She admitted to a) voting Labour last month; and b) already regretting it because of the winter fuel allowance thing.
Is this going to be commonplace?
The removal of the winter fuel allowance must rank as one of the worst political decisions ever made . It raises little and annoys an awful lot of people.
Reeves won’t u-turn but should .
Perversely because Reeves has been forced into encouraging 800,000 pensioners who do not claim pension credit to do so, it could actually cost 4 billion more dwarfing the 1.5 billion saving
Furthermore, the optics are terrible and with the announcement of a 10% rise in energy costs in October and more predicted in January it is looking like a 'car crash' decision
Luckily though, they were only going at 20mph, so not too much damage done.
No idea what that has to do with the winter fuel payment
This from the Independent has though
‘Disaster’:
Labour urged to U-turn on scrapping universal winter fuel payment after energy price cap jumps
Treasury deputy: Labour didn't plan winter fuel allowance cuts before election
Sir Keir Starmer has been urged to review his decision to scrap winter fuel payments for 10m pensioners after the regulator Ofgem announced household energy bills will rise by £150 in October.
The prime minister has been warned the double hit will lead to disaster for pensioners on low and modest incomes or living in vulnerable circumstances due to ill health.
Analysis shows energy bills this winter will be the highest on record for older people who previously received the winter fuel payment, worth up to £300.
Campaigners and charities, as well as Tory and Labour politicians, have called on the PM to change course
Since being introduced in 1997, the winter fuel payment has been available to all pensioners, regardless of income.
There have previously been calls to make it means-tested to prevent taxpayer cash going to wealthier pensioners who are less likely to be struggling with bills.
Newstatesman magazine this weekend has excoriating piece on the removal of "Gordon's" winter fuel allowance.
Quote after quote from backbench Lab MPs about the deluge of letters they have had on this, the being stopped in supermarket and berated etc. One describes it as "suicidal" and awful politics. Focus groups quoted which tear into the policy.
It's a f*cking disaster and it is only August.
Winter is coming...
I'm sorry, but where's my winter fuel allowance? Why should I freeze my tits off in December paying taxes so a 68 year old can enjoy a nice toasty house?
Why should a mum of three in her thirties doing a full time job on minimum wage be struggling to heat her house when we pay for the oldies to be nice and toasty?
It was always a Tory bung for the client pensioner vote. The fact that pensioners are having it taken off them - boo hoo, frankly.
Means test it and make sure the poorest don't freeze. The rest - pay for it yourselves, like the rest of us.
It wasn't always a Tory bung for the pensioner vote.
It was a Brown bung for the pensioner vote, then became a Tory bung for it.
Brown was wrong to introduce it, the Tories were wrong not to cut it as a part of austerity.
Well done Labour now for grasping the nettle and doing the right thing.
I was genuinely astonished to find out how much it was. I used to think it was like the Cold Weather Payment, which bungs twenty quid or so to people on benefits whenever temperatures go below zero for a week or more. And, sure, we should be a bit more generous than that to the elderly because they feel the cold more.
But no, it wasn't just a bit more generous, it was £300 to every pensioner - automatically, every year, no matter whether it's a cold winter or not. Bloody hell.
£300! That would pay for ten-and-a-bit months of my gas bill. And, yes, I live in a well-insulated flat, so I realise that most people have to pay more. But it's still a particularly egregious example of how well we've managed to cushion pensioners from economic reality.
You seem to think it is £300 to every pensioner which is quite simply wrong
It varies from £200 to £300 per household pensioners and max of £300 when the pensioner reaches 80, but also max of £300 for pensioner and spouse
I do not have a problem with wealthier pensioners losing this payment but the discussion needs to be on facts and not incorrect figures
Irrespective of whichever side you are on the optics are terrible and many Labour mps recognise this is an issue of concern for them
The key there however is wealthier pensioners, where as if its based on entitlement to pension credit you will be docking it from pensioners who's total income is 11,500 if single or 17500 for a couple
The issue here is those in the middle between pensioner credits and pensioners just above the threshold but not remotely considered wealthy and there are a lot of them
G the morons on here would say they should be eating cake as they debate their wine cellars, mansions and first class travel.
It is clear there is misinformation being used not least that all pensioners receive a £300 WFA which is incorrect by some distance and an opinion that most pensioners are wealthy when that is also misleading
The state pension, despite the rises in the last two years, is low and in some ways it is unpleasant to see such a pile on on pensioners who will have worked and paid NI for 50 years or more and struggle to heat their homes in winter
Ee, Enid, I've paid me stamp !
As someone who's advised professionally on pensions for 30 years, it winds me up something rotten to hear the old cliche rolled out again and again about how low the UK state pension is. It's middle of the rankings in Europe, without even taking into account the fact the UK has traditionally had massively more substantial funded occupational pension provision.
And yes, full state pension in the UK is about 115% of the cost of living on the latest figures I've seen.
Before we even take account of the levels of private pension provision our older generations tend to have, levels that younger generations will not enjoy.
Full state pension is 11502 per year....so you think the cost of living is 10k? You can live on 192 a week when that will include council tax, electric, gas, transport, water, phone line, food, dentistry, clothing, prescriptions, and possibly rent
Without rent or a mortgage?
Absolutely that's far more than the post-tax, post-rent/mortgage income that many families have.
25% of pensioners are not home owners outright...thats about 2.5 million pensioners still paying a mortgage or rent out of that 11k a year many of them won't be eligible for pension credit
Assuming they have no savings the person in your example would indeed be eligible for Pensions Credit (Pensions Savings Credit of c.£64 pm, and Council Tax support.
She admitted to a) voting Labour last month; and b) already regretting it because of the winter fuel allowance thing.
Is this going to be commonplace?
The removal of the winter fuel allowance must rank as one of the worst political decisions ever made . It raises little and annoys an awful lot of people.
Reeves won’t u-turn but should .
Perversely because Reeves has been forced into encouraging 800,000 pensioners who do not claim pension credit to do so, it could actually cost 4 billion more dwarfing the 1.5 billion saving
Furthermore, the optics are terrible and with the announcement of a 10% rise in energy costs in October and more predicted in January it is looking like a 'car crash' decision
Luckily though, they were only going at 20mph, so not too much damage done.
No idea what that has to do with the winter fuel payment
This from the Independent has though
‘Disaster’:
Labour urged to U-turn on scrapping universal winter fuel payment after energy price cap jumps
Treasury deputy: Labour didn't plan winter fuel allowance cuts before election
Sir Keir Starmer has been urged to review his decision to scrap winter fuel payments for 10m pensioners after the regulator Ofgem announced household energy bills will rise by £150 in October.
The prime minister has been warned the double hit will lead to disaster for pensioners on low and modest incomes or living in vulnerable circumstances due to ill health.
Analysis shows energy bills this winter will be the highest on record for older people who previously received the winter fuel payment, worth up to £300.
Campaigners and charities, as well as Tory and Labour politicians, have called on the PM to change course
Since being introduced in 1997, the winter fuel payment has been available to all pensioners, regardless of income.
There have previously been calls to make it means-tested to prevent taxpayer cash going to wealthier pensioners who are less likely to be struggling with bills.
Newstatesman magazine this weekend has excoriating piece on the removal of "Gordon's" winter fuel allowance.
Quote after quote from backbench Lab MPs about the deluge of letters they have had on this, the being stopped in supermarket and berated etc. One describes it as "suicidal" and awful politics. Focus groups quoted which tear into the policy.
It's a f*cking disaster and it is only August.
Winter is coming...
I'm sorry, but where's my winter fuel allowance? Why should I freeze my tits off in December paying taxes so a 68 year old can enjoy a nice toasty house?
Why should a mum of three in her thirties doing a full time job on minimum wage be struggling to heat her house when we pay for the oldies to be nice and toasty?
It was always a Tory bung for the client pensioner vote. The fact that pensioners are having it taken off them - boo hoo, frankly.
Means test it and make sure the poorest don't freeze. The rest - pay for it yourselves, like the rest of us.
It wasn't always a Tory bung for the pensioner vote.
It was a Brown bung for the pensioner vote, then became a Tory bung for it.
Brown was wrong to introduce it, the Tories were wrong not to cut it as a part of austerity.
Well done Labour now for grasping the nettle and doing the right thing.
I was genuinely astonished to find out how much it was. I used to think it was like the Cold Weather Payment, which bungs twenty quid or so to people on benefits whenever temperatures go below zero for a week or more. And, sure, we should be a bit more generous than that to the elderly because they feel the cold more.
But no, it wasn't just a bit more generous, it was £300 to every pensioner - automatically, every year, no matter whether it's a cold winter or not. Bloody hell.
£300! That would pay for ten-and-a-bit months of my gas bill. And, yes, I live in a well-insulated flat, so I realise that most people have to pay more. But it's still a particularly egregious example of how well we've managed to cushion pensioners from economic reality.
You seem to think it is £300 to every pensioner which is quite simply wrong
It varies from £200 to £300 per household pensioners and max of £300 when the pensioner reaches 80, but also max of £300 for pensioner and spouse
I do not have a problem with wealthier pensioners losing this payment but the discussion needs to be on facts and not incorrect figures
Irrespective of whichever side you are on the optics are terrible and many Labour mps recognise this is an issue of concern for them
The key there however is wealthier pensioners, where as if its based on entitlement to pension credit you will be docking it from pensioners who's total income is 11,500 if single or 17500 for a couple
The issue here is those in the middle between pensioner credits and pensioners just above the threshold but not remotely considered wealthy and there are a lot of them
G the morons on here would say they should be eating cake as they debate their wine cellars, mansions and first class travel.
It is clear there is misinformation being used not least that all pensioners receive a £300 WFA which is incorrect by some distance and an opinion that most pensioners are wealthy when that is also misleading
The state pension, despite the rises in the last two years, is low and in some ways it is unpleasant to see such a pile on on pensioners who will have worked and paid NI for 50 years or more and struggle to heat their homes in winter
Ee, Enid, I've paid me stamp !
As someone who's advised professionally on pensions for 30 years, it winds me up something rotten to hear the old cliche rolled out again and again about how low the UK state pension is. It's middle of the rankings in Europe, without even taking into account the fact the UK has traditionally had massively more substantial funded occupational pension provision.
And yes, full state pension in the UK is about 115% of the cost of living on the latest figures I've seen.
Before we even take account of the levels of private pension provision our older generations tend to have, levels that younger generations will not enjoy.
I would challenge you on your last paragraph as both private and public sector pension provision today is far better
You what?
Today we're paying to provide for unfunded final salary pensions that were accrued but never paid for in the past, but are not eligible to get those ourselves.
And you have the audacity to call that better?
The only unfunded ones are public sector....if you have a private defined benefit scheme and it runs out of money you are out of luck. The problem I forsee in the next 20 years is going to be the split between those retiring on dc schemes from the private sector (pretty much all private sector schemes since the late 80's) and those retiring on public sector schemes. I suspect there is going to be a lot of resentment generated there when people realize the gap
She admitted to a) voting Labour last month; and b) already regretting it because of the winter fuel allowance thing.
Is this going to be commonplace?
The removal of the winter fuel allowance must rank as one of the worst political decisions ever made . It raises little and annoys an awful lot of people.
Reeves won’t u-turn but should .
Perversely because Reeves has been forced into encouraging 800,000 pensioners who do not claim pension credit to do so, it could actually cost 4 billion more dwarfing the 1.5 billion saving
Furthermore, the optics are terrible and with the announcement of a 10% rise in energy costs in October and more predicted in January it is looking like a 'car crash' decision
Luckily though, they were only going at 20mph, so not too much damage done.
No idea what that has to do with the winter fuel payment
This from the Independent has though
‘Disaster’:
Labour urged to U-turn on scrapping universal winter fuel payment after energy price cap jumps
Treasury deputy: Labour didn't plan winter fuel allowance cuts before election
Sir Keir Starmer has been urged to review his decision to scrap winter fuel payments for 10m pensioners after the regulator Ofgem announced household energy bills will rise by £150 in October.
The prime minister has been warned the double hit will lead to disaster for pensioners on low and modest incomes or living in vulnerable circumstances due to ill health.
Analysis shows energy bills this winter will be the highest on record for older people who previously received the winter fuel payment, worth up to £300.
Campaigners and charities, as well as Tory and Labour politicians, have called on the PM to change course
Since being introduced in 1997, the winter fuel payment has been available to all pensioners, regardless of income.
There have previously been calls to make it means-tested to prevent taxpayer cash going to wealthier pensioners who are less likely to be struggling with bills.
Newstatesman magazine this weekend has excoriating piece on the removal of "Gordon's" winter fuel allowance.
Quote after quote from backbench Lab MPs about the deluge of letters they have had on this, the being stopped in supermarket and berated etc. One describes it as "suicidal" and awful politics. Focus groups quoted which tear into the policy.
It's a f*cking disaster and it is only August.
Winter is coming...
I'm sorry, but where's my winter fuel allowance? Why should I freeze my tits off in December paying taxes so a 68 year old can enjoy a nice toasty house?
Why should a mum of three in her thirties doing a full time job on minimum wage be struggling to heat her house when we pay for the oldies to be nice and toasty?
It was always a Tory bung for the client pensioner vote. The fact that pensioners are having it taken off them - boo hoo, frankly.
Means test it and make sure the poorest don't freeze. The rest - pay for it yourselves, like the rest of us.
It wasn't always a Tory bung for the pensioner vote.
It was a Brown bung for the pensioner vote, then became a Tory bung for it.
Brown was wrong to introduce it, the Tories were wrong not to cut it as a part of austerity.
Well done Labour now for grasping the nettle and doing the right thing.
I was genuinely astonished to find out how much it was. I used to think it was like the Cold Weather Payment, which bungs twenty quid or so to people on benefits whenever temperatures go below zero for a week or more. And, sure, we should be a bit more generous than that to the elderly because they feel the cold more.
But no, it wasn't just a bit more generous, it was £300 to every pensioner - automatically, every year, no matter whether it's a cold winter or not. Bloody hell.
£300! That would pay for ten-and-a-bit months of my gas bill. And, yes, I live in a well-insulated flat, so I realise that most people have to pay more. But it's still a particularly egregious example of how well we've managed to cushion pensioners from economic reality.
You seem to think it is £300 to every pensioner which is quite simply wrong
It varies from £200 to £300 per household pensioners and max of £300 when the pensioner reaches 80, but also max of £300 for pensioner and spouse
I do not have a problem with wealthier pensioners losing this payment but the discussion needs to be on facts and not incorrect figures
Irrespective of whichever side you are on the optics are terrible and many Labour mps recognise this is an issue of concern for them
The key there however is wealthier pensioners, where as if its based on entitlement to pension credit you will be docking it from pensioners who's total income is 11,500 if single or 17500 for a couple
The issue here is those in the middle between pensioner credits and pensioners just above the threshold but not remotely considered wealthy and there are a lot of them
G the morons on here would say they should be eating cake as they debate their wine cellars, mansions and first class travel.
It is clear there is misinformation being used not least that all pensioners receive a £300 WFA which is incorrect by some distance and an opinion that most pensioners are wealthy when that is also misleading
The state pension, despite the rises in the last two years, is low and in some ways it is unpleasant to see such a pile on on pensioners who will have worked and paid NI for 50 years or more and struggle to heat their homes in winter
Ee, Enid, I've paid me stamp !
As someone who's advised professionally on pensions for 30 years, it winds me up something rotten to hear the old cliche rolled out again and again about how low the UK state pension is. It's middle of the rankings in Europe, without even taking into account the fact the UK has traditionally had massively more substantial funded occupational pension provision.
And yes, full state pension in the UK is about 115% of the cost of living on the latest figures I've seen.
Before we even take account of the levels of private pension provision our older generations tend to have, levels that younger generations will not enjoy.
Full state pension is 11502 per year....so you think the cost of living is 10k? You can live on 192 a week when that will include council tax, electric, gas, transport, water, phone line, food, dentistry, clothing, prescriptions, and possibly rent
Is that 11502 tax-free? It's nearly a grand a month!
She admitted to a) voting Labour last month; and b) already regretting it because of the winter fuel allowance thing.
Is this going to be commonplace?
The removal of the winter fuel allowance must rank as one of the worst political decisions ever made . It raises little and annoys an awful lot of people.
Reeves won’t u-turn but should .
Perversely because Reeves has been forced into encouraging 800,000 pensioners who do not claim pension credit to do so, it could actually cost 4 billion more dwarfing the 1.5 billion saving
Furthermore, the optics are terrible and with the announcement of a 10% rise in energy costs in October and more predicted in January it is looking like a 'car crash' decision
Luckily though, they were only going at 20mph, so not too much damage done.
No idea what that has to do with the winter fuel payment
This from the Independent has though
‘Disaster’:
Labour urged to U-turn on scrapping universal winter fuel payment after energy price cap jumps
Treasury deputy: Labour didn't plan winter fuel allowance cuts before election
Sir Keir Starmer has been urged to review his decision to scrap winter fuel payments for 10m pensioners after the regulator Ofgem announced household energy bills will rise by £150 in October.
The prime minister has been warned the double hit will lead to disaster for pensioners on low and modest incomes or living in vulnerable circumstances due to ill health.
Analysis shows energy bills this winter will be the highest on record for older people who previously received the winter fuel payment, worth up to £300.
Campaigners and charities, as well as Tory and Labour politicians, have called on the PM to change course
Since being introduced in 1997, the winter fuel payment has been available to all pensioners, regardless of income.
There have previously been calls to make it means-tested to prevent taxpayer cash going to wealthier pensioners who are less likely to be struggling with bills.
Newstatesman magazine this weekend has excoriating piece on the removal of "Gordon's" winter fuel allowance.
Quote after quote from backbench Lab MPs about the deluge of letters they have had on this, the being stopped in supermarket and berated etc. One describes it as "suicidal" and awful politics. Focus groups quoted which tear into the policy.
It's a f*cking disaster and it is only August.
Winter is coming...
I'm sorry, but where's my winter fuel allowance? Why should I freeze my tits off in December paying taxes so a 68 year old can enjoy a nice toasty house?
Why should a mum of three in her thirties doing a full time job on minimum wage be struggling to heat her house when we pay for the oldies to be nice and toasty?
It was always a Tory bung for the client pensioner vote. The fact that pensioners are having it taken off them - boo hoo, frankly.
Means test it and make sure the poorest don't freeze. The rest - pay for it yourselves, like the rest of us.
It wasn't always a Tory bung for the pensioner vote.
It was a Brown bung for the pensioner vote, then became a Tory bung for it.
Brown was wrong to introduce it, the Tories were wrong not to cut it as a part of austerity.
Well done Labour now for grasping the nettle and doing the right thing.
I was genuinely astonished to find out how much it was. I used to think it was like the Cold Weather Payment, which bungs twenty quid or so to people on benefits whenever temperatures go below zero for a week or more. And, sure, we should be a bit more generous than that to the elderly because they feel the cold more.
But no, it wasn't just a bit more generous, it was £300 to every pensioner - automatically, every year, no matter whether it's a cold winter or not. Bloody hell.
£300! That would pay for ten-and-a-bit months of my gas bill. And, yes, I live in a well-insulated flat, so I realise that most people have to pay more. But it's still a particularly egregious example of how well we've managed to cushion pensioners from economic reality.
You seem to think it is £300 to every pensioner which is quite simply wrong
It varies from £200 to £300 per household pensioners and max of £300 when the pensioner reaches 80, but also max of £300 for pensioner and spouse
I do not have a problem with wealthier pensioners losing this payment but the discussion needs to be on facts and not incorrect figures
Irrespective of whichever side you are on the optics are terrible and many Labour mps recognise this is an issue of concern for them
The key there however is wealthier pensioners, where as if its based on entitlement to pension credit you will be docking it from pensioners who's total income is 11,500 if single or 17500 for a couple
The issue here is those in the middle between pensioner credits and pensioners just above the threshold but not remotely considered wealthy and there are a lot of them
G the morons on here would say they should be eating cake as they debate their wine cellars, mansions and first class travel.
