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

[Dibdab]

So what are people seriously thinking here then?

That Kier Starmer, clearly an intelligent and insight man, has deliberately decided to piss off a huge swathe of the electorate (admittedly a swathe that has misunderstood that pensioners won’t actually be worse off annually) for no reason whatsoever?

Or does he simply want to be perceived to be inflicting misery on millions of “poor pensioners”?

Does he dislike old people?


Why do people think Labour are doing this?

I don't think this version of Labour is really Labour at all, just a shade of Tory similar to that of David Camerons party tempered by the Lib Dem coalition. They had many choices to raise money from other means and as I have said before there's tons of our money swilling around and finding it's way to the mega rich but this version Labour have set out their stall that they are happy for that to continue whilst punishing the working/middle classes.

 

[Guinness Boy]

HMRC know which pensioners pay higher rate tax so, in the absence of a proper means testing system, make that the cut off instead for now.

So what does that leave the shortfall and where are you getting it from?

As @Zeberdi has already posted the proper answer would be heating discounts for OAPs provided by the energy companies out of their huge profits. As always, too many focussed on the tiny flame and ignoring the burning building.

 

[Mellor 3 Ward 4]

Overheard a conversation the other day in a cafe.

Family with suitcases about to get on train to some holiday camp somewhere.

The mother was sorting her money out and was rather proud she’d saved her PIP up “that’ll be aside for ciggies and beers for the chalet”

Nice.

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.
It desperately needs means testing and an overhaul in how it’s run.

What's that got to do with pensioners?

I guess that as you've lost the argument on WFA you're onto something else.

I don't disagree with you on PIP BTW

 

[Baldseagull]

They are going to be fine.

People are painting this image of thousands of old folk being found dead with icicles hanging off their noses.

I think I’m going to leave this thread, it’s frankly hysterical nonsense.

You won't see icicles, but thousands of old people do die every year in the UK from hypothermia, that is as things are.
We might get lucky and have a mild winter, it will still kill some older people though.

 

[KZNSeagull]

So what does that leave the shortfall and where are you getting it from?

As @Zeberdi has already posted the proper answer would be heating discounts for OAPs provided by the energy companies out of their huge profits. As always, too many focussed on the tiny flame and ignoring the burning building.

By the shortfall I assume you mean the fiscal black hole? I assume the government are going to clatter the rich during the budget, which will include rich pensioners, not pensioners just over the pension credit threshold. I am sure that the government could clatter the energy companies too if they wanted to.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

It's not. Some of the benefits which are being used as gateway qualifications to receiving the Winter Fuel Payment are means tested.

We won't find agreement on this though, so just answer me this one...

If the Tory party put in a change that led to a very well-regarded charity issuing a statement that up to 2m poor and vulnerable people could be adversely-impacted and launched a peitition to try and stop that policy change, are you seriously pretending you'd dismiss those concerns, and applaud the Tory party for making the change?

[Politics] - Sunak's benefits shake up

Listening to him now on radio 5. As always he sounds reasonable and his proposals sound superficially appropriate. I assume I am missing something. What do people who understand the benefit system think? I was alerted to the presentation by a prior bit of chat on Nicky Campbell's programme...

www.northstandchat.com

Pretty easy to find out

 

[Uh_huh_him]

HMRC know which pensioners pay higher rate tax so, in the absence of a proper means testing system, make that the cut off instead for now.

But the upper tax bracket is miles above the level of pensioners struggling to make ends meet.

Dishing out a £300 handout for pensioners with a personal income of £50,000 is ridiculous.
This is not protecting poor old dears. It's giving money to over 65s living off a very good income.

 

[KZNSeagull]

But the upper tax bracket is miles above the level of pensioners struggling to make ends meet.

Dishing out a £300 handout for pensioners with a personal income of £50,000 is ridiculous.
This is not protecting poor old dears. It's giving money to over 65s living off a very good income.

Yes but, in the absence of something better that we have already discussed, refusing to give £300 to people living off £12k a year is worse.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

The Tories were F***ing useless self-serving T**ts who quite rightly took a good kicking at the last election.

