Labour to ditch the winter fuel allowance for OAPs

[pellinore]

This is essentially a threadbare country with a small cadre of the very rich distorting all averages.

The median salary for full-time employees is £34,963. With half the population earning less, that makes the poverty line low. Forget talk about the UK being “the sixth richest country in the world” when it only ranks 27th in terms of GDP per capita. Most people have little idea where they stand on the earnings scale, with the rich and poor tending to put themselves too near the middle.

This IFS calculator will tell you your place, and every voter should check it, so the rich understand their wealth and the rest understand the injustice.

A third of British children are poor, so poor they often don’t have enough to eat. The two-child benefit cap is a scandal that Labour is bound to remove. Children’s services were the first to be stripped away after 2010. As Reeves prepares the country for tax rises in her first budget, all ministers should keep spelling out the basic reasons why our for-ever history of paying less tax than equivalent west European countries has left us behind them on every scale.

Labour is right to cut benefits that look wastefully untargeted, to tax and spend better on the benefits and public services for the neediest. And children must always come first.

– it isn’t ‘robbing’ old people | Polly Toynbee | The Guardian

Edited August 2 by pellinore

[L.A.T.1961]

It is robing old people but they don't vote in numbers for the Labour party. So Starmer will allow the politics of envy to dictate policy and hack away at pensioner income. In an ideal Labour society no one should be any better off than anybody else. 

This works right up to the point that those who run business or hold senior jobs in any vocation pack their bags and leave.  

But the Corbynistas will love it, Poly Toynbee included, and its red meat to that wing of the party.

 

 

Edited August 4 by L.A.T.1961

[Setton]

4 hours ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

It is robing old people but they don't vote in numbers for the Labour party. So Starmer will allow the politics of envy to dictate policy and hack away at pensioner income. In an ideal Labour society no one should be any better off than anybody else. 

This works right up to the point that those who run business or hold senior jobs in any vocation pack their bags and leave.  

But the Corbynistas will love it, Poly Toynbee included, and its red meat to that wing of the party.

I'm curious. Given your constant claims Starmer will be irresponsible with public finances, why don't you support stopping taxpayer funded handouts to people who don't need them?

Edited August 4 by Setton

[pellinore]

2 hours ago, Setton said:

I'm curious. Given your constant claims Starmer will be irresponsible with public finances, why don't you support stopping taxpayer funded handouts to people who don't need them?

6 hours ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

It is robing old people but they don't vote in numbers for the Labour party. So Starmer will allow the politics of envy to dictate policy and hack away at pensioner income. In an ideal Labour society no one should be any better off than anybody else. 

This works right up to the point that those who run business or hold senior jobs in any vocation pack their bags and leave.  

But the Corbynistas will love it, Poly Toynbee included, and its red meat to that wing of the party.

The average UK pensioner gets over £2000 per month (What is the average retirement income in the UK? | The Private Office).

Bear in mind they usually have paid off their mortgage (they are of an age when people could buy houses costing 3.5x or less of their annual income) and their children are self-supporting.

Now I know some pensioners are poor, but many are very rich, certainly rich property-wise. I fall into the average range. Last year I received £500 (we had a cold snap or something), I have no idea what I did with it, probably saved it, I certainly didn't think "Oh good, I can put the heating on this month".

I would far rather the money went to the local schools or local amenities of some sort, as it made no difference to me. If pensioners are receiving some sort of benefits because they are renting and actually rely on the state pension, etc., then they will get the allowance as normal.

It's crazy to give all pensioners winter fuel allowances whatever their income. I know why it is done, of course - to buy the grey vote. To keep that nice Mr Johnson, nice Ms Truss, and nice Mr Rishi in power: "Oh, they are so nice, they understand the important things, just like Mr Churchill in the War. " 

Edited August 4 by pellinore

[L.A.T.1961]

18 hours ago, Setton said:

I'm curious. Given your constant claims Starmer will be irresponsible with public finances, why don't you support stopping taxpayer funded handouts to people who don't need them?