It is clear there is misinformation being used not least that all pensioners receive a £300 WFA which is incorrect by some distance and an opinion that most pensioners are wealthy when that is also misleading
The state pension, despite the rises in the last two years, is low and in some ways it is unpleasant to see such a pile on on pensioners who will have worked and paid NI for 50 years or more and struggle to heat their homes in winter
Ee, Enid, I've paid me stamp !
As someone who's advised professionally on pensions for 30 years, it winds me up something rotten to hear the old cliche rolled out again and again about how low the UK state pension is. It's middle of the rankings in Europe, without even taking into account the fact the UK has traditionally had massively more substantial funded occupational pension provision.
And yes, full state pension in the UK is about 115% of the cost of living on the latest figures I've seen.
Before we even take account of the levels of private pension provision our older generations tend to have, levels that younger generations will not enjoy.
Not all OAP’s have occupational pensions or private ones.
She admitted to a) voting Labour last month; and b) already regretting it because of the winter fuel allowance thing.
Is this going to be commonplace?
The removal of the winter fuel allowance must rank as one of the worst political decisions ever made . It raises little and annoys an awful lot of people.
Reeves won’t u-turn but should .
Perversely because Reeves has been forced into encouraging 800,000 pensioners who do not claim pension credit to do so, it could actually cost 4 billion more dwarfing the 1.5 billion saving
Furthermore, the optics are terrible and with the announcement of a 10% rise in energy costs in October and more predicted in January it is looking like a 'car crash' decision
Luckily though, they were only going at 20mph, so not too much damage done.
No idea what that has to do with the winter fuel payment
This from the Independent has though
‘Disaster’:
Labour urged to U-turn on scrapping universal winter fuel payment after energy price cap jumps
Treasury deputy: Labour didn't plan winter fuel allowance cuts before election
Sir Keir Starmer has been urged to review his decision to scrap winter fuel payments for 10m pensioners after the regulator Ofgem announced household energy bills will rise by £150 in October.
The prime minister has been warned the double hit will lead to disaster for pensioners on low and modest incomes or living in vulnerable circumstances due to ill health.
Analysis shows energy bills this winter will be the highest on record for older people who previously received the winter fuel payment, worth up to £300.
Campaigners and charities, as well as Tory and Labour politicians, have called on the PM to change course
Since being introduced in 1997, the winter fuel payment has been available to all pensioners, regardless of income.
There have previously been calls to make it means-tested to prevent taxpayer cash going to wealthier pensioners who are less likely to be struggling with bills.
Newstatesman magazine this weekend has excoriating piece on the removal of "Gordon's" winter fuel allowance.
Quote after quote from backbench Lab MPs about the deluge of letters they have had on this, the being stopped in supermarket and berated etc. One describes it as "suicidal" and awful politics. Focus groups quoted which tear into the policy.
It's a f*cking disaster and it is only August.
Winter is coming...
I'm sorry, but where's my winter fuel allowance? Why should I freeze my tits off in December paying taxes so a 68 year old can enjoy a nice toasty house?
Why should a mum of three in her thirties doing a full time job on minimum wage be struggling to heat her house when we pay for the oldies to be nice and toasty?
It was always a Tory bung for the client pensioner vote. The fact that pensioners are having it taken off them - boo hoo, frankly.
Means test it and make sure the poorest don't freeze. The rest - pay for it yourselves, like the rest of us.
It wasn't always a Tory bung for the pensioner vote.
It was a Brown bung for the pensioner vote, then became a Tory bung for it.
Brown was wrong to introduce it, the Tories were wrong not to cut it as a part of austerity.
Well done Labour now for grasping the nettle and doing the right thing.
I was genuinely astonished to find out how much it was. I used to think it was like the Cold Weather Payment, which bungs twenty quid or so to people on benefits whenever temperatures go below zero for a week or more. And, sure, we should be a bit more generous than that to the elderly because they feel the cold more.
But no, it wasn't just a bit more generous, it was £300 to every pensioner - automatically, every year, no matter whether it's a cold winter or not. Bloody hell.
£300! That would pay for ten-and-a-bit months of my gas bill. And, yes, I live in a well-insulated flat, so I realise that most people have to pay more. But it's still a particularly egregious example of how well we've managed to cushion pensioners from economic reality.
You seem to think it is £300 to every pensioner which is quite simply wrong
It varies from £200 to £300 per household pensioners and max of £300 when the pensioner reaches 80, but also max of £300 for pensioner and spouse
I do not have a problem with wealthier pensioners losing this payment but the discussion needs to be on facts and not incorrect figures
Irrespective of whichever side you are on the optics are terrible and many Labour mps recognise this is an issue of concern for them
The key there however is wealthier pensioners, where as if its based on entitlement to pension credit you will be docking it from pensioners who's total income is 11,500 if single or 17500 for a couple
The issue here is those in the middle between pensioner credits and pensioners just above the threshold but not remotely considered wealthy and there are a lot of them
G the morons on here would say they should be eating cake as they debate their wine cellars, mansions and first class travel.
It is clear there is misinformation being used not least that all pensioners receive a £300 WFA which is incorrect by some distance and an opinion that most pensioners are wealthy when that is also misleading
The state pension, despite the rises in the last two years, is low and in some ways it is unpleasant to see such a pile on on pensioners who will have worked and paid NI for 50 years or more and struggle to heat their homes in winter
Ee, Enid, I've paid me stamp !
As someone who's advised professionally on pensions for 30 years, it winds me up something rotten to hear the old cliche rolled out again and again about how low the UK state pension is. It's middle of the rankings in Europe, without even taking into account the fact the UK has traditionally had massively more substantial funded occupational pension provision.
And yes, full state pension in the UK is about 115% of the cost of living on the latest figures I've seen.
Before we even take account of the levels of private pension provision our older generations tend to have, levels that younger generations will not enjoy.
Full state pension is 11502 per year....so you think the cost of living is 10k? You can live on 192 a week when that will include council tax, electric, gas, transport, water, phone line, food, dentistry, clothing, prescriptions, and possibly rent
Is that 11502 tax-free? It's nearly a grand a month!
Why do all these pensioners need state hand outs when they have been working so hard and saving so much their entire lives?
Can't have it both ways. My own grandparents, who worked hard and saved magnificently from working class roots, would have had no time for those who were equally successful but are now grasping to the state for support.
OAP poverty is almost as high as child poverty in the UK. The government would do well to focus support on those people - and is precisely what they have done by boosting uptake of pension credit in lieu of the cut to WFP.
She admitted to a) voting Labour last month; and b) already regretting it because of the winter fuel allowance thing.
Is this going to be commonplace?
The removal of the winter fuel allowance must rank as one of the worst political decisions ever made . It raises little and annoys an awful lot of people.
Reeves won’t u-turn but should .
Perversely because Reeves has been forced into encouraging 800,000 pensioners who do not claim pension credit to do so, it could actually cost 4 billion more dwarfing the 1.5 billion saving
Furthermore, the optics are terrible and with the announcement of a 10% rise in energy costs in October and more predicted in January it is looking like a 'car crash' decision
Luckily though, they were only going at 20mph, so not too much damage done.
No idea what that has to do with the winter fuel payment
This from the Independent has though
‘Disaster’:
Labour urged to U-turn on scrapping universal winter fuel payment after energy price cap jumps
Treasury deputy: Labour didn't plan winter fuel allowance cuts before election
Sir Keir Starmer has been urged to review his decision to scrap winter fuel payments for 10m pensioners after the regulator Ofgem announced household energy bills will rise by £150 in October.
The prime minister has been warned the double hit will lead to disaster for pensioners on low and modest incomes or living in vulnerable circumstances due to ill health.
Analysis shows energy bills this winter will be the highest on record for older people who previously received the winter fuel payment, worth up to £300.
Campaigners and charities, as well as Tory and Labour politicians, have called on the PM to change course
Since being introduced in 1997, the winter fuel payment has been available to all pensioners, regardless of income.
There have previously been calls to make it means-tested to prevent taxpayer cash going to wealthier pensioners who are less likely to be struggling with bills.
Newstatesman magazine this weekend has excoriating piece on the removal of "Gordon's" winter fuel allowance.
Quote after quote from backbench Lab MPs about the deluge of letters they have had on this, the being stopped in supermarket and berated etc. One describes it as "suicidal" and awful politics. Focus groups quoted which tear into the policy.
It's a f*cking disaster and it is only August.
Winter is coming...
I'm sorry, but where's my winter fuel allowance? Why should I freeze my tits off in December paying taxes so a 68 year old can enjoy a nice toasty house?
Why should a mum of three in her thirties doing a full time job on minimum wage be struggling to heat her house when we pay for the oldies to be nice and toasty?
It was always a Tory bung for the client pensioner vote. The fact that pensioners are having it taken off them - boo hoo, frankly.
Means test it and make sure the poorest don't freeze. The rest - pay for it yourselves, like the rest of us.
It wasn't always a Tory bung for the pensioner vote.
It was a Brown bung for the pensioner vote, then became a Tory bung for it.
Brown was wrong to introduce it, the Tories were wrong not to cut it as a part of austerity.
Well done Labour now for grasping the nettle and doing the right thing.
I was genuinely astonished to find out how much it was. I used to think it was like the Cold Weather Payment, which bungs twenty quid or so to people on benefits whenever temperatures go below zero for a week or more. And, sure, we should be a bit more generous than that to the elderly because they feel the cold more.
But no, it wasn't just a bit more generous, it was £300 to every pensioner - automatically, every year, no matter whether it's a cold winter or not. Bloody hell.
£300! That would pay for ten-and-a-bit months of my gas bill. And, yes, I live in a well-insulated flat, so I realise that most people have to pay more. But it's still a particularly egregious example of how well we've managed to cushion pensioners from economic reality.
You seem to think it is £300 to every pensioner which is quite simply wrong
It varies from £200 to £300 per household pensioners and max of £300 when the pensioner reaches 80, but also max of £300 for pensioner and spouse
I do not have a problem with wealthier pensioners losing this payment but the discussion needs to be on facts and not incorrect figures
Irrespective of whichever side you are on the optics are terrible and many Labour mps recognise this is an issue of concern for them
The key there however is wealthier pensioners, where as if its based on entitlement to pension credit you will be docking it from pensioners who's total income is 11,500 if single or 17500 for a couple
The issue here is those in the middle between pensioner credits and pensioners just above the threshold but not remotely considered wealthy and there are a lot of them
G the morons on here would say they should be eating cake as they debate their wine cellars, mansions and first class travel.
It is clear there is misinformation being used not least that all pensioners receive a £300 WFA which is incorrect by some distance and an opinion that most pensioners are wealthy when that is also misleading
The state pension, despite the rises in the last two years, is low and in some ways it is unpleasant to see such a pile on on pensioners who will have worked and paid NI for 50 years or more and struggle to heat their homes in winter
Ee, Enid, I've paid me stamp !
As someone who's advised professionally on pensions for 30 years, it winds me up something rotten to hear the old cliche rolled out again and again about how low the UK state pension is. It's middle of the rankings in Europe, without even taking into account the fact the UK has traditionally had massively more substantial funded occupational pension provision.
And yes, full state pension in the UK is about 115% of the cost of living on the latest figures I've seen.
Before we even take account of the levels of private pension provision our older generations tend to have, levels that younger generations will not enjoy.
Full state pension is 11502 per year....so you think the cost of living is 10k? You can live on 192 a week when that will include council tax, electric, gas, transport, water, phone line, food, dentistry, clothing, prescriptions, and possibly rent
Without rent or a mortgage?
Absolutely that's far more than the post-tax, post-rent/mortgage income that many families have.
25% of pensioners are not home owners outright...thats about 2.5 million pensioners still paying a mortgage or rent out of that 11k a year many of them won't be eligible for pension credit
So 75% of them are home owners outright?
And we were pissing away £200-£300 away on them for an electoral bung they had no need for?
I am not saying we should give it to them all, I am merely pointing out where they are drawing the line (pension credit) is probably too low....my father definitely doesn't need it....his girlfriend who has a private pension of circa 700 a year on top of the state pension probably does even though she isn't eligible for pension credit
She admitted to a) voting Labour last month; and b) already regretting it because of the winter fuel allowance thing.
Is this going to be commonplace?
The removal of the winter fuel allowance must rank as one of the worst political decisions ever made . It raises little and annoys an awful lot of people.
Reeves won’t u-turn but should .
Perversely because Reeves has been forced into encouraging 800,000 pensioners who do not claim pension credit to do so, it could actually cost 4 billion more dwarfing the 1.5 billion saving
Furthermore, the optics are terrible and with the announcement of a 10% rise in energy costs in October and more predicted in January it is looking like a 'car crash' decision
Luckily though, they were only going at 20mph, so not too much damage done.
No idea what that has to do with the winter fuel payment
This from the Independent has though
‘Disaster’:
Labour urged to U-turn on scrapping universal winter fuel payment after energy price cap jumps
Treasury deputy: Labour didn't plan winter fuel allowance cuts before election
Sir Keir Starmer has been urged to review his decision to scrap winter fuel payments for 10m pensioners after the regulator Ofgem announced household energy bills will rise by £150 in October.
The prime minister has been warned the double hit will lead to disaster for pensioners on low and modest incomes or living in vulnerable circumstances due to ill health.
Analysis shows energy bills this winter will be the highest on record for older people who previously received the winter fuel payment, worth up to £300.
Campaigners and charities, as well as Tory and Labour politicians, have called on the PM to change course
Since being introduced in 1997, the winter fuel payment has been available to all pensioners, regardless of income.
There have previously been calls to make it means-tested to prevent taxpayer cash going to wealthier pensioners who are less likely to be struggling with bills.
Newstatesman magazine this weekend has excoriating piece on the removal of "Gordon's" winter fuel allowance.
Quote after quote from backbench Lab MPs about the deluge of letters they have had on this, the being stopped in supermarket and berated etc. One describes it as "suicidal" and awful politics. Focus groups quoted which tear into the policy.
It's a f*cking disaster and it is only August.
Winter is coming...
I'm sorry, but where's my winter fuel allowance? Why should I freeze my tits off in December paying taxes so a 68 year old can enjoy a nice toasty house?
Why should a mum of three in her thirties doing a full time job on minimum wage be struggling to heat her house when we pay for the oldies to be nice and toasty?
It was always a Tory bung for the client pensioner vote. The fact that pensioners are having it taken off them - boo hoo, frankly.
Means test it and make sure the poorest don't freeze. The rest - pay for it yourselves, like the rest of us.
It wasn't always a Tory bung for the pensioner vote.
It was a Brown bung for the pensioner vote, then became a Tory bung for it.
Brown was wrong to introduce it, the Tories were wrong not to cut it as a part of austerity.
Well done Labour now for grasping the nettle and doing the right thing.
I was genuinely astonished to find out how much it was. I used to think it was like the Cold Weather Payment, which bungs twenty quid or so to people on benefits whenever temperatures go below zero for a week or more. And, sure, we should be a bit more generous than that to the elderly because they feel the cold more.
But no, it wasn't just a bit more generous, it was £300 to every pensioner - automatically, every year, no matter whether it's a cold winter or not. Bloody hell.
£300! That would pay for ten-and-a-bit months of my gas bill. And, yes, I live in a well-insulated flat, so I realise that most people have to pay more. But it's still a particularly egregious example of how well we've managed to cushion pensioners from economic reality.
You seem to think it is £300 to every pensioner which is quite simply wrong
It varies from £200 to £300 per household pensioners and max of £300 when the pensioner reaches 80, but also max of £300 for pensioner and spouse
I do not have a problem with wealthier pensioners losing this payment but the discussion needs to be on facts and not incorrect figures
Irrespective of whichever side you are on the optics are terrible and many Labour mps recognise this is an issue of concern for them
The key there however is wealthier pensioners, where as if its based on entitlement to pension credit you will be docking it from pensioners who's total income is 11,500 if single or 17500 for a couple
The issue here is those in the middle between pensioner credits and pensioners just above the threshold but not remotely considered wealthy and there are a lot of them
G the morons on here would say they should be eating cake as they debate their wine cellars, mansions and first class travel.
It is clear there is misinformation being used not least that all pensioners receive a £300 WFA which is incorrect by some distance and an opinion that most pensioners are wealthy when that is also misleading
The state pension, despite the rises in the last two years, is low and in some ways it is unpleasant to see such a pile on on pensioners who will have worked and paid NI for 50 years or more and struggle to heat their homes in winter
Ee, Enid, I've paid me stamp !
As someone who's advised professionally on pensions for 30 years, it winds me up something rotten to hear the old cliche rolled out again and again about how low the UK state pension is. It's middle of the rankings in Europe, without even taking into account the fact the UK has traditionally had massively more substantial funded occupational pension provision.
And yes, full state pension in the UK is about 115% of the cost of living on the latest figures I've seen.
Before we even take account of the levels of private pension provision our older generations tend to have, levels that younger generations will not enjoy.
Full state pension is 11502 per year....so you think the cost of living is 10k? You can live on 192 a week when that will include council tax, electric, gas, transport, water, phone line, food, dentistry, clothing, prescriptions, and possibly rent
Is that 11502 tax-free? It's nearly a grand a month!
She admitted to a) voting Labour last month; and b) already regretting it because of the winter fuel allowance thing.
Is this going to be commonplace?
The removal of the winter fuel allowance must rank as one of the worst political decisions ever made . It raises little and annoys an awful lot of people.
Reeves won’t u-turn but should .
Perversely because Reeves has been forced into encouraging 800,000 pensioners who do not claim pension credit to do so, it could actually cost 4 billion more dwarfing the 1.5 billion saving
Furthermore, the optics are terrible and with the announcement of a 10% rise in energy costs in October and more predicted in January it is looking like a 'car crash' decision
Luckily though, they were only going at 20mph, so not too much damage done.
No idea what that has to do with the winter fuel payment
This from the Independent has though
‘Disaster’:
Labour urged to U-turn on scrapping universal winter fuel payment after energy price cap jumps
Treasury deputy: Labour didn't plan winter fuel allowance cuts before election
Sir Keir Starmer has been urged to review his decision to scrap winter fuel payments for 10m pensioners after the regulator Ofgem announced household energy bills will rise by £150 in October.
The prime minister has been warned the double hit will lead to disaster for pensioners on low and modest incomes or living in vulnerable circumstances due to ill health.
Analysis shows energy bills this winter will be the highest on record for older people who previously received the winter fuel payment, worth up to £300.
Campaigners and charities, as well as Tory and Labour politicians, have called on the PM to change course
Since being introduced in 1997, the winter fuel payment has been available to all pensioners, regardless of income.
There have previously been calls to make it means-tested to prevent taxpayer cash going to wealthier pensioners who are less likely to be struggling with bills.
Newstatesman magazine this weekend has excoriating piece on the removal of "Gordon's" winter fuel allowance.
Quote after quote from backbench Lab MPs about the deluge of letters they have had on this, the being stopped in supermarket and berated etc. One describes it as "suicidal" and awful politics. Focus groups quoted which tear into the policy.
It's a f*cking disaster and it is only August.
Winter is coming...
I'm sorry, but where's my winter fuel allowance? Why should I freeze my tits off in December paying taxes so a 68 year old can enjoy a nice toasty house?
Why should a mum of three in her thirties doing a full time job on minimum wage be struggling to heat her house when we pay for the oldies to be nice and toasty?
It was always a Tory bung for the client pensioner vote. The fact that pensioners are having it taken off them - boo hoo, frankly.
Means test it and make sure the poorest don't freeze. The rest - pay for it yourselves, like the rest of us.
It wasn't always a Tory bung for the pensioner vote.
It was a Brown bung for the pensioner vote, then became a Tory bung for it.
Brown was wrong to introduce it, the Tories were wrong not to cut it as a part of austerity.
Well done Labour now for grasping the nettle and doing the right thing.
I was genuinely astonished to find out how much it was. I used to think it was like the Cold Weather Payment, which bungs twenty quid or so to people on benefits whenever temperatures go below zero for a week or more. And, sure, we should be a bit more generous than that to the elderly because they feel the cold more.
But no, it wasn't just a bit more generous, it was £300 to every pensioner - automatically, every year, no matter whether it's a cold winter or not. Bloody hell.