The Labour Party should be better than this - yet only one MP (that's not alrady suspended) had the balls to not vote against it.

No doubt the others will trot out the 'difficult decision' b*****ks, but it ain't gonna wash with me.

Dreadful decision (and even worse PR but that's another story)

My post was in response to a claim that support for this approach was purely based on political bias.

The level of anger at this Labour measure is significantly more than the outrage to a Tory Policy aimed at denying benefits to disabled people who were judged as "Fit for work". The financial impact was far greater and directly led to a number of deaths..
The assessment was outsourced to a private company, to manage.

Labour are considerably better than the Tories.
The two measures are not even remotely comparable. However Starmer is under a great deal more pressure than Cameron ever was.

But apparently : "Sure two wrongs make a right, gotcha" is how we should feel about disabled people having their benefits removed in comparison to a £300 handout being stopped.

 

[Baldseagull]

Yes but, in the absence of something better that we have already discussed, refusing to give £300 to people living off £12k a year is worse.

Maybe the halfway is that everyone on Pension credit gets it, and every oap that isn't a higher rate tax payer can apply for it, and get it without being means tested?

 

[BenGarfield]

Absolutely all of this

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.

 

[beorhthelm]

In the here and now, this looks like bad PR

But I think Starmer and Reeves are looking at the early Brown budgets in the late 90s and thinking that the reputation gained as tough financial operators will stand them in good stead for their bigger pictures

I’m not saying, this is all part of his masterplan, I think him and his advisers have miscalculated the strength of feeling.

I just think he’ll be happy enough playing the long game

pretty sure that's the root of this. having chosen the strategy and set out their narrative, picked the wrong battle, and then stuck with it to avoid early claims of a u-turn. i still half expect them to turn about on it and introduce some higher threshold at least, but there's no easy way to implement, why they went at the level they did.

 

[Nobby Cybergoat]

pretty sure that's the root of this. having chosen the strategy and set out their narrative, picked the wrong battle, and then stuck with it to avoid early claims of a u-turn. i still half expect them to turn about on it and introduce some higher threshold at least, but there's no easy way to implement, why they went at the level they did.

Nahh, they've got through the worst of it

 

[The Clamp]

What's that got to do with pensioners?

I guess that as you've lost the argument on WFA you're onto something else.

I don't disagree with you on PIP BTW

I was replying to another poster who mentioned PIP.

If you’re going to try and pick holes, read things properly.

I haven’t lost anything because it’s not an argument or a competition. It’s a discussion. My view is the minority. That’s fine. I might be wrong. I might be right but let’s not get personal.

 

[cjd]

I was replying to another poster who mentioned PIP.

If you’re going to try and pick holes, read things properly.

I haven’t lost anything because it’s not an argument or a competition. It’s a discussion. My view is the minority. That’s fine. I might be wrong. I might be right but let’s not get personal.

There's no "might" about it I'm afraid.

 

[WATFORD zero]

HMRC know which pensioners pay higher rate tax so, in the absence of a proper means testing system, make that the cut off instead for now.

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.

I always look at my Mum as a prime 'cut off line' example. Single Council tenant, state pension, just above the £16k savings limit, so no benefits. She insists she doesn't need it and who am I to argue with my Mum

But seriously, any ideas for a simple, implementable cut off slightly higher than that proposed ?

I write this from the perspective of knowing how fragile the finances are for many old folk. My mum was a proud and independent woman who wouldn't have taken any offer of help from me with her money. But, since her health has declined so rapidly over the last six months, I have become involved. Her pension is miniscule, so she does qualify for pension credits, and she has a small amount of savings.

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 (and corrected me), 1 in 4 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

 

[The Clamp]

There's no "might" about it I'm afraid.

Okay. I see.

 

[Baldseagull]

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.

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

 

[Eeyore]

It is important to protect the most vulnerable whilst realising that millions of pensioners own their own homes, have plenty of savings and other incomes. The whole thing was badly constructed in the first place. To get votes, successive governments have given constant freebies to millions of older folk who didn't need them whilst working folk struggled to make ends meet.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

Yes but, in the absence of something better that we have already discussed, refusing to give £300 to people living off £12k a year is worse.

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.