I would much rather give individuals the option to pay the part of NI that covers pension and let them either spend that money as they go along, on family or a house or a private pension, than let them pay into a system only to find the money they thought they had was taken without asking.

We are given a national insurance number, before leaving school, and at that point have made a pact with government based on the idea that paying in provides a pension at the end of 50 yrs. To seriously alter that pact in retrospect is wrong.

Not as the Tory Government are blameless in this regard. The change to a 67 retirement age did supposedly increase the basic state pension but at the same time it was caped at £205.00

If you had paid into the secondary state pension, via NI contributions, it could have added significantly to the basic pension providing a weekly income well above the cap.

My Dad receives a pension that started in 2004 and is 70% more than the new caped pension. If he had retired after 2016, with the same contributions, he would receive only the £205. So the tory Government has stolen from some, and depending on age, £150/200 per week with nothing in return.

And now the labour party want to increase tax on these same individuals. While also looking to change inheritance tax. Money that has been accrued over a lifetime and tax paid at the time.

What is left should be down to individuals to leave, their hard won gains, to family or whoever.

Not leaving the retired in a reasonable position removes the incentive to work hard and put themselves, at the end of their lives, in a better position than if they didn't take risks and be more productive than others throughout their lives.

This idea of working and being better off is what the Labour part apparently object to and they will quickly reduce the individuals with a can do attitude and associated benefits down to size.

Whether they are retired or not.

Edited August 5 by L.A.T.1961

[itsnotoutthere]

Keir Starmer accused of U-turn on vow to scrap his own pension tax perk

A special law was created so that as Director of Public Prosecutions Sir Keir could be exempted from the £1m lifetime allowance.

During his time as Director of Public Prosecutions Sir Keir Starmer had his very own law which gave him a “special tax perk.”

The Prime Minister's loophole, from his time as Director of Public Prosecutions, exempted him from the £1 million lifetime allowance - a limit on the total value an individual’s private pensions could reach before high tax rates were applied.

In his first Budget, in March 2023, Chancellor Jeremy Hunt announced the abolition of the pensions lifetime allowance - which made the special exemption for Sir Keir obsolete.

Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves, however, stated Labour would reverse the changes to tax-free pension allowances saying it was “the wrong priority, at the wrong time, for the wrong people”.

But the Treasury has now revealed there are “no plans” to do so in reply to a written question by Richard Holden, a former Tory chairman.

Mr Holden said: “Sir Keir Starmer has (surprise, surprise) U-turned on his pledge to scrap his own special tax perk!” reports The Telegraph.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1928720/starmer-accused-of-u-turning-on

Edited August 5 by itsnotoutthere

[itsnotoutthere]

Chancellor won’t rule out huge borrowing after spending £1bn a day in three weeks

Rachel Reeves has refused to rule out changing debt rules that would allow billions of pounds of extra borrowing, having already spent billions on new pledges.

Currently, the Government has a fiscal rule to have debt falling as a share of the economy in five years.

The rule is based on “debt excluding the Bank of England”, but moving to a target of “public sector net debt” would change this.

It follows Labour announcing billions in spending commitments in its first three weeks in government, despite saying there is a £22 billion “black hole” in the public finances.

In a recent interview with The Telegraph, Jeremy Hunt, the shadow chancellor, said he suspected that Labour would “fiddle” with the borrowing rule “so that they can end up increasing debt”.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/chancellor-won-t-rule-out-huge-borrowing-after-spending-1bn-a-day-in-three-weeks/ar-AA1obd4J?ocid=BingNewsSerp

 

 

When asked about the easier debt target in November, Ms Reeves said she was “not going to fiddle the figures 

[Setton]

2 hours ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

I would much rather give individuals the option to pay the part of NI that covers pension and let them either spend that money as they go along, on family or a house or a private pension, than let them pay into a system only to find the money they thought they had was taken without asking.

We are given a national insurance number, before leaving school, and at that point have made a pact with government based on the idea that paying in provides a pension at the end of 50 yrs. To seriously alter that pact in retrospect is wrong.