£300! That would pay for ten-and-a-bit months of my gas bill. And, yes, I live in a well-insulated flat, so I realise that most people have to pay more. But it's still a particularly egregious example of how well we've managed to cushion pensioners from economic reality.
You seem to think it is £300 to every pensioner which is quite simply wrong
It varies from £200 to £300 per household pensioners and max of £300 when the pensioner reaches 80, but also max of £300 for pensioner and spouse
I do not have a problem with wealthier pensioners losing this payment but the discussion needs to be on facts and not incorrect figures
Irrespective of whichever side you are on the optics are terrible and many Labour mps recognise this is an issue of concern for them
The key there however is wealthier pensioners, where as if its based on entitlement to pension credit you will be docking it from pensioners who's total income is 11,500 if single or 17500 for a couple
The issue here is those in the middle between pensioner credits and pensioners just above the threshold but not remotely considered wealthy and there are a lot of them
G the morons on here would say they should be eating cake as they debate their wine cellars, mansions and first class travel.
It is clear there is misinformation being used not least that all pensioners receive a £300 WFA which is incorrect by some distance and an opinion that most pensioners are wealthy when that is also misleading
The state pension, despite the rises in the last two years, is low and in some ways it is unpleasant to see such a pile on on pensioners who will have worked and paid NI for 50 years or more and struggle to heat their homes in winter
Ee, Enid, I've paid me stamp !
As someone who's advised professionally on pensions for 30 years, it winds me up something rotten to hear the old cliche rolled out again and again about how low the UK state pension is. It's middle of the rankings in Europe, without even taking into account the fact the UK has traditionally had massively more substantial funded occupational pension provision.
And yes, full state pension in the UK is about 115% of the cost of living on the latest figures I've seen.
Before we even take account of the levels of private pension provision our older generations tend to have, levels that younger generations will not enjoy.
Full state pension is 11502 per year....so you think the cost of living is 10k? You can live on 192 a week when that will include council tax, electric, gas, transport, water, phone line, food, dentistry, clothing, prescriptions, and possibly rent
Is that 11502 tax-free? It's nearly a grand a month!
The first £12,570 is tax free for everyone
Indeed.
Most people are going to work for their income though - and then have to pay rent or a mortgage out of it.
Not live rent-free, mortgage-free without having to go to work and then still expecting more unearned freebies too, just because.
She admitted to a) voting Labour last month; and b) already regretting it because of the winter fuel allowance thing.
Is this going to be commonplace?
The removal of the winter fuel allowance must rank as one of the worst political decisions ever made . It raises little and annoys an awful lot of people.
Reeves won’t u-turn but should .
Perversely because Reeves has been forced into encouraging 800,000 pensioners who do not claim pension credit to do so, it could actually cost 4 billion more dwarfing the 1.5 billion saving
Furthermore, the optics are terrible and with the announcement of a 10% rise in energy costs in October and more predicted in January it is looking like a 'car crash' decision
Luckily though, they were only going at 20mph, so not too much damage done.
No idea what that has to do with the winter fuel payment
This from the Independent has though
‘Disaster’:
Labour urged to U-turn on scrapping universal winter fuel payment after energy price cap jumps
Treasury deputy: Labour didn't plan winter fuel allowance cuts before election
Sir Keir Starmer has been urged to review his decision to scrap winter fuel payments for 10m pensioners after the regulator Ofgem announced household energy bills will rise by £150 in October.
The prime minister has been warned the double hit will lead to disaster for pensioners on low and modest incomes or living in vulnerable circumstances due to ill health.
Analysis shows energy bills this winter will be the highest on record for older people who previously received the winter fuel payment, worth up to £300.
Campaigners and charities, as well as Tory and Labour politicians, have called on the PM to change course
Since being introduced in 1997, the winter fuel payment has been available to all pensioners, regardless of income.
There have previously been calls to make it means-tested to prevent taxpayer cash going to wealthier pensioners who are less likely to be struggling with bills.
Newstatesman magazine this weekend has excoriating piece on the removal of "Gordon's" winter fuel allowance.
Quote after quote from backbench Lab MPs about the deluge of letters they have had on this, the being stopped in supermarket and berated etc. One describes it as "suicidal" and awful politics. Focus groups quoted which tear into the policy.
It's a f*cking disaster and it is only August.
Winter is coming...
I'm sorry, but where's my winter fuel allowance? Why should I freeze my tits off in December paying taxes so a 68 year old can enjoy a nice toasty house?
Why should a mum of three in her thirties doing a full time job on minimum wage be struggling to heat her house when we pay for the oldies to be nice and toasty?
It was always a Tory bung for the client pensioner vote. The fact that pensioners are having it taken off them - boo hoo, frankly.
Means test it and make sure the poorest don't freeze. The rest - pay for it yourselves, like the rest of us.
It wasn't always a Tory bung for the pensioner vote.
It was a Brown bung for the pensioner vote, then became a Tory bung for it.
Brown was wrong to introduce it, the Tories were wrong not to cut it as a part of austerity.
Well done Labour now for grasping the nettle and doing the right thing.
I was genuinely astonished to find out how much it was. I used to think it was like the Cold Weather Payment, which bungs twenty quid or so to people on benefits whenever temperatures go below zero for a week or more. And, sure, we should be a bit more generous than that to the elderly because they feel the cold more.
But no, it wasn't just a bit more generous, it was £300 to every pensioner - automatically, every year, no matter whether it's a cold winter or not. Bloody hell.
£300! That would pay for ten-and-a-bit months of my gas bill. And, yes, I live in a well-insulated flat, so I realise that most people have to pay more. But it's still a particularly egregious example of how well we've managed to cushion pensioners from economic reality.
You seem to think it is £300 to every pensioner which is quite simply wrong
It varies from £200 to £300 per household pensioners and max of £300 when the pensioner reaches 80, but also max of £300 for pensioner and spouse
I do not have a problem with wealthier pensioners losing this payment but the discussion needs to be on facts and not incorrect figures
Irrespective of whichever side you are on the optics are terrible and many Labour mps recognise this is an issue of concern for them
The key there however is wealthier pensioners, where as if its based on entitlement to pension credit you will be docking it from pensioners who's total income is 11,500 if single or 17500 for a couple
The issue here is those in the middle between pensioner credits and pensioners just above the threshold but not remotely considered wealthy and there are a lot of them
G the morons on here would say they should be eating cake as they debate their wine cellars, mansions and first class travel.
It is clear there is misinformation being used not least that all pensioners receive a £300 WFA which is incorrect by some distance and an opinion that most pensioners are wealthy when that is also misleading
The state pension, despite the rises in the last two years, is low and in some ways it is unpleasant to see such a pile on on pensioners who will have worked and paid NI for 50 years or more and struggle to heat their homes in winter
Ee, Enid, I've paid me stamp !
As someone who's advised professionally on pensions for 30 years, it winds me up something rotten to hear the old cliche rolled out again and again about how low the UK state pension is. It's middle of the rankings in Europe, without even taking into account the fact the UK has traditionally had massively more substantial funded occupational pension provision.
And yes, full state pension in the UK is about 115% of the cost of living on the latest figures I've seen.
Before we even take account of the levels of private pension provision our older generations tend to have, levels that younger generations will not enjoy.
Full state pension is 11502 per year....so you think the cost of living is 10k? You can live on 192 a week when that will include council tax, electric, gas, transport, water, phone line, food, dentistry, clothing, prescriptions, and possibly rent
Without rent or a mortgage?
Absolutely that's far more than the post-tax, post-rent/mortgage income that many families have.
25% of pensioners are not home owners outright...thats about 2.5 million pensioners still paying a mortgage or rent out of that 11k a year many of them won't be eligible for pension credit
Assuming they have no savings the person in your example would indeed be eligible for Pensions Credit (Pensions Savings Credit of c.£64 pm, and Council Tax support.
Pension credit is only available for a single person with an income below the full state pension
She admitted to a) voting Labour last month; and b) already regretting it because of the winter fuel allowance thing.
Is this going to be commonplace?
The removal of the winter fuel allowance must rank as one of the worst political decisions ever made . It raises little and annoys an awful lot of people.
Reeves won’t u-turn but should .
Perversely because Reeves has been forced into encouraging 800,000 pensioners who do not claim pension credit to do so, it could actually cost 4 billion more dwarfing the 1.5 billion saving
Furthermore, the optics are terrible and with the announcement of a 10% rise in energy costs in October and more predicted in January it is looking like a 'car crash' decision
Luckily though, they were only going at 20mph, so not too much damage done.
No idea what that has to do with the winter fuel payment
This from the Independent has though
‘Disaster’:
Labour urged to U-turn on scrapping universal winter fuel payment after energy price cap jumps
Treasury deputy: Labour didn't plan winter fuel allowance cuts before election
Sir Keir Starmer has been urged to review his decision to scrap winter fuel payments for 10m pensioners after the regulator Ofgem announced household energy bills will rise by £150 in October.
The prime minister has been warned the double hit will lead to disaster for pensioners on low and modest incomes or living in vulnerable circumstances due to ill health.
Analysis shows energy bills this winter will be the highest on record for older people who previously received the winter fuel payment, worth up to £300.
Campaigners and charities, as well as Tory and Labour politicians, have called on the PM to change course
Since being introduced in 1997, the winter fuel payment has been available to all pensioners, regardless of income.
There have previously been calls to make it means-tested to prevent taxpayer cash going to wealthier pensioners who are less likely to be struggling with bills.
Newstatesman magazine this weekend has excoriating piece on the removal of "Gordon's" winter fuel allowance.
Quote after quote from backbench Lab MPs about the deluge of letters they have had on this, the being stopped in supermarket and berated etc. One describes it as "suicidal" and awful politics. Focus groups quoted which tear into the policy.
It's a f*cking disaster and it is only August.
Winter is coming...
I'm sorry, but where's my winter fuel allowance? Why should I freeze my tits off in December paying taxes so a 68 year old can enjoy a nice toasty house?
Why should a mum of three in her thirties doing a full time job on minimum wage be struggling to heat her house when we pay for the oldies to be nice and toasty?
It was always a Tory bung for the client pensioner vote. The fact that pensioners are having it taken off them - boo hoo, frankly.
Means test it and make sure the poorest don't freeze. The rest - pay for it yourselves, like the rest of us.
It wasn't always a Tory bung for the pensioner vote.
It was a Brown bung for the pensioner vote, then became a Tory bung for it.
Brown was wrong to introduce it, the Tories were wrong not to cut it as a part of austerity.
Well done Labour now for grasping the nettle and doing the right thing.
I was genuinely astonished to find out how much it was. I used to think it was like the Cold Weather Payment, which bungs twenty quid or so to people on benefits whenever temperatures go below zero for a week or more. And, sure, we should be a bit more generous than that to the elderly because they feel the cold more.
But no, it wasn't just a bit more generous, it was £300 to every pensioner - automatically, every year, no matter whether it's a cold winter or not. Bloody hell.
£300! That would pay for ten-and-a-bit months of my gas bill. And, yes, I live in a well-insulated flat, so I realise that most people have to pay more. But it's still a particularly egregious example of how well we've managed to cushion pensioners from economic reality.
You seem to think it is £300 to every pensioner which is quite simply wrong
It varies from £200 to £300 per household pensioners and max of £300 when the pensioner reaches 80, but also max of £300 for pensioner and spouse
I do not have a problem with wealthier pensioners losing this payment but the discussion needs to be on facts and not incorrect figures
Irrespective of whichever side you are on the optics are terrible and many Labour mps recognise this is an issue of concern for them
The key there however is wealthier pensioners, where as if its based on entitlement to pension credit you will be docking it from pensioners who's total income is 11,500 if single or 17500 for a couple
The issue here is those in the middle between pensioner credits and pensioners just above the threshold but not remotely considered wealthy and there are a lot of them
G the morons on here would say they should be eating cake as they debate their wine cellars, mansions and first class travel.
It is clear there is misinformation being used not least that all pensioners receive a £300 WFA which is incorrect by some distance and an opinion that most pensioners are wealthy when that is also misleading
The state pension, despite the rises in the last two years, is low and in some ways it is unpleasant to see such a pile on on pensioners who will have worked and paid NI for 50 years or more and struggle to heat their homes in winter
Ee, Enid, I've paid me stamp !
As someone who's advised professionally on pensions for 30 years, it winds me up something rotten to hear the old cliche rolled out again and again about how low the UK state pension is. It's middle of the rankings in Europe, without even taking into account the fact the UK has traditionally had massively more substantial funded occupational pension provision.
And yes, full state pension in the UK is about 115% of the cost of living on the latest figures I've seen.
Before we even take account of the levels of private pension provision our older generations tend to have, levels that younger generations will not enjoy.
Full state pension is 11502 per year....so you think the cost of living is 10k? You can live on 192 a week when that will include council tax, electric, gas, transport, water, phone line, food, dentistry, clothing, prescriptions, and possibly rent
Without rent or a mortgage?
Absolutely that's far more than the post-tax, post-rent/mortgage income that many families have.
25% of pensioners are not home owners outright...thats about 2.5 million pensioners still paying a mortgage or rent out of that 11k a year many of them won't be eligible for pension credit
So 75% of them are home owners outright?
And we were pissing away £200-£300 away on them for an electoral bung they had no need for?
I am not saying we should give it to them all, I am merely pointing out where they are drawing the line (pension credit) is probably too low....my father definitely doesn't need it....his girlfriend who has a private pension of circa 700 a year on top of the state pension probably does even though she isn't eligible for pension credit
Where to draw the line is a different question, and is always a difficult one - there are many working poor families who perhaps should get more support and don't, and many who get support they possibly shouldn't.
That a line should be drawn is not a difficult question to answer.
Yes, this is the right thing to do.
Stop bellyaching is the only message that should go to any entitled people who are upset.
If starmer can't face down pensioners, then young skilled private sector workers in this country are just going to get more and more hacked off about carrying the tax burden, just as they were under the last government. Other more dynamic economies, less burdened by debt and by unsustainable political promises, will welcome them with open arms.
She admitted to a) voting Labour last month; and b) already regretting it because of the winter fuel allowance thing.
Is this going to be commonplace?
The removal of the winter fuel allowance must rank as one of the worst political decisions ever made . It raises little and annoys an awful lot of people.
Reeves won’t u-turn but should .
Perversely because Reeves has been forced into encouraging 800,000 pensioners who do not claim pension credit to do so, it could actually cost 4 billion more dwarfing the 1.5 billion saving
Furthermore, the optics are terrible and with the announcement of a 10% rise in energy costs in October and more predicted in January it is looking like a 'car crash' decision
Luckily though, they were only going at 20mph, so not too much damage done.
No idea what that has to do with the winter fuel payment
This from the Independent has though
‘Disaster’:
Labour urged to U-turn on scrapping universal winter fuel payment after energy price cap jumps
Treasury deputy: Labour didn't plan winter fuel allowance cuts before election
Sir Keir Starmer has been urged to review his decision to scrap winter fuel payments for 10m pensioners after the regulator Ofgem announced household energy bills will rise by £150 in October.
The prime minister has been warned the double hit will lead to disaster for pensioners on low and modest incomes or living in vulnerable circumstances due to ill health.
Analysis shows energy bills this winter will be the highest on record for older people who previously received the winter fuel payment, worth up to £300.
Campaigners and charities, as well as Tory and Labour politicians, have called on the PM to change course
Since being introduced in 1997, the winter fuel payment has been available to all pensioners, regardless of income.
There have previously been calls to make it means-tested to prevent taxpayer cash going to wealthier pensioners who are less likely to be struggling with bills.
Newstatesman magazine this weekend has excoriating piece on the removal of "Gordon's" winter fuel allowance.
Quote after quote from backbench Lab MPs about the deluge of letters they have had on this, the being stopped in supermarket and berated etc. One describes it as "suicidal" and awful politics. Focus groups quoted which tear into the policy.
It's a f*cking disaster and it is only August.
Winter is coming...
I'm sorry, but where's my winter fuel allowance? Why should I freeze my tits off in December paying taxes so a 68 year old can enjoy a nice toasty house?
Why should a mum of three in her thirties doing a full time job on minimum wage be struggling to heat her house when we pay for the oldies to be nice and toasty?
It was always a Tory bung for the client pensioner vote. The fact that pensioners are having it taken off them - boo hoo, frankly.
Means test it and make sure the poorest don't freeze. The rest - pay for it yourselves, like the rest of us.
It wasn't always a Tory bung for the pensioner vote.
It was a Brown bung for the pensioner vote, then became a Tory bung for it.
Brown was wrong to introduce it, the Tories were wrong not to cut it as a part of austerity.
Well done Labour now for grasping the nettle and doing the right thing.
I was genuinely astonished to find out how much it was. I used to think it was like the Cold Weather Payment, which bungs twenty quid or so to people on benefits whenever temperatures go below zero for a week or more. And, sure, we should be a bit more generous than that to the elderly because they feel the cold more.
But no, it wasn't just a bit more generous, it was £300 to every pensioner - automatically, every year, no matter whether it's a cold winter or not. Bloody hell.
£300! That would pay for ten-and-a-bit months of my gas bill. And, yes, I live in a well-insulated flat, so I realise that most people have to pay more. But it's still a particularly egregious example of how well we've managed to cushion pensioners from economic reality.
You seem to think it is £300 to every pensioner which is quite simply wrong
It varies from £200 to £300 per household pensioners and max of £300 when the pensioner reaches 80, but also max of £300 for pensioner and spouse
I do not have a problem with wealthier pensioners losing this payment but the discussion needs to be on facts and not incorrect figures
Irrespective of whichever side you are on the optics are terrible and many Labour mps recognise this is an issue of concern for them
The key there however is wealthier pensioners, where as if its based on entitlement to pension credit you will be docking it from pensioners who's total income is 11,500 if single or 17500 for a couple
The issue here is those in the middle between pensioner credits and pensioners just above the threshold but not remotely considered wealthy and there are a lot of them
G the morons on here would say they should be eating cake as they debate their wine cellars, mansions and first class travel.
It is clear there is misinformation being used not least that all pensioners receive a £300 WFA which is incorrect by some distance and an opinion that most pensioners are wealthy when that is also misleading
The state pension, despite the rises in the last two years, is low and in some ways it is unpleasant to see such a pile on on pensioners who will have worked and paid NI for 50 years or more and struggle to heat their homes in winter
Ee, Enid, I've paid me stamp !
As someone who's advised professionally on pensions for 30 years, it winds me up something rotten to hear the old cliche rolled out again and again about how low the UK state pension is. It's middle of the rankings in Europe, without even taking into account the fact the UK has traditionally had massively more substantial funded occupational pension provision.
And yes, full state pension in the UK is about 115% of the cost of living on the latest figures I've seen.
Before we even take account of the levels of private pension provision our older generations tend to have, levels that younger generations will not enjoy.
Not all OAP’s have occupational pensions or private ones.
She admitted to a) voting Labour last month; and b) already regretting it because of the winter fuel allowance thing.
Is this going to be commonplace?
The removal of the winter fuel allowance must rank as one of the worst political decisions ever made . It raises little and annoys an awful lot of people.
Reeves won’t u-turn but should .
Perversely because Reeves has been forced into encouraging 800,000 pensioners who do not claim pension credit to do so, it could actually cost 4 billion more dwarfing the 1.5 billion saving
Furthermore, the optics are terrible and with the announcement of a 10% rise in energy costs in October and more predicted in January it is looking like a 'car crash' decision
Luckily though, they were only going at 20mph, so not too much damage done.
No idea what that has to do with the winter fuel payment
This from the Independent has though
‘Disaster’:
Labour urged to U-turn on scrapping universal winter fuel payment after energy price cap jumps
Treasury deputy: Labour didn't plan winter fuel allowance cuts before election
Sir Keir Starmer has been urged to review his decision to scrap winter fuel payments for 10m pensioners after the regulator Ofgem announced household energy bills will rise by £150 in October.
The prime minister has been warned the double hit will lead to disaster for pensioners on low and modest incomes or living in vulnerable circumstances due to ill health.
Analysis shows energy bills this winter will be the highest on record for older people who previously received the winter fuel payment, worth up to £300.
