payments instead of them ploughing the money back into the fuel companies as green investments.

I have also said we should use existing legislation to close the tax gap by going after offshore tax evaders as well as ending the avoidance of National Insurance Contributions by making them compulsory not voluntary.

I didn't intend it to be a loaded question. I was just curious in noting the sentence in your post 'redistribution of wealth - the bigger picture'.

 

[Weststander]

My view on this is nothing to do with my politics. I support Labour, I helped get them elected and personally helped get rid of Liz Truss who did more harm to pensioners btw by knocking £425 billion off pension funds with her insanely irresponsible budget.

I do wonder though why are you asking me such a heavily laden question in particular to justify a particular policy that I have not said I agree with?

Repeatedly, I have said there are fairer and more morally sound ways to redistribute wealth than end the £200 per year WFP for pensioners.

Fuel should be cheaper for everyone and the windfall tax of £10 billion the Givernment is getting from the £65 billion profits the fuel companies made last year would more than cover the cost of winter fuel payments instead of them ploughing the money back into the fuel companies as green investments.

I have also said we should use existing legislation to close the tax gap by going after offshore tax evaders as well as ending the avoidance of National Insurance Contributions by making them compulsory not voluntary.

Truss was likely our worst PM, thick as sh1t, out of her depth.

But the £425b bonds market crisis wasn’t her doing, it was global, quantified at $2.6t. Spread over a couple of years. If Truss had wiped out almost half a trillion from our pensions, it would be headline news for years.

The damage from Trussonomics was quantified by economists as adding 0.75% to UK interest rates. Hurting the nation (cost of servicing state debt), businesses and mortgagors.

 

[Zeberdi]

I didn't intend it to be a loaded question. I was just curious in noting the sentence in your post 'redistribution of wealth - the bigger picture'.

Sorry been getting constant push back every time I post because apparently my political credentials of being a Labour Party activist puts me in the firing line for those very angry about this and apparently I have to justify everything I say so I will make this my last post (after responding to @Weststander below) because its getting boring.

It wasn’t meant as anything extreme - In really basic terms - Every government comes in with their own ideology - the left, traditionally at least, big government, social contract, prioritised welfare and healthcare provision, the role of government to look after the vulnerable and weak and keep public services and utilities in the public sector, paid with by higher taxation. The right, traditionally, low taxation, laissez faire economy, private/free enterprise, helping people help themselves, lower taxation, competition in the market place. In a capitalist society, there will be greater divisions between the rich and poor under a right wing government than under a left. The inherent forces of capitalism depend on that division to flourish.

Each consecutive government redistributes wealth according to its particular ideology which should, in this instance, under a left wing government, make the fuel companies give back some of the profits they have made to reduce fuel bills and close the tax gap - that’s what I meant by the bigger picture.