Not as the Tory Government are blameless in this regard. The change to a 67 retirement age did supposedly increase the basic state pension but at the same time it was caped at £205.00

If you had paid into the secondary state pension, via NI contributions, it could have added significantly to the basic pension providing a weekly income well above the cap.

My Dad receives a pension that started in 2004 and is 70% more than the new caped pension. If he had retired after 2016, with the same contributions, he would receive only the £205. So the tory Government has stolen from some, and depending on age, £150/200 per week with nothing in return.

And now the labour party want to increase tax on these same individuals. While also looking to change inheritance tax. Money that has been accrued over a lifetime and tax paid at the time.

What is left should be down to individuals to leave, their hard won gains, to family or whoever.

Not leaving the retired in a reasonable position removes the incentive to work hard and put themselves, at the end of their lives, in a better position than if they didn't take risks and be more productive than others throughout their lives.

This idea of working and being better off is what the Labour part apparently object to and they will quickly reduce the individuals with a can do attitude and associated benefits down to size.

Whether they are retired or not.

How is not giving free money to rich pensioners "not leaving them in a reasonable position"?

I can't think of any other benefits that aren't means tested so why should this one be any different?

Just responsible public spending from Labour.

[L.A.T.1961]

2 hours ago, Setton said:

How is not giving free money to rich pensioners "not leaving them in a reasonable position"?

I can't think of any other benefits that aren't means tested so why should this one be any different?

Just responsible public spending from Labour.

If rumours are true, waiting for the budget, then anybody retired but not eligible for pensioner credit will no longer get the payment.

If you are just above that limit I don't think somebody could be described as rich.

You’ll be eligible for P.C if either: you and your partner have both reached State Pension age.

One of you is getting Housing Benefit for people over State Pension age.

Pension Credit tops up your weekly income to £218.15 if you’re single

Your joint weekly income to £332.95 if you have a partner.

So Starmer thinks a single person on more than £218.15 per week is rich and less, £165 per person, if there is a partner.

How much weekly income do you think somebody should receive before having Winter fuel allowance stopped?

https://www.gov.uk/pension-credit/eligibility

Edited August 5 by L.A.T.1961

[Duke Wellington]

On 8/2/2024 at 10:17 PM, pellinore said:

This is essentially a threadbare country with a small cadre of the very rich distorting all averages.

The median salary for full-time employees is £34,963. With half the population earning less, that makes the poverty line low. Forget talk about the UK being “the sixth richest country in the world” when it only ranks 27th in terms of GDP per capita. Most people have little idea where they stand on the earnings scale, with the rich and poor tending to put themselves too near the middle.

This IFS calculator will tell you your place, and every voter should check it, so the rich understand their wealth and the rest understand the injustice.

A third of British children are poor, so poor they often don’t have enough to eat. The two-child benefit cap is a scandal that Labour is bound to remove. Children’s services were the first to be stripped away after 2010. As Reeves prepares the country for tax rises in her first budget, all ministers should keep spelling out the basic reasons why our for-ever history of paying less tax than equivalent west European countries has left us behind them on every scale.

Labour is right to cut benefits that look wastefully untargeted, to tax and spend better on the benefits and public services for the neediest. And children must always come first.

– it isn’t ‘robbing’ old people | Polly Toynbee | The Guardian

Socialism doesn`t create wealth.

Every tax increase has to be paid for by someone, and as that`s usually businesses it prices them out of price sensitive markets. The outcome is your industry goes to where costs are lowest, which is China.

Next up lets talk energy. A green solution which makes the cost per KW/H higher also helps price businesses out of price sensitive markets.

Next up lets talk excessive regulation. A book of rules for a business to follow requires expensive solicitor visits, and nightmare operating procedures. Those drive up costs, and burden down businesses.

Next up state owned organisations. Anywhere there is a union, its virtually impossible to sack people which a business should be getting rid off. And, the productivity targets are low. That is not value for the tax payer.

Those are the four major issues affecting the UK economy. Socialism fixes none of them, but makes 3 of them worse. Capitalism fixes them all so long as a government goes Trump and ditches he stupid expensive green energy solutions. Just to finish off why is Britain trying to be carbon neutral by 2050 when we are responsible for less than 1% of green house emissions.