Campaigners and charities, as well as Tory and Labour politicians, have called on the PM to change course
Since being introduced in 1997, the winter fuel payment has been available to all pensioners, regardless of income.
There have previously been calls to make it means-tested to prevent taxpayer cash going to wealthier pensioners who are less likely to be struggling with bills.
Newstatesman magazine this weekend has excoriating piece on the removal of "Gordon's" winter fuel allowance.
Quote after quote from backbench Lab MPs about the deluge of letters they have had on this, the being stopped in supermarket and berated etc. One describes it as "suicidal" and awful politics. Focus groups quoted which tear into the policy.
It's a f*cking disaster and it is only August.
Winter is coming...
I'm sorry, but where's my winter fuel allowance? Why should I freeze my tits off in December paying taxes so a 68 year old can enjoy a nice toasty house?
Why should a mum of three in her thirties doing a full time job on minimum wage be struggling to heat her house when we pay for the oldies to be nice and toasty?
It was always a Tory bung for the client pensioner vote. The fact that pensioners are having it taken off them - boo hoo, frankly.
Means test it and make sure the poorest don't freeze. The rest - pay for it yourselves, like the rest of us.
It wasn't always a Tory bung for the pensioner vote.
It was a Brown bung for the pensioner vote, then became a Tory bung for it.
Brown was wrong to introduce it, the Tories were wrong not to cut it as a part of austerity.
Well done Labour now for grasping the nettle and doing the right thing.
I was genuinely astonished to find out how much it was. I used to think it was like the Cold Weather Payment, which bungs twenty quid or so to people on benefits whenever temperatures go below zero for a week or more. And, sure, we should be a bit more generous than that to the elderly because they feel the cold more.
But no, it wasn't just a bit more generous, it was £300 to every pensioner - automatically, every year, no matter whether it's a cold winter or not. Bloody hell.
£300! That would pay for ten-and-a-bit months of my gas bill. And, yes, I live in a well-insulated flat, so I realise that most people have to pay more. But it's still a particularly egregious example of how well we've managed to cushion pensioners from economic reality.
You seem to think it is £300 to every pensioner which is quite simply wrong
It varies from £200 to £300 per household pensioners and max of £300 when the pensioner reaches 80, but also max of £300 for pensioner and spouse
I do not have a problem with wealthier pensioners losing this payment but the discussion needs to be on facts and not incorrect figures
Irrespective of whichever side you are on the optics are terrible and many Labour mps recognise this is an issue of concern for them
The key there however is wealthier pensioners, where as if its based on entitlement to pension credit you will be docking it from pensioners who's total income is 11,500 if single or 17500 for a couple
The issue here is those in the middle between pensioner credits and pensioners just above the threshold but not remotely considered wealthy and there are a lot of them
G the morons on here would say they should be eating cake as they debate their wine cellars, mansions and first class travel.
It is clear there is misinformation being used not least that all pensioners receive a £300 WFA which is incorrect by some distance and an opinion that most pensioners are wealthy when that is also misleading
The state pension, despite the rises in the last two years, is low and in some ways it is unpleasant to see such a pile on on pensioners who will have worked and paid NI for 50 years or more and struggle to heat their homes in winter
Ee, Enid, I've paid me stamp !
As someone who's advised professionally on pensions for 30 years, it winds me up something rotten to hear the old cliche rolled out again and again about how low the UK state pension is. It's middle of the rankings in Europe, without even taking into account the fact the UK has traditionally had massively more substantial funded occupational pension provision.
And yes, full state pension in the UK is about 115% of the cost of living on the latest figures I've seen.
Before we even take account of the levels of private pension provision our older generations tend to have, levels that younger generations will not enjoy.
Full state pension is 11502 per year....so you think the cost of living is 10k? You can live on 192 a week when that will include council tax, electric, gas, transport, water, phone line, food, dentistry, clothing, prescriptions, and possibly rent
Is that 11502 tax-free? It's nearly a grand a month!
The first £12,570 is tax free for everyone
Indeed.
Most people are going to work for their income though - and then have to pay rent or a mortgage out of it.
Not live rent-free, mortgage-free without having to go to work and then still expecting more unearned freebies too, just because.
I did the same for 48 years but knowing that at 65 I would retire and not only paid our mortgage which we struggled with in the early years, but put aside some money to provide a modest annuity when I retired
I am fortunate not to need the WFA but there are a large number of pensioners who do and a way needs to be found to help those on the margin of this decision
If starmer can't face down pensioners, then young skilled private sector workers in this country are just going to get more and more hacked off about carrying the tax burden, just as they were under the last government. Other more dynamic economies, less burdened by debt and by unsustainable political promises, will welcome them with open arms.
Private sector workers are already hacked off at outrageous public sector pension contributions that get paid and we are funding. I am fed up of friends that work in the public sector explaining to me that there pension isn't gold plated as the will only get 15K a year index linked when I will be lucky to get 5 to 6k a year non index linked. Despite the fact I am paying more out of my pay in pounds than they are.
She admitted to a) voting Labour last month; and b) already regretting it because of the winter fuel allowance thing.
Is this going to be commonplace?
The removal of the winter fuel allowance must rank as one of the worst political decisions ever made . It raises little and annoys an awful lot of people.
Reeves won’t u-turn but should .
Perversely because Reeves has been forced into encouraging 800,000 pensioners who do not claim pension credit to do so, it could actually cost 4 billion more dwarfing the 1.5 billion saving
Furthermore, the optics are terrible and with the announcement of a 10% rise in energy costs in October and more predicted in January it is looking like a 'car crash' decision
Luckily though, they were only going at 20mph, so not too much damage done.
No idea what that has to do with the winter fuel payment
This from the Independent has though
‘Disaster’:
Labour urged to U-turn on scrapping universal winter fuel payment after energy price cap jumps
Treasury deputy: Labour didn't plan winter fuel allowance cuts before election
Sir Keir Starmer has been urged to review his decision to scrap winter fuel payments for 10m pensioners after the regulator Ofgem announced household energy bills will rise by £150 in October.
The prime minister has been warned the double hit will lead to disaster for pensioners on low and modest incomes or living in vulnerable circumstances due to ill health.
Analysis shows energy bills this winter will be the highest on record for older people who previously received the winter fuel payment, worth up to £300.
Campaigners and charities, as well as Tory and Labour politicians, have called on the PM to change course
Since being introduced in 1997, the winter fuel payment has been available to all pensioners, regardless of income.
There have previously been calls to make it means-tested to prevent taxpayer cash going to wealthier pensioners who are less likely to be struggling with bills.
Newstatesman magazine this weekend has excoriating piece on the removal of "Gordon's" winter fuel allowance.
Quote after quote from backbench Lab MPs about the deluge of letters they have had on this, the being stopped in supermarket and berated etc. One describes it as "suicidal" and awful politics. Focus groups quoted which tear into the policy.
It's a f*cking disaster and it is only August.
Winter is coming...
I'm sorry, but where's my winter fuel allowance? Why should I freeze my tits off in December paying taxes so a 68 year old can enjoy a nice toasty house?
Why should a mum of three in her thirties doing a full time job on minimum wage be struggling to heat her house when we pay for the oldies to be nice and toasty?
It was always a Tory bung for the client pensioner vote. The fact that pensioners are having it taken off them - boo hoo, frankly.
Means test it and make sure the poorest don't freeze. The rest - pay for it yourselves, like the rest of us.
It wasn't always a Tory bung for the pensioner vote.
It was a Brown bung for the pensioner vote, then became a Tory bung for it.
Brown was wrong to introduce it, the Tories were wrong not to cut it as a part of austerity.
Well done Labour now for grasping the nettle and doing the right thing.
I was genuinely astonished to find out how much it was. I used to think it was like the Cold Weather Payment, which bungs twenty quid or so to people on benefits whenever temperatures go below zero for a week or more. And, sure, we should be a bit more generous than that to the elderly because they feel the cold more.
But no, it wasn't just a bit more generous, it was £300 to every pensioner - automatically, every year, no matter whether it's a cold winter or not. Bloody hell.
£300! That would pay for ten-and-a-bit months of my gas bill. And, yes, I live in a well-insulated flat, so I realise that most people have to pay more. But it's still a particularly egregious example of how well we've managed to cushion pensioners from economic reality.
You seem to think it is £300 to every pensioner which is quite simply wrong
It varies from £200 to £300 per household pensioners and max of £300 when the pensioner reaches 80, but also max of £300 for pensioner and spouse
I do not have a problem with wealthier pensioners losing this payment but the discussion needs to be on facts and not incorrect figures
Irrespective of whichever side you are on the optics are terrible and many Labour mps recognise this is an issue of concern for them
The key there however is wealthier pensioners, where as if its based on entitlement to pension credit you will be docking it from pensioners who's total income is 11,500 if single or 17500 for a couple
The issue here is those in the middle between pensioner credits and pensioners just above the threshold but not remotely considered wealthy and there are a lot of them
G the morons on here would say they should be eating cake as they debate their wine cellars, mansions and first class travel.
It is clear there is misinformation being used not least that all pensioners receive a £300 WFA which is incorrect by some distance and an opinion that most pensioners are wealthy when that is also misleading
The state pension, despite the rises in the last two years, is low and in some ways it is unpleasant to see such a pile on on pensioners who will have worked and paid NI for 50 years or more and struggle to heat their homes in winter
Ee, Enid, I've paid me stamp !
As someone who's advised professionally on pensions for 30 years, it winds me up something rotten to hear the old cliche rolled out again and again about how low the UK state pension is. It's middle of the rankings in Europe, without even taking into account the fact the UK has traditionally had massively more substantial funded occupational pension provision.
And yes, full state pension in the UK is about 115% of the cost of living on the latest figures I've seen.
Before we even take account of the levels of private pension provision our older generations tend to have, levels that younger generations will not enjoy.
Full state pension is 11502 per year....so you think the cost of living is 10k? You can live on 192 a week when that will include council tax, electric, gas, transport, water, phone line, food, dentistry, clothing, prescriptions, and possibly rent
Without rent or a mortgage?
Absolutely that's far more than the post-tax, post-rent/mortgage income that many families have.
25% of pensioners are not home owners outright...thats about 2.5 million pensioners still paying a mortgage or rent out of that 11k a year many of them won't be eligible for pension credit
So 75% of them are home owners outright?
And we were pissing away £200-£300 away on them for an electoral bung they had no need for?
I am not saying we should give it to them all, I am merely pointing out where they are drawing the line (pension credit) is probably too low....my father definitely doesn't need it....his girlfriend who has a private pension of circa 700 a year on top of the state pension probably does even though she isn't eligible for pension credit
Where to draw the line is a different question, and is always a difficult one - there are many working poor families who perhaps should get more support and don't, and many who get support they possibly shouldn't.
That a line should be drawn is not a difficult question to answer.
Yes, this is the right thing to do.
Stop bellyaching is the only message that should go to any entitled people who are upset.
One thing we can all agree on is modelling private pension income on a national scale is a complete nightmare and two perfectly sane analysts can come up with very different answers.
And that's before you chuck in the difference between individual and household pension income, state pension, WFP, CWP, PC, WHD, CTR, DLA, PIP, CA, housing wealth, investments... I'm getting flashbacks.
and there's that stupid Christmas bonus! £10 every year. WTF.
She admitted to a) voting Labour last month; and b) already regretting it because of the winter fuel allowance thing.
Is this going to be commonplace?
The removal of the winter fuel allowance must rank as one of the worst political decisions ever made . It raises little and annoys an awful lot of people.
Reeves won’t u-turn but should .
Perversely because Reeves has been forced into encouraging 800,000 pensioners who do not claim pension credit to do so, it could actually cost 4 billion more dwarfing the 1.5 billion saving
Furthermore, the optics are terrible and with the announcement of a 10% rise in energy costs in October and more predicted in January it is looking like a 'car crash' decision
Luckily though, they were only going at 20mph, so not too much damage done.
No idea what that has to do with the winter fuel payment
This from the Independent has though
‘Disaster’:
Labour urged to U-turn on scrapping universal winter fuel payment after energy price cap jumps
Treasury deputy: Labour didn't plan winter fuel allowance cuts before election
Sir Keir Starmer has been urged to review his decision to scrap winter fuel payments for 10m pensioners after the regulator Ofgem announced household energy bills will rise by £150 in October.
The prime minister has been warned the double hit will lead to disaster for pensioners on low and modest incomes or living in vulnerable circumstances due to ill health.
Analysis shows energy bills this winter will be the highest on record for older people who previously received the winter fuel payment, worth up to £300.
Campaigners and charities, as well as Tory and Labour politicians, have called on the PM to change course
Since being introduced in 1997, the winter fuel payment has been available to all pensioners, regardless of income.
There have previously been calls to make it means-tested to prevent taxpayer cash going to wealthier pensioners who are less likely to be struggling with bills.
Newstatesman magazine this weekend has excoriating piece on the removal of "Gordon's" winter fuel allowance.
Quote after quote from backbench Lab MPs about the deluge of letters they have had on this, the being stopped in supermarket and berated etc. One describes it as "suicidal" and awful politics. Focus groups quoted which tear into the policy.
It's a f*cking disaster and it is only August.
Winter is coming...
I'm sorry, but where's my winter fuel allowance? Why should I freeze my tits off in December paying taxes so a 68 year old can enjoy a nice toasty house?
Why should a mum of three in her thirties doing a full time job on minimum wage be struggling to heat her house when we pay for the oldies to be nice and toasty?
It was always a Tory bung for the client pensioner vote. The fact that pensioners are having it taken off them - boo hoo, frankly.
Means test it and make sure the poorest don't freeze. The rest - pay for it yourselves, like the rest of us.
It wasn't always a Tory bung for the pensioner vote.
It was a Brown bung for the pensioner vote, then became a Tory bung for it.
Brown was wrong to introduce it, the Tories were wrong not to cut it as a part of austerity.
Well done Labour now for grasping the nettle and doing the right thing.
I was genuinely astonished to find out how much it was. I used to think it was like the Cold Weather Payment, which bungs twenty quid or so to people on benefits whenever temperatures go below zero for a week or more. And, sure, we should be a bit more generous than that to the elderly because they feel the cold more.
But no, it wasn't just a bit more generous, it was £300 to every pensioner - automatically, every year, no matter whether it's a cold winter or not. Bloody hell.
£300! That would pay for ten-and-a-bit months of my gas bill. And, yes, I live in a well-insulated flat, so I realise that most people have to pay more. But it's still a particularly egregious example of how well we've managed to cushion pensioners from economic reality.
You seem to think it is £300 to every pensioner which is quite simply wrong
It varies from £200 to £300 per household pensioners and max of £300 when the pensioner reaches 80, but also max of £300 for pensioner and spouse
I do not have a problem with wealthier pensioners losing this payment but the discussion needs to be on facts and not incorrect figures
Irrespective of whichever side you are on the optics are terrible and many Labour mps recognise this is an issue of concern for them
The key there however is wealthier pensioners, where as if its based on entitlement to pension credit you will be docking it from pensioners who's total income is 11,500 if single or 17500 for a couple
The issue here is those in the middle between pensioner credits and pensioners just above the threshold but not remotely considered wealthy and there are a lot of them
G the morons on here would say they should be eating cake as they debate their wine cellars, mansions and first class travel.
It is clear there is misinformation being used not least that all pensioners receive a £300 WFA which is incorrect by some distance and an opinion that most pensioners are wealthy when that is also misleading
The state pension, despite the rises in the last two years, is low and in some ways it is unpleasant to see such a pile on on pensioners who will have worked and paid NI for 50 years or more and struggle to heat their homes in winter
Ee, Enid, I've paid me stamp !
As someone who's advised professionally on pensions for 30 years, it winds me up something rotten to hear the old cliche rolled out again and again about how low the UK state pension is. It's middle of the rankings in Europe, without even taking into account the fact the UK has traditionally had massively more substantial funded occupational pension provision.
And yes, full state pension in the UK is about 115% of the cost of living on the latest figures I've seen.
Before we even take account of the levels of private pension provision our older generations tend to have, levels that younger generations will not enjoy.
Full state pension is 11502 per year....so you think the cost of living is 10k? You can live on 192 a week when that will include council tax, electric, gas, transport, water, phone line, food, dentistry, clothing, prescriptions, and possibly rent
Is that 11502 tax-free? It's nearly a grand a month!
The first £12,570 is tax free for everyone
Indeed.
Most people are going to work for their income though - and then have to pay rent or a mortgage out of it.
Not live rent-free, mortgage-free without having to go to work and then still expecting more unearned freebies too, just because.
I did the same for 48 years but knowing that at 65 I would retire and not only paid our mortgage which we struggled with in the early years, but put aside some money to provide a modest annuity when I retired
I am fortunate not to need the WFA but there are a large number of pensioners who do and a way needs to be found to help those on the margin of this decision
There are many people of all ages who are struggling.
Providing welfare to those who most need it is one thing. Bunging people who absolutely do not is preposterous.
The exception would be if it were genuinely universal, universal meaning going to everyone not everyone of a certain age - then having universality is a good way to avoid the poverty trap. But its not even universal, its just a pointless waste of money on people that don't need it, taxing people who don't get it to fund it.
Why do all these pensioners need state hand outs when they have been working so hard and saving so much their entire lives?
Can't have it both ways. My own grandparents, who worked hard and saved magnificently from working class roots, would have had no time for those who were equally successful but are now grasping to the state for support.
OAP poverty is almost as high as child poverty in the UK. The government would do well to focus support on those people - and is precisely what they have done by boosting uptake of pension credit in lieu of the cut to WFP.
Perhaps the level for Pension Credit should be higher. Perhaps, too, such benefits should not be subject to a simple cut-off, but graduated in some way.
Trouble is, that would require a lot of paper-shifters.
She admitted to a) voting Labour last month; and b) already regretting it because of the winter fuel allowance thing.
Is this going to be commonplace?
The removal of the winter fuel allowance must rank as one of the worst political decisions ever made . It raises little and annoys an awful lot of people.
Reeves won’t u-turn but should .
Perversely because Reeves has been forced into encouraging 800,000 pensioners who do not claim pension credit to do so, it could actually cost 4 billion more dwarfing the 1.5 billion saving
Furthermore, the optics are terrible and with the announcement of a 10% rise in energy costs in October and more predicted in January it is looking like a 'car crash' decision
Luckily though, they were only going at 20mph, so not too much damage done.
No idea what that has to do with the winter fuel payment
This from the Independent has though
‘Disaster’:
Labour urged to U-turn on scrapping universal winter fuel payment after energy price cap jumps
Treasury deputy: Labour didn't plan winter fuel allowance cuts before election
Sir Keir Starmer has been urged to review his decision to scrap winter fuel payments for 10m pensioners after the regulator Ofgem announced household energy bills will rise by £150 in October.
The prime minister has been warned the double hit will lead to disaster for pensioners on low and modest incomes or living in vulnerable circumstances due to ill health.
Analysis shows energy bills this winter will be the highest on record for older people who previously received the winter fuel payment, worth up to £300.
Campaigners and charities, as well as Tory and Labour politicians, have called on the PM to change course
Since being introduced in 1997, the winter fuel payment has been available to all pensioners, regardless of income.
There have previously been calls to make it means-tested to prevent taxpayer cash going to wealthier pensioners who are less likely to be struggling with bills.
Newstatesman magazine this weekend has excoriating piece on the removal of "Gordon's" winter fuel allowance.
Quote after quote from backbench Lab MPs about the deluge of letters they have had on this, the being stopped in supermarket and berated etc. One describes it as "suicidal" and awful politics. Focus groups quoted which tear into the policy.
It's a f*cking disaster and it is only August.
Winter is coming...
I'm sorry, but where's my winter fuel allowance? Why should I freeze my tits off in December paying taxes so a 68 year old can enjoy a nice toasty house?
Why should a mum of three in her thirties doing a full time job on minimum wage be struggling to heat her house when we pay for the oldies to be nice and toasty?
It was always a Tory bung for the client pensioner vote. The fact that pensioners are having it taken off them - boo hoo, frankly.
Means test it and make sure the poorest don't freeze. The rest - pay for it yourselves, like the rest of us.
It wasn't always a Tory bung for the pensioner vote.
It was a Brown bung for the pensioner vote, then became a Tory bung for it.
Brown was wrong to introduce it, the Tories were wrong not to cut it as a part of austerity.
Well done Labour now for grasping the nettle and doing the right thing.
I was genuinely astonished to find out how much it was. I used to think it was like the Cold Weather Payment, which bungs twenty quid or so to people on benefits whenever temperatures go below zero for a week or more. And, sure, we should be a bit more generous than that to the elderly because they feel the cold more.
But no, it wasn't just a bit more generous, it was £300 to every pensioner - automatically, every year, no matter whether it's a cold winter or not. Bloody hell.
£300! That would pay for ten-and-a-bit months of my gas bill. And, yes, I live in a well-insulated flat, so I realise that most people have to pay more. But it's still a particularly egregious example of how well we've managed to cushion pensioners from economic reality.
You seem to think it is £300 to every pensioner which is quite simply wrong
It varies from £200 to £300 per household pensioners and max of £300 when the pensioner reaches 80, but also max of £300 for pensioner and spouse
I do not have a problem with wealthier pensioners losing this payment but the discussion needs to be on facts and not incorrect figures
Irrespective of whichever side you are on the optics are terrible and many Labour mps recognise this is an issue of concern for them
The key there however is wealthier pensioners, where as if its based on entitlement to pension credit you will be docking it from pensioners who's total income is 11,500 if single or 17500 for a couple
The issue here is those in the middle between pensioner credits and pensioners just above the threshold but not remotely considered wealthy and there are a lot of them
G the morons on here would say they should be eating cake as they debate their wine cellars, mansions and first class travel.
It is clear there is misinformation being used not least that all pensioners receive a £300 WFA which is incorrect by some distance and an opinion that most pensioners are wealthy when that is also misleading
The state pension, despite the rises in the last two years, is low and in some ways it is unpleasant to see such a pile on on pensioners who will have worked and paid NI for 50 years or more and struggle to heat their homes in winter
Ee, Enid, I've paid me stamp !
As someone who's advised professionally on pensions for 30 years, it winds me up something rotten to hear the old cliche rolled out again and again about how low the UK state pension is. It's middle of the rankings in Europe, without even taking into account the fact the UK has traditionally had massively more substantial funded occupational pension provision.
And yes, full state pension in the UK is about 115% of the cost of living on the latest figures I've seen.
Before we even take account of the levels of private pension provision our older generations tend to have, levels that younger generations will not enjoy.
Full state pension is 11502 per year....so you think the cost of living is 10k? You can live on 192 a week when that will include council tax, electric, gas, transport, water, phone line, food, dentistry, clothing, prescriptions, and possibly rent
Without rent or a mortgage?
Absolutely that's far more than the post-tax, post-rent/mortgage income that many families have.
25% of pensioners are not home owners outright...thats about 2.5 million pensioners still paying a mortgage or rent out of that 11k a year many of them won't be eligible for pension credit
So 75% of them are home owners outright?
And we were pissing away £200-£300 away on them for an electoral bung they had no need for?
I am not saying we should give it to them all, I am merely pointing out where they are drawing the line (pension credit) is probably too low....my father definitely doesn't need it....his girlfriend who has a private pension of circa 700 a year on top of the state pension probably does even though she isn't eligible for pension credit
Where to draw the line is a different question, and is always a difficult one - there are many working poor families who perhaps should get more support and don't, and many who get support they possibly shouldn't.
That a line should be drawn is not a difficult question to answer.
Yes, this is the right thing to do.
Stop bellyaching is the only message that should go to any entitled people who are upset.
One thing we can all agree on is modelling private pension income on a national scale is a complete nightmare and two perfectly sane analysts can come up with very different answers.
And that's before you chuck in the difference between individual and household pension income, state pension, WFP, CWP, PC, WHD, CTR, DLA, PIP, CA, housing wealth, investments... I'm getting flashbacks.
and there's that stupid Christmas bonus! £10 every year. WTF.
On your last sentence it is utterly absurd and Reeves should just cancel it and I am sure we would all agree on that
Why do all these pensioners need state hand outs when they have been working so hard and saving so much their entire lives?
Can't have it both ways. My own grandparents, who worked hard and saved magnificently from working class roots, would have had no time for those who were equally successful but are now grasping to the state for support.
OAP poverty is almost as high as child poverty in the UK. The government would do well to focus support on those people - and is precisely what they have done by boosting uptake of pension credit in lieu of the cut to WFP.
Perhaps the level for Pension Credit should be higher. Perhaps, too, such benefits should not be subject to a simple cut-off, but graduated in some way.
Trouble is, that would require a lot of paper-shifters.
I think there is definitely an argument that the State Pension should be set at a much higher value but tapered away. A real safety net. You'd want to be careful about disincentives though, as you end up with UC.
Why do all these pensioners need state hand outs when they have been working so hard and saving so much their entire lives?
Can't have it both ways. My own grandparents, who worked hard and saved magnificently from working class roots, would have had no time for those who were equally successful but are now grasping to the state for support.
OAP poverty is almost as high as child poverty in the UK. The government would do well to focus support on those people - and is precisely what they have done by boosting uptake of pension credit in lieu of the cut to WFP.
Perhaps the level for Pension Credit should be higher. Perhaps, too, such benefits should not be subject to a simple cut-off, but graduated in some way.
Trouble is, that would require a lot of paper-shifters.
Means testing usually costs more than it saves which is why I suspect labour went for the simple "Claiming pension credit" . The fact that it will make people just under the limit much better off than those just over the limit is introducing a cliff edge
Why do all these pensioners need state hand outs when they have been working so hard and saving so much their entire lives?
Can't have it both ways. My own grandparents, who worked hard and saved magnificently from working class roots, would have had no time for those who were equally successful but are now grasping to the state for support.
OAP poverty is almost as high as child poverty in the UK. The government would do well to focus support on those people - and is precisely what they have done by boosting uptake of pension credit in lieu of the cut to WFP.
Perhaps the level for Pension Credit should be higher. Perhaps, too, such benefits should not be subject to a simple cut-off, but graduated in some way.
Trouble is, that would require a lot of paper-shifters.
I think there is definitely an argument that the State Pension should be set at a much higher value but tapered away. You'd want to be careful about disincentives though, as you end up with UC.
Disincentives for people on UC are a far more serious problem as they're actually working and can change their hours etc.
That we tax at 70-100% people who are working 16 hours so they don't see any point in working more, but then panic about taxing evenly people who are not working because of the disincentive that might cause, is just utterly insane.
The simplest solution would be to merge NI, Income Tax, "Student Loans" (basically a tax in all but name now) all into one and have everyone of the same income pay the same tax on all their income - and provide universal education to anyone who wants it.
She admitted to a) voting Labour last month; and b) already regretting it because of the winter fuel allowance thing.
Is this going to be commonplace?
The removal of the winter fuel allowance must rank as one of the worst political decisions ever made . It raises little and annoys an awful lot of people.
Reeves won’t u-turn but should .
Does it annoy a lot of people? As someone who got it and doesn't now it doesn't annoy me as I never deserved it. That must be true of many. And what about all the non pensioners. It won't annoy them that they don't have to subside me. I imagine they are chuffed.
It fails on a number of fronts , it saves very little, is terrible politics, some pensioners will struggle and we’ve just had the energy cap going up . Reeves should dump the policy and find the money elsewhere.
This was my thinking.
My mum doesn't need it, always used to make a point of donating it to charity, and it isn't going to make a huge difference to her life. But she is very annoyed and won't stop banging on about it.
It's equal to what? About a weeks worth of pension payments.
And it's not like it's part of a simplification or streamlining of the system because it's still going to exist, but means tested so there will be more admin, more appeal, more edge cases where people narrowly qualify or not for Pensions Credit so more work to be done.
The correct path would've been to scrap it altogether AT THE SAME TIME AS A SUBSTANTIAL SCHEDULED INCREASE TO THE STATE PENSION, then it could be sold as a simplification of the system and nobody would be losing out.
Except them "losing out" is the entire bloody point.
There's no money left.
Which should have been argued in the manifesto before the election.
She admitted to a) voting Labour last month; and b) already regretting it because of the winter fuel allowance thing.
Is this going to be commonplace?
The removal of the winter fuel allowance must rank as one of the worst political decisions ever made . It raises little and annoys an awful lot of people.
Reeves won’t u-turn but should .
Perversely because Reeves has been forced into encouraging 800,000 pensioners who do not claim pension credit to do so, it could actually cost 4 billion more dwarfing the 1.5 billion saving
Furthermore, the optics are terrible and with the announcement of a 10% rise in energy costs in October and more predicted in January it is looking like a 'car crash' decision
Luckily though, they were only going at 20mph, so not too much damage done.
No idea what that has to do with the winter fuel payment
This from the Independent has though
‘Disaster’:
Labour urged to U-turn on scrapping universal winter fuel payment after energy price cap jumps
Treasury deputy: Labour didn't plan winter fuel allowance cuts before election
Sir Keir Starmer has been urged to review his decision to scrap winter fuel payments for 10m pensioners after the regulator Ofgem announced household energy bills will rise by £150 in October.
The prime minister has been warned the double hit will lead to disaster for pensioners on low and modest incomes or living in vulnerable circumstances due to ill health.
Analysis shows energy bills this winter will be the highest on record for older people who previously received the winter fuel payment, worth up to £300.
Campaigners and charities, as well as Tory and Labour politicians, have called on the PM to change course
Since being introduced in 1997, the winter fuel payment has been available to all pensioners, regardless of income.
There have previously been calls to make it means-tested to prevent taxpayer cash going to wealthier pensioners who are less likely to be struggling with bills.
Newstatesman magazine this weekend has excoriating piece on the removal of "Gordon's" winter fuel allowance.
Quote after quote from backbench Lab MPs about the deluge of letters they have had on this, the being stopped in supermarket and berated etc. One describes it as "suicidal" and awful politics. Focus groups quoted which tear into the policy.
It's a f*cking disaster and it is only August.
Winter is coming...
I'm sorry, but where's my winter fuel allowance? Why should I freeze my tits off in December paying taxes so a 68 year old can enjoy a nice toasty house?
Why should a mum of three in her thirties doing a full time job on minimum wage be struggling to heat her house when we pay for the oldies to be nice and toasty?
It was always a Tory bung for the client pensioner vote. The fact that pensioners are having it taken off them - boo hoo, frankly.
Means test it and make sure the poorest don't freeze. The rest - pay for it yourselves, like the rest of us.
It wasn't always a Tory bung for the pensioner vote.
It was a Brown bung for the pensioner vote, then became a Tory bung for it.
Brown was wrong to introduce it, the Tories were wrong not to cut it as a part of austerity.
Well done Labour now for grasping the nettle and doing the right thing.
I was genuinely astonished to find out how much it was. I used to think it was like the Cold Weather Payment, which bungs twenty quid or so to people on benefits whenever temperatures go below zero for a week or more. And, sure, we should be a bit more generous than that to the elderly because they feel the cold more.
But no, it wasn't just a bit more generous, it was £300 to every pensioner - automatically, every year, no matter whether it's a cold winter or not. Bloody hell.
£300! That would pay for ten-and-a-bit months of my gas bill. And, yes, I live in a well-insulated flat, so I realise that most people have to pay more. But it's still a particularly egregious example of how well we've managed to cushion pensioners from economic reality.
You seem to think it is £300 to every pensioner which is quite simply wrong
It varies from £200 to £300 per household pensioners and max of £300 when the pensioner reaches 80, but also max of £300 for pensioner and spouse
I do not have a problem with wealthier pensioners losing this payment but the discussion needs to be on facts and not incorrect figures
Irrespective of whichever side you are on the optics are terrible and many Labour mps recognise this is an issue of concern for them
The key there however is wealthier pensioners, where as if its based on entitlement to pension credit you will be docking it from pensioners who's total income is 11,500 if single or 17500 for a couple
The issue here is those in the middle between pensioner credits and pensioners just above the threshold but not remotely considered wealthy and there are a lot of them
G the morons on here would say they should be eating cake as they debate their wine cellars, mansions and first class travel.
It is clear there is misinformation being used not least that all pensioners receive a £300 WFA which is incorrect by some distance and an opinion that most pensioners are wealthy when that is also misleading
The state pension, despite the rises in the last two years, is low and in some ways it is unpleasant to see such a pile on on pensioners who will have worked and paid NI for 50 years or more and struggle to heat their homes in winter
Ee, Enid, I've paid me stamp !
As someone who's advised professionally on pensions for 30 years, it winds me up something rotten to hear the old cliche rolled out again and again about how low the UK state pension is. It's middle of the rankings in Europe, without even taking into account the fact the UK has traditionally had massively more substantial funded occupational pension provision.
And yes, full state pension in the UK is about 115% of the cost of living on the latest figures I've seen.
Before we even take account of the levels of private pension provision our older generations tend to have, levels that younger generations will not enjoy.
Full state pension is 11502 per year....so you think the cost of living is 10k? You can live on 192 a week when that will include council tax, electric, gas, transport, water, phone line, food, dentistry, clothing, prescriptions, and possibly rent
Without rent or a mortgage?
Absolutely that's far more than the post-tax, post-rent/mortgage income that many families have.
25% of pensioners are not home owners outright...thats about 2.5 million pensioners still paying a mortgage or rent out of that 11k a year many of them won't be eligible for pension credit
So 75% of them are home owners outright?
And we were pissing away £200-£300 away on them for an electoral bung they had no need for?
I am not saying we should give it to them all, I am merely pointing out where they are drawing the line (pension credit) is probably too low....my father definitely doesn't need it....his girlfriend who has a private pension of circa 700 a year on top of the state pension probably does even though she isn't eligible for pension credit
Where to draw the line is a different question, and is always a difficult one - there are many working poor families who perhaps should get more support and don't, and many who get support they possibly shouldn't.
That a line should be drawn is not a difficult question to answer.
Yes, this is the right thing to do.
Stop bellyaching is the only message that should go to any entitled people who are upset.
One thing we can all agree on is modelling private pension income on a national scale is a complete nightmare and two perfectly sane analysts can come up with very different answers.
And that's before you chuck in the difference between individual and household pension income, state pension, WFP, CWP, PC, WHD, CTR, DLA, PIP, CA, housing wealth, investments... I'm getting flashbacks.
and there's that stupid Christmas bonus! £10 every year. WTF.
On your last sentence it is utterly absurd and Reeves should just cancel it and I am sure we would all agree on that
Ending the £10 bonus would finish the government. It would be seen a simultaneous attack on pensioners and on Christmas. A GB News presenter might explode.
Why do all these pensioners need state hand outs when they have been working so hard and saving so much their entire lives?
Can't have it both ways. My own grandparents, who worked hard and saved magnificently from working class roots, would have had no time for those who were equally successful but are now grasping to the state for support.
OAP poverty is almost as high as child poverty in the UK. The government would do well to focus support on those people - and is precisely what they have done by boosting uptake of pension credit in lieu of the cut to WFP.
Perhaps the level for Pension Credit should be higher. Perhaps, too, such benefits should not be subject to a simple cut-off, but graduated in some way.
Trouble is, that would require a lot of paper-shifters.
Means testing usually costs more than it saves which is why I suspect labour went for the simple "Claiming pension credit" . The fact that it will make people just under the limit much better off than those just over the limit is introducing a cliff edge
If its creating a cliff edge, how much work will those just under the cliff edge stop doing because of the cliff edge?
If starmer can't face down pensioners, then young skilled private sector workers in this country are just going to get more and more hacked off about carrying the tax burden, just as they were under the last government. Other more dynamic economies, less burdened by debt and by unsustainable political promises, will welcome them with open arms.
Yep. Reeves is just balancing the books, getting the barnacles off the boat. Good for her.
She admitted to a) voting Labour last month; and b) already regretting it because of the winter fuel allowance thing.
Is this going to be commonplace?
The removal of the winter fuel allowance must rank as one of the worst political decisions ever made . It raises little and annoys an awful lot of people.
Reeves won’t u-turn but should .
Perversely because Reeves has been forced into encouraging 800,000 pensioners who do not claim pension credit to do so, it could actually cost 4 billion more dwarfing the 1.5 billion saving
Furthermore, the optics are terrible and with the announcement of a 10% rise in energy costs in October and more predicted in January it is looking like a 'car crash' decision
Luckily though, they were only going at 20mph, so not too much damage done.
No idea what that has to do with the winter fuel payment
This from the Independent has though
‘Disaster’:
Labour urged to U-turn on scrapping universal winter fuel payment after energy price cap jumps
Treasury deputy: Labour didn't plan winter fuel allowance cuts before election
Sir Keir Starmer has been urged to review his decision to scrap winter fuel payments for 10m pensioners after the regulator Ofgem announced household energy bills will rise by £150 in October.
The prime minister has been warned the double hit will lead to disaster for pensioners on low and modest incomes or living in vulnerable circumstances due to ill health.
Analysis shows energy bills this winter will be the highest on record for older people who previously received the winter fuel payment, worth up to £300.
Campaigners and charities, as well as Tory and Labour politicians, have called on the PM to change course
Since being introduced in 1997, the winter fuel payment has been available to all pensioners, regardless of income.
There have previously been calls to make it means-tested to prevent taxpayer cash going to wealthier pensioners who are less likely to be struggling with bills.
Newstatesman magazine this weekend has excoriating piece on the removal of "Gordon's" winter fuel allowance.
Quote after quote from backbench Lab MPs about the deluge of letters they have had on this, the being stopped in supermarket and berated etc. One describes it as "suicidal" and awful politics. Focus groups quoted which tear into the policy.
It's a f*cking disaster and it is only August.
Winter is coming...
I'm sorry, but where's my winter fuel allowance? Why should I freeze my tits off in December paying taxes so a 68 year old can enjoy a nice toasty house?
Why should a mum of three in her thirties doing a full time job on minimum wage be struggling to heat her house when we pay for the oldies to be nice and toasty?
It was always a Tory bung for the client pensioner vote. The fact that pensioners are having it taken off them - boo hoo, frankly.
Means test it and make sure the poorest don't freeze. The rest - pay for it yourselves, like the rest of us.
It wasn't always a Tory bung for the pensioner vote.
It was a Brown bung for the pensioner vote, then became a Tory bung for it.
Brown was wrong to introduce it, the Tories were wrong not to cut it as a part of austerity.
Well done Labour now for grasping the nettle and doing the right thing.
I was genuinely astonished to find out how much it was. I used to think it was like the Cold Weather Payment, which bungs twenty quid or so to people on benefits whenever temperatures go below zero for a week or more. And, sure, we should be a bit more generous than that to the elderly because they feel the cold more.
But no, it wasn't just a bit more generous, it was £300 to every pensioner - automatically, every year, no matter whether it's a cold winter or not. Bloody hell.
£300! That would pay for ten-and-a-bit months of my gas bill. And, yes, I live in a well-insulated flat, so I realise that most people have to pay more. But it's still a particularly egregious example of how well we've managed to cushion pensioners from economic reality.
You seem to think it is £300 to every pensioner which is quite simply wrong
It varies from £200 to £300 per household pensioners and max of £300 when the pensioner reaches 80, but also max of £300 for pensioner and spouse
I do not have a problem with wealthier pensioners losing this payment but the discussion needs to be on facts and not incorrect figures
Irrespective of whichever side you are on the optics are terrible and many Labour mps recognise this is an issue of concern for them
The key there however is wealthier pensioners, where as if its based on entitlement to pension credit you will be docking it from pensioners who's total income is 11,500 if single or 17500 for a couple
The issue here is those in the middle between pensioner credits and pensioners just above the threshold but not remotely considered wealthy and there are a lot of them
G the morons on here would say they should be eating cake as they debate their wine cellars, mansions and first class travel.
It is clear there is misinformation being used not least that all pensioners receive a £300 WFA which is incorrect by some distance and an opinion that most pensioners are wealthy when that is also misleading
The state pension, despite the rises in the last two years, is low and in some ways it is unpleasant to see such a pile on on pensioners who will have worked and paid NI for 50 years or more and struggle to heat their homes in winter
Ee, Enid, I've paid me stamp !