[pellinore]

1 hour ago, Duke Wellington said:

Socialism doesn`t create wealth.

Let's agree we are not talking about the socialism that is communism. That doesn't create wealth, it creates kleptocracies.

The UK is a capitalist country, no one disputes that or wants to change that. But that does not mean that we need neoliberal capitalism; we should tend more towards 'conscious capitalism'.

A country that does not have an excessive divide between the rich and poor; that realises the value of investing in public assets and amenities; that looks after its elderly and sick- they are the marks of an advanced economy and one with citizens who are happier and more content. Less likely to riot.

Most people are happy to pay taxes if they are getting reasonable public services. (Less happy if the money they pay goes straight into the pockets of private investors and shareholders as is the case with water companies).

Regulation- absolutely required. (Again, just look at the water companies).

State ownership- great! We don't have private armies, (as Russia did with Wagner), we don't have private police forces, and we have a state run and owned healthcare system, which over 90% of the population are happy with.

It will take a few years for Keir Starmer to undo the damage the Tories have done, but he'll get it done.

 

 

 

 

[Duke Wellington]

7 minutes ago, pellinore said:

Let's agree we are not talking about the socialism that is communism. That doesn't create wealth, it creates kleptocracies.

The UK is a capitalist country, no one disputes that or wants to change that. But that does not mean that we need neoliberal capitalism; we should tend more towards 'conscious capitalism'.

A country that does not have an excessive divide between the rich and poor; that realises the value of investing in public assets and amenities; that looks after its elderly and sick- they are the marks of an advanced economy and one with citizens who are happier and more content. Less likely to riot.

Most people are happy to pay taxes if they are getting reasonable public services. (Less happy if the money they pay goes straight into the pockets of private investors and shareholders as is the case with water companies).

Regulation- absolutely required. (Again, just look at the water companies).

State ownership- great! We don't have private armies, (as Russia did with Wagner), we don't have private police forces, and we have a state run and owned healthcare system, which over 90% of the population are happy with.

It will take a few years for Keir Starmer to undo the damage the Tories have done, but he'll get it done.

We diverge there, I think the poor should be on a poor wage.

The wealth should go to those who do the most to drive society forward. That is not shelf stackers and stamp lickers. They need to be on just enough to live + a tiny bit extra for 1 poor holiday per year and a internet/tv package. Society needs to punish the poor by making sure they get nothing else.

The rewards go the bright, successful, business owners, and skilled professionals.

Edited August 5 by Duke Wellington

[Arbenol]

1 hour ago, Duke Wellington said:

Society needs to punish the poor 

That's my quote of the week. 

[Still Waters]

On 8/5/2024 at 10:37 PM, Duke Wellington said:

We diverge there, I think the poor should be on a poor wage.

The wealth should go to those who do the most to drive society forward. That is not shelf stackers and stamp lickers. They need to be on just enough to live + a tiny bit extra for 1 poor holiday per year and a internet/tv package. Society needs to punish the poor by making sure they get nothing else.

The rewards go the bright, successful, business owners, and skilled professionals.

Wow, you're comments are disgusting.

[Setton]

1 minute ago, Still Waters said:

Wow, you're comments are disgusting.

This isn't a new low, only a new middle for him.

You must have missed the one where Black people can't be British...

[Saru]

On 8/5/2024 at 10:37 PM, Duke Wellington said:

We diverge there, I think the poor should be on a poor wage.

The wealth should go to those who do the most to drive society forward. That is not shelf stackers and stamp lickers. They need to be on just enough to live + a tiny bit extra for 1 poor holiday per year and a internet/tv package. Society needs to punish the poor by making sure they get nothing else.

The rewards go the bright, successful, business owners, and skilled professionals.

You can't be serious.

There are a lot of hard-working people in jobs critical to our society - such as farmers, teachers and nurses - who make very little relative to the importance of their role. Meanwhile there are hedge fund managers, for example, who make millions off people's misery and avoid paying taxes using off-shore bank accounts.