As someone who's advised professionally on pensions for 30 years, it winds me up something rotten to hear the old cliche rolled out again and again about how low the UK state pension is. It's middle of the rankings in Europe, without even taking into account the fact the UK has traditionally had massively more substantial funded occupational pension provision.
And yes, full state pension in the UK is about 115% of the cost of living on the latest figures I've seen.
Before we even take account of the levels of private pension provision our older generations tend to have, levels that younger generations will not enjoy.
Not all OAP’s have occupational pensions or private ones.
And even some of those that do have a little income beyond the basic state pension will still be pretty hard up. We should absolutely make sure we take care of them - it would be inexcusable not to.
But the average pensioner has no rent or mortgage to pay, doesn't pay NI or student loan repayments, and has a higher post-tax, post-housing income than the average person of working age.
I find the whole 'war between the generations' thing incredibly depressing. Today's retirees have done perfectly well for themselves - and for society at large. They should be rewarded for that, and should expect to be looked after.
But the Winter Fuel Payment was (at least!) ten times more than the Cold Weather Payment that people on other types of benefit get. I know, I'm a stuck record, it's really boring - but ten times more - ten times more! How can that possibly have happened?
Why do all these pensioners need state hand outs when they have been working so hard and saving so much their entire lives?
Can't have it both ways. My own grandparents, who worked hard and saved magnificently from working class roots, would have had no time for those who were equally successful but are now grasping to the state for support.
OAP poverty is almost as high as child poverty in the UK. The government would do well to focus support on those people - and is precisely what they have done by boosting uptake of pension credit in lieu of the cut to WFP.
Perhaps the level for Pension Credit should be higher. Perhaps, too, such benefits should not be subject to a simple cut-off, but graduated in some way.
Trouble is, that would require a lot of paper-shifters.
I think there is definitely an argument that the State Pension should be set at a much higher value but tapered away. You'd want to be careful about disincentives though, as you end up with UC.
Disincentives for people on UC are a far more serious problem as they're actually working and can change their hours etc.
That we tax at 70-100% people who are working 16 hours so they don't see any point in working more, but then panic about taxing evenly people who are not working because of the disincentive that might cause, is just utterly insane.
The simplest solution would be to merge NI, Income Tax, "Student Loans" (basically a tax in all but name now) all into one and have everyone of the same income pay the same tax on all their income - and provide universal education to anyone who wants it.
Hmm, it could be a serious problem if it disincentives people from saving for their own pension.
Why do all these pensioners need state hand outs when they have been working so hard and saving so much their entire lives?
Can't have it both ways. My own grandparents, who worked hard and saved magnificently from working class roots, would have had no time for those who were equally successful but are now grasping to the state for support.
OAP poverty is almost as high as child poverty in the UK. The government would do well to focus support on those people - and is precisely what they have done by boosting uptake of pension credit in lieu of the cut to WFP.
Perhaps the level for Pension Credit should be higher. Perhaps, too, such benefits should not be subject to a simple cut-off, but graduated in some way.
Trouble is, that would require a lot of paper-shifters.
I think there is definitely an argument that the State Pension should be set at a much higher value but tapered away. A real safety net. You'd want to be careful about disincentives though, as you end up with UC.
I have argued before that we should taper it away. My suggestion from memory was when state pension + private pension was > 20k they lose 1£ for every extra 5£ of income. I was roundly shouted at and many of those proclaiming the removal of wfa from anyone not on pension credit is a good thing.
I suspect mainly because they wont miss wfa but my suggestion would cost them a lot more
She admitted to a) voting Labour last month; and b) already regretting it because of the winter fuel allowance thing.
Is this going to be commonplace?
The removal of the winter fuel allowance must rank as one of the worst political decisions ever made . It raises little and annoys an awful lot of people.
Reeves won’t u-turn but should .
Perversely because Reeves has been forced into encouraging 800,000 pensioners who do not claim pension credit to do so, it could actually cost 4 billion more dwarfing the 1.5 billion saving
Furthermore, the optics are terrible and with the announcement of a 10% rise in energy costs in October and more predicted in January it is looking like a 'car crash' decision
Luckily though, they were only going at 20mph, so not too much damage done.
No idea what that has to do with the winter fuel payment
This from the Independent has though
‘Disaster’:
Labour urged to U-turn on scrapping universal winter fuel payment after energy price cap jumps
Treasury deputy: Labour didn't plan winter fuel allowance cuts before election
Sir Keir Starmer has been urged to review his decision to scrap winter fuel payments for 10m pensioners after the regulator Ofgem announced household energy bills will rise by £150 in October.
The prime minister has been warned the double hit will lead to disaster for pensioners on low and modest incomes or living in vulnerable circumstances due to ill health.
Analysis shows energy bills this winter will be the highest on record for older people who previously received the winter fuel payment, worth up to £300.
Campaigners and charities, as well as Tory and Labour politicians, have called on the PM to change course
Since being introduced in 1997, the winter fuel payment has been available to all pensioners, regardless of income.
There have previously been calls to make it means-tested to prevent taxpayer cash going to wealthier pensioners who are less likely to be struggling with bills.
Newstatesman magazine this weekend has excoriating piece on the removal of "Gordon's" winter fuel allowance.
Quote after quote from backbench Lab MPs about the deluge of letters they have had on this, the being stopped in supermarket and berated etc. One describes it as "suicidal" and awful politics. Focus groups quoted which tear into the policy.
It's a f*cking disaster and it is only August.
Winter is coming...
I'm sorry, but where's my winter fuel allowance? Why should I freeze my tits off in December paying taxes so a 68 year old can enjoy a nice toasty house?
Why should a mum of three in her thirties doing a full time job on minimum wage be struggling to heat her house when we pay for the oldies to be nice and toasty?
It was always a Tory bung for the client pensioner vote. The fact that pensioners are having it taken off them - boo hoo, frankly.
Means test it and make sure the poorest don't freeze. The rest - pay for it yourselves, like the rest of us.
It wasn't always a Tory bung for the pensioner vote.
It was a Brown bung for the pensioner vote, then became a Tory bung for it.
Brown was wrong to introduce it, the Tories were wrong not to cut it as a part of austerity.
Well done Labour now for grasping the nettle and doing the right thing.
I was genuinely astonished to find out how much it was. I used to think it was like the Cold Weather Payment, which bungs twenty quid or so to people on benefits whenever temperatures go below zero for a week or more. And, sure, we should be a bit more generous than that to the elderly because they feel the cold more.
But no, it wasn't just a bit more generous, it was £300 to every pensioner - automatically, every year, no matter whether it's a cold winter or not. Bloody hell.
£300! That would pay for ten-and-a-bit months of my gas bill. And, yes, I live in a well-insulated flat, so I realise that most people have to pay more. But it's still a particularly egregious example of how well we've managed to cushion pensioners from economic reality.
You seem to think it is £300 to every pensioner which is quite simply wrong
It varies from £200 to £300 per household pensioners and max of £300 when the pensioner reaches 80, but also max of £300 for pensioner and spouse
I do not have a problem with wealthier pensioners losing this payment but the discussion needs to be on facts and not incorrect figures
Irrespective of whichever side you are on the optics are terrible and many Labour mps recognise this is an issue of concern for them
The key there however is wealthier pensioners, where as if its based on entitlement to pension credit you will be docking it from pensioners who's total income is 11,500 if single or 17500 for a couple
The issue here is those in the middle between pensioner credits and pensioners just above the threshold but not remotely considered wealthy and there are a lot of them
G the morons on here would say they should be eating cake as they debate their wine cellars, mansions and first class travel.
It is clear there is misinformation being used not least that all pensioners receive a £300 WFA which is incorrect by some distance and an opinion that most pensioners are wealthy when that is also misleading
The state pension, despite the rises in the last two years, is low and in some ways it is unpleasant to see such a pile on on pensioners who will have worked and paid NI for 50 years or more and struggle to heat their homes in winter
Ee, Enid, I've paid me stamp !
As someone who's advised professionally on pensions for 30 years, it winds me up something rotten to hear the old cliche rolled out again and again about how low the UK state pension is. It's middle of the rankings in Europe, without even taking into account the fact the UK has traditionally had massively more substantial funded occupational pension provision.
And yes, full state pension in the UK is about 115% of the cost of living on the latest figures I've seen.
Before we even take account of the levels of private pension provision our older generations tend to have, levels that younger generations will not enjoy.
Full state pension is 11502 per year....so you think the cost of living is 10k? You can live on 192 a week when that will include council tax, electric, gas, transport, water, phone line, food, dentistry, clothing, prescriptions, and possibly rent
Without rent or a mortgage?
Absolutely that's far more than the post-tax, post-rent/mortgage income that many families have.
25% of pensioners are not home owners outright...thats about 2.5 million pensioners still paying a mortgage or rent out of that 11k a year many of them won't be eligible for pension credit
So 75% of them are home owners outright?
And we were pissing away £200-£300 away on them for an electoral bung they had no need for?
I am not saying we should give it to them all, I am merely pointing out where they are drawing the line (pension credit) is probably too low....my father definitely doesn't need it....his girlfriend who has a private pension of circa 700 a year on top of the state pension probably does even though she isn't eligible for pension credit
Where to draw the line is a different question, and is always a difficult one - there are many working poor families who perhaps should get more support and don't, and many who get support they possibly shouldn't.
That a line should be drawn is not a difficult question to answer.
Yes, this is the right thing to do.
Stop bellyaching is the only message that should go to any entitled people who are upset.
One thing we can all agree on is modelling private pension income on a national scale is a complete nightmare and two perfectly sane analysts can come up with very different answers.
And that's before you chuck in the difference between individual and household pension income, state pension, WFP, CWP, PC, WHD, CTR, DLA, PIP, CA, housing wealth, investments... I'm getting flashbacks.
and there's that stupid Christmas bonus! £10 every year. WTF.
On your last sentence it is utterly absurd and Reeves should just cancel it and I am sure we would all agree on that
I think it's been £10 since around 1974. Why not uplift it for inflation since then so it would be around £200 now and pensioners could use it to help meet their heating bills 👍
Why do all these pensioners need state hand outs when they have been working so hard and saving so much their entire lives?
Can't have it both ways. My own grandparents, who worked hard and saved magnificently from working class roots, would have had no time for those who were equally successful but are now grasping to the state for support.
OAP poverty is almost as high as child poverty in the UK. The government would do well to focus support on those people - and is precisely what they have done by boosting uptake of pension credit in lieu of the cut to WFP.
Perhaps the level for Pension Credit should be higher. Perhaps, too, such benefits should not be subject to a simple cut-off, but graduated in some way.
Trouble is, that would require a lot of paper-shifters.
I think there is definitely an argument that the State Pension should be set at a much higher value but tapered away. You'd want to be careful about disincentives though, as you end up with UC.
Disincentives for people on UC are a far more serious problem as they're actually working and can change their hours etc.
That we tax at 70-100% people who are working 16 hours so they don't see any point in working more, but then panic about taxing evenly people who are not working because of the disincentive that might cause, is just utterly insane.
The simplest solution would be to merge NI, Income Tax, "Student Loans" (basically a tax in all but name now) all into one and have everyone of the same income pay the same tax on all their income - and provide universal education to anyone who wants it.
Hmm, it could be a serious problem if it disincentives people from saving for their own pension.
Maybe we should worry more about disincentives that people actually do face, on a daily basis, than theoretical hypothetical disincentives they may face in the future.
"I can't work more than 16 hours because if I do I'll lose my benefits" is a far more real and pressing attitude than "I can't save because I won't get a fuel allowance so what's the point?"
She admitted to a) voting Labour last month; and b) already regretting it because of the winter fuel allowance thing.
Is this going to be commonplace?
The removal of the winter fuel allowance must rank as one of the worst political decisions ever made . It raises little and annoys an awful lot of people.
Reeves won’t u-turn but should .
Perversely because Reeves has been forced into encouraging 800,000 pensioners who do not claim pension credit to do so, it could actually cost 4 billion more dwarfing the 1.5 billion saving
Furthermore, the optics are terrible and with the announcement of a 10% rise in energy costs in October and more predicted in January it is looking like a 'car crash' decision
Luckily though, they were only going at 20mph, so not too much damage done.
No idea what that has to do with the winter fuel payment
This from the Independent has though
‘Disaster’:
Labour urged to U-turn on scrapping universal winter fuel payment after energy price cap jumps
Treasury deputy: Labour didn't plan winter fuel allowance cuts before election
Sir Keir Starmer has been urged to review his decision to scrap winter fuel payments for 10m pensioners after the regulator Ofgem announced household energy bills will rise by £150 in October.
The prime minister has been warned the double hit will lead to disaster for pensioners on low and modest incomes or living in vulnerable circumstances due to ill health.
Analysis shows energy bills this winter will be the highest on record for older people who previously received the winter fuel payment, worth up to £300.
Campaigners and charities, as well as Tory and Labour politicians, have called on the PM to change course
Since being introduced in 1997, the winter fuel payment has been available to all pensioners, regardless of income.
There have previously been calls to make it means-tested to prevent taxpayer cash going to wealthier pensioners who are less likely to be struggling with bills.
Newstatesman magazine this weekend has excoriating piece on the removal of "Gordon's" winter fuel allowance.
Quote after quote from backbench Lab MPs about the deluge of letters they have had on this, the being stopped in supermarket and berated etc. One describes it as "suicidal" and awful politics. Focus groups quoted which tear into the policy.
It's a f*cking disaster and it is only August.
Winter is coming...
I'm sorry, but where's my winter fuel allowance? Why should I freeze my tits off in December paying taxes so a 68 year old can enjoy a nice toasty house?
Why should a mum of three in her thirties doing a full time job on minimum wage be struggling to heat her house when we pay for the oldies to be nice and toasty?
It was always a Tory bung for the client pensioner vote. The fact that pensioners are having it taken off them - boo hoo, frankly.
Means test it and make sure the poorest don't freeze. The rest - pay for it yourselves, like the rest of us.
It wasn't always a Tory bung for the pensioner vote.
It was a Brown bung for the pensioner vote, then became a Tory bung for it.
Brown was wrong to introduce it, the Tories were wrong not to cut it as a part of austerity.
Well done Labour now for grasping the nettle and doing the right thing.
I was genuinely astonished to find out how much it was. I used to think it was like the Cold Weather Payment, which bungs twenty quid or so to people on benefits whenever temperatures go below zero for a week or more. And, sure, we should be a bit more generous than that to the elderly because they feel the cold more.
But no, it wasn't just a bit more generous, it was £300 to every pensioner - automatically, every year, no matter whether it's a cold winter or not. Bloody hell.
£300! That would pay for ten-and-a-bit months of my gas bill. And, yes, I live in a well-insulated flat, so I realise that most people have to pay more. But it's still a particularly egregious example of how well we've managed to cushion pensioners from economic reality.
You seem to think it is £300 to every pensioner which is quite simply wrong
It varies from £200 to £300 per household pensioners and max of £300 when the pensioner reaches 80, but also max of £300 for pensioner and spouse
I do not have a problem with wealthier pensioners losing this payment but the discussion needs to be on facts and not incorrect figures
Irrespective of whichever side you are on the optics are terrible and many Labour mps recognise this is an issue of concern for them
The key there however is wealthier pensioners, where as if its based on entitlement to pension credit you will be docking it from pensioners who's total income is 11,500 if single or 17500 for a couple
The issue here is those in the middle between pensioner credits and pensioners just above the threshold but not remotely considered wealthy and there are a lot of them
G the morons on here would say they should be eating cake as they debate their wine cellars, mansions and first class travel.
It is clear there is misinformation being used not least that all pensioners receive a £300 WFA which is incorrect by some distance and an opinion that most pensioners are wealthy when that is also misleading
The state pension, despite the rises in the last two years, is low and in some ways it is unpleasant to see such a pile on on pensioners who will have worked and paid NI for 50 years or more and struggle to heat their homes in winter
Ee, Enid, I've paid me stamp !
As someone who's advised professionally on pensions for 30 years, it winds me up something rotten to hear the old cliche rolled out again and again about how low the UK state pension is. It's middle of the rankings in Europe, without even taking into account the fact the UK has traditionally had massively more substantial funded occupational pension provision.
And yes, full state pension in the UK is about 115% of the cost of living on the latest figures I've seen.
Before we even take account of the levels of private pension provision our older generations tend to have, levels that younger generations will not enjoy.
Full state pension is 11502 per year....so you think the cost of living is 10k? You can live on 192 a week when that will include council tax, electric, gas, transport, water, phone line, food, dentistry, clothing, prescriptions, and possibly rent
Without rent or a mortgage?
Absolutely that's far more than the post-tax, post-rent/mortgage income that many families have.
25% of pensioners are not home owners outright...thats about 2.5 million pensioners still paying a mortgage or rent out of that 11k a year many of them won't be eligible for pension credit
So 75% of them are home owners outright?
And we were pissing away £200-£300 away on them for an electoral bung they had no need for?
I am not saying we should give it to them all, I am merely pointing out where they are drawing the line (pension credit) is probably too low....my father definitely doesn't need it....his girlfriend who has a private pension of circa 700 a year on top of the state pension probably does even though she isn't eligible for pension credit
Where to draw the line is a different question, and is always a difficult one - there are many working poor families who perhaps should get more support and don't, and many who get support they possibly shouldn't.
That a line should be drawn is not a difficult question to answer.
Yes, this is the right thing to do.
Stop bellyaching is the only message that should go to any entitled people who are upset.
One thing we can all agree on is modelling private pension income on a national scale is a complete nightmare and two perfectly sane analysts can come up with very different answers.
And that's before you chuck in the difference between individual and household pension income, state pension, WFP, CWP, PC, WHD, CTR, DLA, PIP, CA, housing wealth, investments... I'm getting flashbacks.
and there's that stupid Christmas bonus! £10 every year. WTF.
On your last sentence it is utterly absurd and Reeves should just cancel it and I am sure we would all agree on that
I think it's been £10 since around 1974. Why not uplift it for inflation since then so it would be around £200 now and pensioners could use it to help meet their heating bills 👍
Careful now, it's not just pensioners who get Christmas bonus.
She admitted to a) voting Labour last month; and b) already regretting it because of the winter fuel allowance thing.
Is this going to be commonplace?
The removal of the winter fuel allowance must rank as one of the worst political decisions ever made . It raises little and annoys an awful lot of people.
Reeves won’t u-turn but should .
Perversely because Reeves has been forced into encouraging 800,000 pensioners who do not claim pension credit to do so, it could actually cost 4 billion more dwarfing the 1.5 billion saving
Furthermore, the optics are terrible and with the announcement of a 10% rise in energy costs in October and more predicted in January it is looking like a 'car crash' decision
Luckily though, they were only going at 20mph, so not too much damage done.
No idea what that has to do with the winter fuel payment
This from the Independent has though
‘Disaster’:
Labour urged to U-turn on scrapping universal winter fuel payment after energy price cap jumps
Treasury deputy: Labour didn't plan winter fuel allowance cuts before election
Sir Keir Starmer has been urged to review his decision to scrap winter fuel payments for 10m pensioners after the regulator Ofgem announced household energy bills will rise by £150 in October.
The prime minister has been warned the double hit will lead to disaster for pensioners on low and modest incomes or living in vulnerable circumstances due to ill health.
Analysis shows energy bills this winter will be the highest on record for older people who previously received the winter fuel payment, worth up to £300.
Campaigners and charities, as well as Tory and Labour politicians, have called on the PM to change course
Since being introduced in 1997, the winter fuel payment has been available to all pensioners, regardless of income.
There have previously been calls to make it means-tested to prevent taxpayer cash going to wealthier pensioners who are less likely to be struggling with bills.
Newstatesman magazine this weekend has excoriating piece on the removal of "Gordon's" winter fuel allowance.
Quote after quote from backbench Lab MPs about the deluge of letters they have had on this, the being stopped in supermarket and berated etc. One describes it as "suicidal" and awful politics. Focus groups quoted which tear into the policy.
It's a f*cking disaster and it is only August.
Winter is coming...
I'm sorry, but where's my winter fuel allowance? Why should I freeze my tits off in December paying taxes so a 68 year old can enjoy a nice toasty house?
Why should a mum of three in her thirties doing a full time job on minimum wage be struggling to heat her house when we pay for the oldies to be nice and toasty?
It was always a Tory bung for the client pensioner vote. The fact that pensioners are having it taken off them - boo hoo, frankly.
Means test it and make sure the poorest don't freeze. The rest - pay for it yourselves, like the rest of us.
It wasn't always a Tory bung for the pensioner vote.
It was a Brown bung for the pensioner vote, then became a Tory bung for it.
Brown was wrong to introduce it, the Tories were wrong not to cut it as a part of austerity.
Well done Labour now for grasping the nettle and doing the right thing.
I was genuinely astonished to find out how much it was. I used to think it was like the Cold Weather Payment, which bungs twenty quid or so to people on benefits whenever temperatures go below zero for a week or more. And, sure, we should be a bit more generous than that to the elderly because they feel the cold more.
But no, it wasn't just a bit more generous, it was £300 to every pensioner - automatically, every year, no matter whether it's a cold winter or not. Bloody hell.
£300! That would pay for ten-and-a-bit months of my gas bill. And, yes, I live in a well-insulated flat, so I realise that most people have to pay more. But it's still a particularly egregious example of how well we've managed to cushion pensioners from economic reality.
You seem to think it is £300 to every pensioner which is quite simply wrong
It varies from £200 to £300 per household pensioners and max of £300 when the pensioner reaches 80, but also max of £300 for pensioner and spouse
I do not have a problem with wealthier pensioners losing this payment but the discussion needs to be on facts and not incorrect figures
Irrespective of whichever side you are on the optics are terrible and many Labour mps recognise this is an issue of concern for them
The key there however is wealthier pensioners, where as if its based on entitlement to pension credit you will be docking it from pensioners who's total income is 11,500 if single or 17500 for a couple
The issue here is those in the middle between pensioner credits and pensioners just above the threshold but not remotely considered wealthy and there are a lot of them
G the morons on here would say they should be eating cake as they debate their wine cellars, mansions and first class travel.
It is clear there is misinformation being used not least that all pensioners receive a £300 WFA which is incorrect by some distance and an opinion that most pensioners are wealthy when that is also misleading
The state pension, despite the rises in the last two years, is low and in some ways it is unpleasant to see such a pile on on pensioners who will have worked and paid NI for 50 years or more and struggle to heat their homes in winter
Ee, Enid, I've paid me stamp !
As someone who's advised professionally on pensions for 30 years, it winds me up something rotten to hear the old cliche rolled out again and again about how low the UK state pension is. It's middle of the rankings in Europe, without even taking into account the fact the UK has traditionally had massively more substantial funded occupational pension provision.
And yes, full state pension in the UK is about 115% of the cost of living on the latest figures I've seen.
Before we even take account of the levels of private pension provision our older generations tend to have, levels that younger generations will not enjoy.
Full state pension is 11502 per year....so you think the cost of living is 10k? You can live on 192 a week when that will include council tax, electric, gas, transport, water, phone line, food, dentistry, clothing, prescriptions, and possibly rent
Is that 11502 tax-free? It's nearly a grand a month!
The first £12,570 is tax free for everyone
Indeed.
Most people are going to work for their income though - and then have to pay rent or a mortgage out of it.
Not live rent-free, mortgage-free without having to go to work and then still expecting more unearned freebies too, just because.
I did the same for 48 years but knowing that at 65 I would retire and not only paid our mortgage which we struggled with in the early years, but put aside some money to provide a modest annuity when I retired
I am fortunate not to need the WFA but there are a large number of pensioners who do and a way needs to be found to help those on the margin of this decision
There are many people of all ages who are struggling.
Providing welfare to those who most need it is one thing. Bunging people who absolutely do not is preposterous.
The exception would be if it were genuinely universal, universal meaning going to everyone not everyone of a certain age - then having universality is a good way to avoid the poverty trap. But its not even universal, its just a pointless waste of money on people that don't need it, taxing people who don't get it to fund it.
I remember Trevor Phillips on Sky saying to the exchequer's Secretary, James Murray, re the two child cap that notwithstanding the difficult financial position you have choices in government and you have chosen to give me the triple lock when you could have abolished the 2 child cap
Why do all these pensioners need state hand outs when they have been working so hard and saving so much their entire lives?
Can't have it both ways. My own grandparents, who worked hard and saved magnificently from working class roots, would have had no time for those who were equally successful but are now grasping to the state for support.
OAP poverty is almost as high as child poverty in the UK. The government would do well to focus support on those people - and is precisely what they have done by boosting uptake of pension credit in lieu of the cut to WFP.
Perhaps the level for Pension Credit should be higher. Perhaps, too, such benefits should not be subject to a simple cut-off, but graduated in some way.
Trouble is, that would require a lot of paper-shifters.
I think there is definitely an argument that the State Pension should be set at a much higher value but tapered away. You'd want to be careful about disincentives though, as you end up with UC.
Disincentives for people on UC are a far more serious problem as they're actually working and can change their hours etc.
That we tax at 70-100% people who are working 16 hours so they don't see any point in working more, but then panic about taxing evenly people who are not working because of the disincentive that might cause, is just utterly insane.
The simplest solution would be to merge NI, Income Tax, "Student Loans" (basically a tax in all but name now) all into one and have everyone of the same income pay the same tax on all their income - and provide universal education to anyone who wants it.
Hmm, it could be a serious problem if it disincentives people from saving for their own pension.
Maybe we should worry more about disincentives that people actually do face, on a daily basis, than theoretical hypothetical disincentives they may face in the future.
"I can't work more than 16 hours because if I do I'll lose my benefits" is a far more real and pressing attitude than "I can't save because I won't get a fuel allowance so what's the point?"
I can be concerned about more than one thing at the same time, though I don't have quite the single-minded energy that you have tbf.
Why do all these pensioners need state hand outs when they have been working so hard and saving so much their entire lives?
Can't have it both ways. My own grandparents, who worked hard and saved magnificently from working class roots, would have had no time for those who were equally successful but are now grasping to the state for support.
OAP poverty is almost as high as child poverty in the UK. The government would do well to focus support on those people - and is precisely what they have done by boosting uptake of pension credit in lieu of the cut to WFP.
Perhaps the level for Pension Credit should be higher. Perhaps, too, such benefits should not be subject to a simple cut-off, but graduated in some way.
Trouble is, that would require a lot of paper-shifters.
I think there is definitely an argument that the State Pension should be set at a much higher value but tapered away. You'd want to be careful about disincentives though, as you end up with UC.
Disincentives for people on UC are a far more serious problem as they're actually working and can change their hours etc.
That we tax at 70-100% people who are working 16 hours so they don't see any point in working more, but then panic about taxing evenly people who are not working because of the disincentive that might cause, is just utterly insane.
The simplest solution would be to merge NI, Income Tax, "Student Loans" (basically a tax in all but name now) all into one and have everyone of the same income pay the same tax on all their income - and provide universal education to anyone who wants it.
Hmm, it could be a serious problem if it disincentives people from saving for their own pension.
Maybe we should worry more about disincentives that people actually do face, on a daily basis, than theoretical hypothetical disincentives they may face in the future.
"I can't work more than 16 hours because if I do I'll lose my benefits" is a far more real and pressing attitude than "I can't save because I won't get a fuel allowance so what's the point?"
I can be concerned about more than one thing at the same time, though I don't have quite the single-minded energy that you have tbf.
If the government were actually getting rid of cliff edges, I would 100% support that.
Excessively and exclusively worrying about a minor cliff edge that might affect a few people, by a few pounds, who aren't working anyway as a possible edge case? I'll pass on that thanks.
She admitted to a) voting Labour last month; and b) already regretting it because of the winter fuel allowance thing.
Is this going to be commonplace?
The removal of the winter fuel allowance must rank as one of the worst political decisions ever made . It raises little and annoys an awful lot of people.
Reeves won’t u-turn but should .
Perversely because Reeves has been forced into encouraging 800,000 pensioners who do not claim pension credit to do so, it could actually cost 4 billion more dwarfing the 1.5 billion saving
Furthermore, the optics are terrible and with the announcement of a 10% rise in energy costs in October and more predicted in January it is looking like a 'car crash' decision
Luckily though, they were only going at 20mph, so not too much damage done.
No idea what that has to do with the winter fuel payment
This from the Independent has though
‘Disaster’:
Labour urged to U-turn on scrapping universal winter fuel payment after energy price cap jumps
Treasury deputy: Labour didn't plan winter fuel allowance cuts before election
Sir Keir Starmer has been urged to review his decision to scrap winter fuel payments for 10m pensioners after the regulator Ofgem announced household energy bills will rise by £150 in October.
The prime minister has been warned the double hit will lead to disaster for pensioners on low and modest incomes or living in vulnerable circumstances due to ill health.
Analysis shows energy bills this winter will be the highest on record for older people who previously received the winter fuel payment, worth up to £300.
Campaigners and charities, as well as Tory and Labour politicians, have called on the PM to change course
Since being introduced in 1997, the winter fuel payment has been available to all pensioners, regardless of income.
There have previously been calls to make it means-tested to prevent taxpayer cash going to wealthier pensioners who are less likely to be struggling with bills.
Newstatesman magazine this weekend has excoriating piece on the removal of "Gordon's" winter fuel allowance.
Quote after quote from backbench Lab MPs about the deluge of letters they have had on this, the being stopped in supermarket and berated etc. One describes it as "suicidal" and awful politics. Focus groups quoted which tear into the policy.
It's a f*cking disaster and it is only August.
Winter is coming...
I'm sorry, but where's my winter fuel allowance? Why should I freeze my tits off in December paying taxes so a 68 year old can enjoy a nice toasty house?
Why should a mum of three in her thirties doing a full time job on minimum wage be struggling to heat her house when we pay for the oldies to be nice and toasty?
It was always a Tory bung for the client pensioner vote. The fact that pensioners are having it taken off them - boo hoo, frankly.
Means test it and make sure the poorest don't freeze. The rest - pay for it yourselves, like the rest of us.
It wasn't always a Tory bung for the pensioner vote.
It was a Brown bung for the pensioner vote, then became a Tory bung for it.
Brown was wrong to introduce it, the Tories were wrong not to cut it as a part of austerity.
Well done Labour now for grasping the nettle and doing the right thing.
I was genuinely astonished to find out how much it was. I used to think it was like the Cold Weather Payment, which bungs twenty quid or so to people on benefits whenever temperatures go below zero for a week or more. And, sure, we should be a bit more generous than that to the elderly because they feel the cold more.
But no, it wasn't just a bit more generous, it was £300 to every pensioner - automatically, every year, no matter whether it's a cold winter or not. Bloody hell.
£300! That would pay for ten-and-a-bit months of my gas bill. And, yes, I live in a well-insulated flat, so I realise that most people have to pay more. But it's still a particularly egregious example of how well we've managed to cushion pensioners from economic reality.
You seem to think it is £300 to every pensioner which is quite simply wrong
It varies from £200 to £300 per household pensioners and max of £300 when the pensioner reaches 80, but also max of £300 for pensioner and spouse
I do not have a problem with wealthier pensioners losing this payment but the discussion needs to be on facts and not incorrect figures
Irrespective of whichever side you are on the optics are terrible and many Labour mps recognise this is an issue of concern for them
The key there however is wealthier pensioners, where as if its based on entitlement to pension credit you will be docking it from pensioners who's total income is 11,500 if single or 17500 for a couple
The issue here is those in the middle between pensioner credits and pensioners just above the threshold but not remotely considered wealthy and there are a lot of them
G the morons on here would say they should be eating cake as they debate their wine cellars, mansions and first class travel.
It is clear there is misinformation being used not least that all pensioners receive a £300 WFA which is incorrect by some distance and an opinion that most pensioners are wealthy when that is also misleading
The state pension, despite the rises in the last two years, is low and in some ways it is unpleasant to see such a pile on on pensioners who will have worked and paid NI for 50 years or more and struggle to heat their homes in winter
Ee, Enid, I've paid me stamp !
As someone who's advised professionally on pensions for 30 years, it winds me up something rotten to hear the old cliche rolled out again and again about how low the UK state pension is. It's middle of the rankings in Europe, without even taking into account the fact the UK has traditionally had massively more substantial funded occupational pension provision.
And yes, full state pension in the UK is about 115% of the cost of living on the latest figures I've seen.
Before we even take account of the levels of private pension provision our older generations tend to have, levels that younger generations will not enjoy.
Full state pension is 11502 per year....so you think the cost of living is 10k? You can live on 192 a week when that will include council tax, electric, gas, transport, water, phone line, food, dentistry, clothing, prescriptions, and possibly rent
Without rent or a mortgage?
Absolutely that's far more than the post-tax, post-rent/mortgage income that many families have.
25% of pensioners are not home owners outright...thats about 2.5 million pensioners still paying a mortgage or rent out of that 11k a year many of them won't be eligible for pension credit
So 75% of them are home owners outright?
And we were pissing away £200-£300 away on them for an electoral bung they had no need for?
I am not saying we should give it to them all, I am merely pointing out where they are drawing the line (pension credit) is probably too low....my father definitely doesn't need it....his girlfriend who has a private pension of circa 700 a year on top of the state pension probably does even though she isn't eligible for pension credit
Where to draw the line is a different question, and is always a difficult one - there are many working poor families who perhaps should get more support and don't, and many who get support they possibly shouldn't.
That a line should be drawn is not a difficult question to answer.
Yes, this is the right thing to do.
Stop bellyaching is the only message that should go to any entitled people who are upset.
One thing we can all agree on is modelling private pension income on a national scale is a complete nightmare and two perfectly sane analysts can come up with very different answers.
And that's before you chuck in the difference between individual and household pension income, state pension, WFP, CWP, PC, WHD, CTR, DLA, PIP, CA, housing wealth, investments... I'm getting flashbacks.
and there's that stupid Christmas bonus! £10 every year. WTF.
On your last sentence it is utterly absurd and Reeves should just cancel it and I am sure we would all agree on that
Ending the £10 bonus would finish the government. It would be seen a simultaneous attack on pensioners and on Christmas. A GB News presenter might explode.
Saturday's TIMES: Reeves feels the heat over winter fuel benefit cuts #TomorrowsPapersToday
Quite rightly, why do mp's get to claim for heating the second homes that taxpayers are helping to fund. I suspect ending that and subsidised bars and restaurants at the commons would save us a fair chunk of change
Why do all these pensioners need state hand outs when they have been working so hard and saving so much their entire lives?
Can't have it both ways. My own grandparents, who worked hard and saved magnificently from working class roots, would have had no time for those who were equally successful but are now grasping to the state for support.
OAP poverty is almost as high as child poverty in the UK. The government would do well to focus support on those people - and is precisely what they have done by boosting uptake of pension credit in lieu of the cut to WFP.
Perhaps the level for Pension Credit should be higher. Perhaps, too, such benefits should not be subject to a simple cut-off, but graduated in some way.
Trouble is, that would require a lot of paper-shifters.
I think there is definitely an argument that the State Pension should be set at a much higher value but tapered away. You'd want to be careful about disincentives though, as you end up with UC.
Disincentives for people on UC are a far more serious problem as they're actually working and can change their hours etc.
That we tax at 70-100% people who are working 16 hours so they don't see any point in working more, but then panic about taxing evenly people who are not working because of the disincentive that might cause, is just utterly insane.
The simplest solution would be to merge NI, Income Tax, "Student Loans" (basically a tax in all but name now) all into one and have everyone of the same income pay the same tax on all their income - and provide universal education to anyone who wants it.
And the best solution would be UBI (offset against tax for higher earners) and completely abolish most existing benefits forever. 'Means testing' would effectively be built into the taxation system and the simplification would itself result in considerable savings.
I'd do it all through tiered tax rates including negative rates at the bottom end of the income scale. Completely remove pretty much all testing, assessments, moral judgements and stigmas, perverse incentives and unintended consequences.
I suspect it would actually be possible for poorer people to be a bit better off under this sort of system and still have it end up costing less because there is so much administrative wanky fat to be trimmed. There is a genuinely Libertarian case for a 'small, but relatively generous state that can be generous because it's small'.
But given that the number of politicians I've heard advocating for this kind of radical change are vanishingly few in number, I suspect nothing even approaching it will happen in my lifetime.
Why do all these pensioners need state hand outs when they have been working so hard and saving so much their entire lives?
Can't have it both ways. My own grandparents, who worked hard and saved magnificently from working class roots, would have had no time for those who were equally successful but are now grasping to the state for support.
OAP poverty is almost as high as child poverty in the UK. The government would do well to focus support on those people - and is precisely what they have done by boosting uptake of pension credit in lieu of the cut to WFP.
Perhaps the level for Pension Credit should be higher. Perhaps, too, such benefits should not be subject to a simple cut-off, but graduated in some way.
Trouble is, that would require a lot of paper-shifters.
I think there is definitely an argument that the State Pension should be set at a much higher value but tapered away. You'd want to be careful about disincentives though, as you end up with UC.
Disincentives for people on UC are a far more serious problem as they're actually working and can change their hours etc.
That we tax at 70-100% people who are working 16 hours so they don't see any point in working more, but then panic about taxing evenly people who are not working because of the disincentive that might cause, is just utterly insane.
The simplest solution would be to merge NI, Income Tax, "Student Loans" (basically a tax in all but name now) all into one and have everyone of the same income pay the same tax on all their income - and provide universal education to anyone who wants it.
Hmm, it could be a serious problem if it disincentives people from saving for their own pension.
Maybe we should worry more about disincentives that people actually do face, on a daily basis, than theoretical hypothetical disincentives they may face in the future.
"I can't work more than 16 hours because if I do I'll lose my benefits" is a far more real and pressing attitude than "I can't save because I won't get a fuel allowance so what's the point?"
I can be concerned about more than one thing at the same time, though I don't have quite the single-minded energy that you have tbf.
If the government were actually getting rid of cliff edges, I would 100% support that.
Excessively and exclusively worrying about a minor cliff edge that might affect a few people, by a few pounds, who aren't working anyway as a possible edge case? I'll pass on that thanks.
Eh?
I'm talking about a hypothetical dis-incentive to saving into a pension pot should the taper rate on a reformed State Pension be too high.
That could be utterly catastrophic to the public finances as millions of people fail to save and instead depend on this higher payment. It's why introducing such a taper would be a risk.
Why do all these pensioners need state hand outs when they have been working so hard and saving so much their entire lives?
Can't have it both ways. My own grandparents, who worked hard and saved magnificently from working class roots, would have had no time for those who were equally successful but are now grasping to the state for support.
OAP poverty is almost as high as child poverty in the UK. The government would do well to focus support on those people - and is precisely what they have done by boosting uptake of pension credit in lieu of the cut to WFP.
Perhaps the level for Pension Credit should be higher. Perhaps, too, such benefits should not be subject to a simple cut-off, but graduated in some way.
Trouble is, that would require a lot of paper-shifters.
I think there is definitely an argument that the State Pension should be set at a much higher value but tapered away. You'd want to be careful about disincentives though, as you end up with UC.
Disincentives for people on UC are a far more serious problem as they're actually working and can change their hours etc.
That we tax at 70-100% people who are working 16 hours so they don't see any point in working more, but then panic about taxing evenly people who are not working because of the disincentive that might cause, is just utterly insane.
The simplest solution would be to merge NI, Income Tax, "Student Loans" (basically a tax in all but name now) all into one and have everyone of the same income pay the same tax on all their income - and provide universal education to anyone who wants it.
And the best solution would be UBI (offset against tax for higher earners) and completely abolish most existing benefits forever. 'Means testing' would effectively be built into the taxation system and the simplification would itself result in considerable savings.
I'd do it all through tiered tax rates including negative rates at the bottom end of the income scale. Completely remove pretty much all testing, assessments, moral judgements and stigmas, perverse incentives and unintended consequences.
I suspect it would actually be possible for poorer people to be a bit better off under this sort of system and still have it end up costing less because there is so much administrative wanky fat to be trimmed. There is a genuinely Libertarian case for a 'small, but relatively generous state that can be generous because it's small'.