So you are saying we should punish low paid workers for not making enough money by ensuring that they have even less money ?

But the hedge fund manager should get rewarded with more money because he is rich already ?

Also, if the wealth is only to go to those who "drive society forward", then are you going to advocate for people who are born into wealth and privilege to be stripped of all their wealth so that it can be given to teachers and nurses instead, for example ?

Or should people in these jobs be punished for being too poor so that the person born into wealth can be given even more money as a reward for being rich ?

In addition to being terribly elitist, your views on this are clearly not very well thought out.

[Duke Wellington]

25 minutes ago, Saru said:

You can't be serious.

There are a lot of hard-working people in jobs critical to our society - such as farmers, teachers and nurses - who make very little relative to the importance of their role. Meanwhile there are hedge fund managers, for example, who make millions off people's misery and avoid paying taxes using off-shore bank accounts.

So you are saying we should punish low paid workers for not making enough money by ensuring that they have even less money ?

But the hedge fund manager should get rewarded with more money because he is rich already ?

Also, if the wealth is only to go to those who "drive society forward", then are you going to advocate for people who are born into wealth and privilege to be stripped of all their wealth so that it can be given to teachers and nurses instead, for example ?

Or should people in these jobs be punished for being too poor so that the person born into wealth can be given even more money as a reward for being rich ?

In addition to being terribly elitist, your views on this are clearly not very well thought out.

I don`t mean farmers, teachers, nurses, and other professionals.

I mean shelf stackers, packers, call centre staff, etc. The peasantry. They should be punished with lower wages for failing in life.

[The Sky Scanner]

14 minutes ago, Duke Wellington said:

I don`t mean farmers, teachers, nurses, and other professionals.

I mean shelf stackers, packers, call centre staff, etc. The peasantry. They should be punished with lower wages for failing in life.

I haven't seen this level of trolling in a while....but i'll bite...

"They should be punished with lower wages for failing in life"

Yeah, but why? what's the point?

[Duke Wellington]

6 minutes ago, The Sky Scanner said:

I haven't seen this level of trolling in a while....but i'll bite...

"They should be punished with lower wages for failing in life"

Yeah, but why? what's the point?

To encourage success.

[Saru]

22 minutes ago, Duke Wellington said:

I don`t mean farmers, teachers, nurses, and other professionals.

I mean shelf stackers, packers, call centre staff, etc. The peasantry. They should be punished with lower wages for failing in life.

Who are you to judge that someone has "failed in life" because they have a job stacking shelves or at a call center ?

Who is supposed to do these jobs if you are going to punish people for doing them ?

I can't honestly believe that you aren't just trolling with this.

[The Sky Scanner]

1 minute ago, Duke Wellington said:

To encourage success.

Cool Cliche. 

Define "success"?

[Saru]

34 minutes ago, Duke Wellington said:

To encourage success.

How will punishing people for working hard at low paying jobs "encourage success" ?

[Essan]

On 8/5/2024 at 10:37 PM, Duke Wellington said:

We diverge there, I think the poor should be on a poor wage.

The wealth should go to those who do the most to drive society forward. That is not shelf stackers and stamp lickers. They need to be on just enough to live + a tiny bit extra for 1 poor holiday per year and a internet/tv package. Society needs to punish the poor by making sure they get nothing else.

The rewards go the bright, successful, business owners, and skilled professionals.

Do you own a business?  Yes or no, that's all we need.  

Or are you just a shelf stacker  

[Duke Wellington]

1 hour ago, Essan said:

Do you own a business?  Yes or no, that's all we need.  

Or are you just a shelf stacker  

You seriously believe I have my views if I am a member of the peasantry?

I`m not a business owner, I`m highly skilled though. Why should I pay to carry a handful of peasants? They should pay for my Starbucks every morning instead.

Edited August 11 by Duke Wellington

[Duke Wellington]

1 hour ago, Saru said:

How will punishing people for working hard at low paying jobs "encourage success" ?

It will help focus them to try harder in order to avoid the soup and rags wage.

Edited August 11 by Duke Wellington