But given that the number of politicians I've heard advocating for this kind of radical change are vanishingly few in number, I suspect nothing even approaching it will happen in my lifetime.
Why do all these pensioners need state hand outs when they have been working so hard and saving so much their entire lives?
Can't have it both ways. My own grandparents, who worked hard and saved magnificently from working class roots, would have had no time for those who were equally successful but are now grasping to the state for support.
OAP poverty is almost as high as child poverty in the UK. The government would do well to focus support on those people - and is precisely what they have done by boosting uptake of pension credit in lieu of the cut to WFP.
Perhaps the level for Pension Credit should be higher. Perhaps, too, such benefits should not be subject to a simple cut-off, but graduated in some way.
Trouble is, that would require a lot of paper-shifters.
I think there is definitely an argument that the State Pension should be set at a much higher value but tapered away. You'd want to be careful about disincentives though, as you end up with UC.
Disincentives for people on UC are a far more serious problem as they're actually working and can change their hours etc.
That we tax at 70-100% people who are working 16 hours so they don't see any point in working more, but then panic about taxing evenly people who are not working because of the disincentive that might cause, is just utterly insane.
The simplest solution would be to merge NI, Income Tax, "Student Loans" (basically a tax in all but name now) all into one and have everyone of the same income pay the same tax on all their income - and provide universal education to anyone who wants it.
Hmm, it could be a serious problem if it disincentives people from saving for their own pension.
Maybe we should worry more about disincentives that people actually do face, on a daily basis, than theoretical hypothetical disincentives they may face in the future.
"I can't work more than 16 hours because if I do I'll lose my benefits" is a far more real and pressing attitude than "I can't save because I won't get a fuel allowance so what's the point?"
I can be concerned about more than one thing at the same time, though I don't have quite the single-minded energy that you have tbf.
If the government were actually getting rid of cliff edges, I would 100% support that.
Excessively and exclusively worrying about a minor cliff edge that might affect a few people, by a few pounds, who aren't working anyway as a possible edge case? I'll pass on that thanks.
Eh?
I'm talking about a hypothetical dis-incentive to saving into a pension pot should the taper rate on a reformed State Pension be too high.
That could be utterly catastrophic to the public finances as millions of people fail to save and instead depend on this higher payment. It's why introducing such a taper would be a risk.
I wouldn't taper pensions, I'd just tax pensioners at the same rate as a young graduate pays their taxes.
Which would have the same net effect as tapering pensions, but would not disincentivise anything more than we already disincentivise work which is a far more pressing concern.
Why do all these pensioners need state hand outs when they have been working so hard and saving so much their entire lives?
Can't have it both ways. My own grandparents, who worked hard and saved magnificently from working class roots, would have had no time for those who were equally successful but are now grasping to the state for support.
OAP poverty is almost as high as child poverty in the UK. The government would do well to focus support on those people - and is precisely what they have done by boosting uptake of pension credit in lieu of the cut to WFP.
Perhaps the level for Pension Credit should be higher. Perhaps, too, such benefits should not be subject to a simple cut-off, but graduated in some way.
Trouble is, that would require a lot of paper-shifters.
I think there is definitely an argument that the State Pension should be set at a much higher value but tapered away. You'd want to be careful about disincentives though, as you end up with UC.
Disincentives for people on UC are a far more serious problem as they're actually working and can change their hours etc.
That we tax at 70-100% people who are working 16 hours so they don't see any point in working more, but then panic about taxing evenly people who are not working because of the disincentive that might cause, is just utterly insane.
The simplest solution would be to merge NI, Income Tax, "Student Loans" (basically a tax in all but name now) all into one and have everyone of the same income pay the same tax on all their income - and provide universal education to anyone who wants it.
Hmm, it could be a serious problem if it disincentives people from saving for their own pension.
Maybe we should worry more about disincentives that people actually do face, on a daily basis, than theoretical hypothetical disincentives they may face in the future.
"I can't work more than 16 hours because if I do I'll lose my benefits" is a far more real and pressing attitude than "I can't save because I won't get a fuel allowance so what's the point?"
I can be concerned about more than one thing at the same time, though I don't have quite the single-minded energy that you have tbf.
If the government were actually getting rid of cliff edges, I would 100% support that.
Excessively and exclusively worrying about a minor cliff edge that might affect a few people, by a few pounds, who aren't working anyway as a possible edge case? I'll pass on that thanks.
Eh?
I'm talking about a hypothetical dis-incentive to saving into a pension pot should the taper rate on a reformed State Pension be too high.
That could be utterly catastrophic to the public finances as millions of people fail to save and instead depend on this higher payment. It's why introducing such a taper would be a risk.
I wouldn't taper pensions, I'd just tax pensioners at the same rate as a young graduate pays their taxes.
Which would have the same net effect as tapering pensions, but would not disincentivise anything more than we already disincentivise work which is a far more pressing concern.
I think you are a graduate...why should I pay the graduate tax when I didn't get to go get your advantages nor did most pensioners
Why do all these pensioners need state hand outs when they have been working so hard and saving so much their entire lives?
Can't have it both ways. My own grandparents, who worked hard and saved magnificently from working class roots, would have had no time for those who were equally successful but are now grasping to the state for support.
OAP poverty is almost as high as child poverty in the UK. The government would do well to focus support on those people - and is precisely what they have done by boosting uptake of pension credit in lieu of the cut to WFP.
Perhaps the level for Pension Credit should be higher. Perhaps, too, such benefits should not be subject to a simple cut-off, but graduated in some way.
Trouble is, that would require a lot of paper-shifters.
I think there is definitely an argument that the State Pension should be set at a much higher value but tapered away. You'd want to be careful about disincentives though, as you end up with UC.
Disincentives for people on UC are a far more serious problem as they're actually working and can change their hours etc.
That we tax at 70-100% people who are working 16 hours so they don't see any point in working more, but then panic about taxing evenly people who are not working because of the disincentive that might cause, is just utterly insane.
The simplest solution would be to merge NI, Income Tax, "Student Loans" (basically a tax in all but name now) all into one and have everyone of the same income pay the same tax on all their income - and provide universal education to anyone who wants it.
And the best solution would be UBI (offset against tax for higher earners) and completely abolish most existing benefits forever. 'Means testing' would effectively be built into the taxation system and the simplification would itself result in considerable savings.
I'd do it all through tiered tax rates including negative rates at the bottom end of the income scale. Completely remove pretty much all testing, assessments, moral judgements and stigmas, perverse incentives and unintended consequences.
I suspect it would actually be possible for poorer people to be a bit better off under this sort of system and still have it end up costing less because there is so much administrative wanky fat to be trimmed. There is a genuinely Libertarian case for a 'small, but relatively generous state that can be generous because it's small'.
But given that the number of politicians I've heard advocating for this kind of radical change are vanishingly few in number, I suspect nothing even approaching it will happen in my lifetime.
What level would you set UBI at?
We already effectively have a UBI given how easy it is to claim benefits of different varieties, the problem is then people get trapped on benefits not seeing any point in working more as they don't want to lose them.
I'd set UBI at a comparable rate to how we offer benefits today, no more, no less. But then tax people consistently and not have a NYC skyline of tax rates.
Kennedy’s decision to suspend his campaign is unlikely to significantly change the nature of the race. Even if all Republicans or independents who supported Kennedy now switch to supporting Trump, Trump would only gain an average of 1 percentage point across swing states, according to our polling.
Why do all these pensioners need state hand outs when they have been working so hard and saving so much their entire lives?
Can't have it both ways. My own grandparents, who worked hard and saved magnificently from working class roots, would have had no time for those who were equally successful but are now grasping to the state for support.
OAP poverty is almost as high as child poverty in the UK. The government would do well to focus support on those people - and is precisely what they have done by boosting uptake of pension credit in lieu of the cut to WFP.
Perhaps the level for Pension Credit should be higher. Perhaps, too, such benefits should not be subject to a simple cut-off, but graduated in some way.
Trouble is, that would require a lot of paper-shifters.
I think there is definitely an argument that the State Pension should be set at a much higher value but tapered away. You'd want to be careful about disincentives though, as you end up with UC.
Disincentives for people on UC are a far more serious problem as they're actually working and can change their hours etc.
That we tax at 70-100% people who are working 16 hours so they don't see any point in working more, but then panic about taxing evenly people who are not working because of the disincentive that might cause, is just utterly insane.
The simplest solution would be to merge NI, Income Tax, "Student Loans" (basically a tax in all but name now) all into one and have everyone of the same income pay the same tax on all their income - and provide universal education to anyone who wants it.
And the best solution would be UBI (offset against tax for higher earners) and completely abolish most existing benefits forever. 'Means testing' would effectively be built into the taxation system and the simplification would itself result in considerable savings.
I'd do it all through tiered tax rates including negative rates at the bottom end of the income scale. Completely remove pretty much all testing, assessments, moral judgements and stigmas, perverse incentives and unintended consequences.
I suspect it would actually be possible for poorer people to be a bit better off under this sort of system and still have it end up costing less because there is so much administrative wanky fat to be trimmed. There is a genuinely Libertarian case for a 'small, but relatively generous state that can be generous because it's small'.
But given that the number of politicians I've heard advocating for this kind of radical change are vanishingly few in number, I suspect nothing even approaching it will happen in my lifetime.
What level would you set UBI at?
We already effectively have a UBI given how easy it is to claim benefits of different varieties, the problem is then people get trapped on benefits not seeing any point in working more as they don't want to lose them.
I'd set UBI at a comparable rate to how we offer benefits today, no more, no less. But then tax people consistently and not have a NYC skyline of tax rates.
Incorrect. We have in effect a Minimum Income Guarantee. Lots of people confuse the two.
Why do all these pensioners need state hand outs when they have been working so hard and saving so much their entire lives?
Can't have it both ways. My own grandparents, who worked hard and saved magnificently from working class roots, would have had no time for those who were equally successful but are now grasping to the state for support.
OAP poverty is almost as high as child poverty in the UK. The government would do well to focus support on those people - and is precisely what they have done by boosting uptake of pension credit in lieu of the cut to WFP.
Perhaps the level for Pension Credit should be higher. Perhaps, too, such benefits should not be subject to a simple cut-off, but graduated in some way.
Trouble is, that would require a lot of paper-shifters.
I think there is definitely an argument that the State Pension should be set at a much higher value but tapered away. You'd want to be careful about disincentives though, as you end up with UC.
Disincentives for people on UC are a far more serious problem as they're actually working and can change their hours etc.
That we tax at 70-100% people who are working 16 hours so they don't see any point in working more, but then panic about taxing evenly people who are not working because of the disincentive that might cause, is just utterly insane.
The simplest solution would be to merge NI, Income Tax, "Student Loans" (basically a tax in all but name now) all into one and have everyone of the same income pay the same tax on all their income - and provide universal education to anyone who wants it.
Hmm, it could be a serious problem if it disincentives people from saving for their own pension.
Maybe we should worry more about disincentives that people actually do face, on a daily basis, than theoretical hypothetical disincentives they may face in the future.
"I can't work more than 16 hours because if I do I'll lose my benefits" is a far more real and pressing attitude than "I can't save because I won't get a fuel allowance so what's the point?"
I can be concerned about more than one thing at the same time, though I don't have quite the single-minded energy that you have tbf.
If the government were actually getting rid of cliff edges, I would 100% support that.
Excessively and exclusively worrying about a minor cliff edge that might affect a few people, by a few pounds, who aren't working anyway as a possible edge case? I'll pass on that thanks.
Eh?
I'm talking about a hypothetical dis-incentive to saving into a pension pot should the taper rate on a reformed State Pension be too high.
That could be utterly catastrophic to the public finances as millions of people fail to save and instead depend on this higher payment. It's why introducing such a taper would be a risk.
I wouldn't taper pensions, I'd just tax pensioners at the same rate as a young graduate pays their taxes.
Which would have the same net effect as tapering pensions, but would not disincentivise anything more than we already disincentivise work which is a far more pressing concern.
I think you are a graduate...why should I pay the graduate tax when I didn't get to go get your advantages nor did most pensioners
I'm a graduate but I graduated in 2003. I've paid my fees back as have many of my generation.
I'd be amongst the most stuffed by what I'm proposing, having both paid for my own education by myself and then being left paying for others. But shit happens and I'm OK with that, I'm putting myself last here and putting the right thing to do first.
Why should we offer education? Because its the right thing to do.
Why do all these pensioners need state hand outs when they have been working so hard and saving so much their entire lives?
Can't have it both ways. My own grandparents, who worked hard and saved magnificently from working class roots, would have had no time for those who were equally successful but are now grasping to the state for support.
OAP poverty is almost as high as child poverty in the UK. The government would do well to focus support on those people - and is precisely what they have done by boosting uptake of pension credit in lieu of the cut to WFP.
Perhaps the level for Pension Credit should be higher. Perhaps, too, such benefits should not be subject to a simple cut-off, but graduated in some way.
Trouble is, that would require a lot of paper-shifters.
I think there is definitely an argument that the State Pension should be set at a much higher value but tapered away. You'd want to be careful about disincentives though, as you end up with UC.
Disincentives for people on UC are a far more serious problem as they're actually working and can change their hours etc.
That we tax at 70-100% people who are working 16 hours so they don't see any point in working more, but then panic about taxing evenly people who are not working because of the disincentive that might cause, is just utterly insane.
The simplest solution would be to merge NI, Income Tax, "Student Loans" (basically a tax in all but name now) all into one and have everyone of the same income pay the same tax on all their income - and provide universal education to anyone who wants it.
And the best solution would be UBI (offset against tax for higher earners) and completely abolish most existing benefits forever. 'Means testing' would effectively be built into the taxation system and the simplification would itself result in considerable savings.
I'd do it all through tiered tax rates including negative rates at the bottom end of the income scale. Completely remove pretty much all testing, assessments, moral judgements and stigmas, perverse incentives and unintended consequences.
I suspect it would actually be possible for poorer people to be a bit better off under this sort of system and still have it end up costing less because there is so much administrative wanky fat to be trimmed. There is a genuinely Libertarian case for a 'small, but relatively generous state that can be generous because it's small'.
But given that the number of politicians I've heard advocating for this kind of radical change are vanishingly few in number, I suspect nothing even approaching it will happen in my lifetime.
What level would you set UBI at?
We already effectively have a UBI given how easy it is to claim benefits of different varieties, the problem is then people get trapped on benefits not seeing any point in working more as they don't want to lose them.
I'd set UBI at a comparable rate to how we offer benefits today, no more, no less. But then tax people consistently and not have a NYC skyline of tax rates.
Incorrect. We have in effect a Minimum Income Guarantee. Lots of people confuse the two.
Yes, hence why I said effectively not actually.
We already have incomes going to people.
The question is simply the best way to do it.
I think the best way to do it is to tax incomes the least possible but consistently across the board, so that people keep more of what they earn across the board. Rather than lightly taxing some while so excessively taxing others that they don't bother working or engage evasion schemes to avoid the cliff edge.
Video allegedly showing the MT Sounion exploding and on fire in the Red Sea. The tanker is carrying 150,000 metric tons of oil. A full release of the cargo would make it one of the worst tanker oil spills in history
Video allegedly showing the MT Sounion exploding and on fire in the Red Sea. The tanker is carrying 150,000 metric tons of oil. A full release of the cargo would make it one of the worst tanker oil spills in history
Why do all these pensioners need state hand outs when they have been working so hard and saving so much their entire lives?
Can't have it both ways. My own grandparents, who worked hard and saved magnificently from working class roots, would have had no time for those who were equally successful but are now grasping to the state for support.
OAP poverty is almost as high as child poverty in the UK. The government would do well to focus support on those people - and is precisely what they have done by boosting uptake of pension credit in lieu of the cut to WFP.
Perhaps the level for Pension Credit should be higher. Perhaps, too, such benefits should not be subject to a simple cut-off, but graduated in some way.
Trouble is, that would require a lot of paper-shifters.
I think there is definitely an argument that the State Pension should be set at a much higher value but tapered away. You'd want to be careful about disincentives though, as you end up with UC.
Disincentives for people on UC are a far more serious problem as they're actually working and can change their hours etc.
That we tax at 70-100% people who are working 16 hours so they don't see any point in working more, but then panic about taxing evenly people who are not working because of the disincentive that might cause, is just utterly insane.
The simplest solution would be to merge NI, Income Tax, "Student Loans" (basically a tax in all but name now) all into one and have everyone of the same income pay the same tax on all their income - and provide universal education to anyone who wants it.
And the best solution would be UBI (offset against tax for higher earners) and completely abolish most existing benefits forever. 'Means testing' would effectively be built into the taxation system and the simplification would itself result in considerable savings.
I'd do it all through tiered tax rates including negative rates at the bottom end of the income scale. Completely remove pretty much all testing, assessments, moral judgements and stigmas, perverse incentives and unintended consequences.
I suspect it would actually be possible for poorer people to be a bit better off under this sort of system and still have it end up costing less because there is so much administrative wanky fat to be trimmed. There is a genuinely Libertarian case for a 'small, but relatively generous state that can be generous because it's small'.
But given that the number of politicians I've heard advocating for this kind of radical change are vanishingly few in number, I suspect nothing even approaching it will happen in my lifetime.
What level would you set UBI at?
We already effectively have a UBI given how easy it is to claim benefits of different varieties, the problem is then people get trapped on benefits not seeing any point in working more as they don't want to lose them.
I'd set UBI at a comparable rate to how we offer benefits today, no more, no less. But then tax people consistently and not have a NYC skyline of tax rates.
Incorrect. We have in effect a Minimum Income Guarantee. Lots of people confuse the two.
Yes, hence why I said effectively not actually.
We already have incomes going to people.
The question is simply the best way to do it.
I think the best way to do it is to tax incomes the least possible but consistently across the board, so that people keep more of what they earn across the board. Rather than lightly taxing some while so excessively taxing others that they don't bother working or engage evasion schemes to avoid the cliff edge.
No, you're still confusing them. We do not have anything that resembles a UBI at the moment.
Video allegedly showing the MT Sounion exploding and on fire in the Red Sea. The tanker is carrying 150,000 metric tons of oil. A full release of the cargo would make it one of the worst tanker oil spills in history
A Greek ship attacked by Houthis, not a Russian ship attacked by Ukraine, so bad news this one.
Why do all these pensioners need state hand outs when they have been working so hard and saving so much their entire lives?
Can't have it both ways. My own grandparents, who worked hard and saved magnificently from working class roots, would have had no time for those who were equally successful but are now grasping to the state for support.
OAP poverty is almost as high as child poverty in the UK. The government would do well to focus support on those people - and is precisely what they have done by boosting uptake of pension credit in lieu of the cut to WFP.
Perhaps the level for Pension Credit should be higher. Perhaps, too, such benefits should not be subject to a simple cut-off, but graduated in some way.
Trouble is, that would require a lot of paper-shifters.
I think there is definitely an argument that the State Pension should be set at a much higher value but tapered away. You'd want to be careful about disincentives though, as you end up with UC.
Disincentives for people on UC are a far more serious problem as they're actually working and can change their hours etc.
That we tax at 70-100% people who are working 16 hours so they don't see any point in working more, but then panic about taxing evenly people who are not working because of the disincentive that might cause, is just utterly insane.
The simplest solution would be to merge NI, Income Tax, "Student Loans" (basically a tax in all but name now) all into one and have everyone of the same income pay the same tax on all their income - and provide universal education to anyone who wants it.
And the best solution would be UBI (offset against tax for higher earners) and completely abolish most existing benefits forever. 'Means testing' would effectively be built into the taxation system and the simplification would itself result in considerable savings.
I'd do it all through tiered tax rates including negative rates at the bottom end of the income scale. Completely remove pretty much all testing, assessments, moral judgements and stigmas, perverse incentives and unintended consequences.
I suspect it would actually be possible for poorer people to be a bit better off under this sort of system and still have it end up costing less because there is so much administrative wanky fat to be trimmed. There is a genuinely Libertarian case for a 'small, but relatively generous state that can be generous because it's small'.
But given that the number of politicians I've heard advocating for this kind of radical change are vanishingly few in number, I suspect nothing even approaching it will happen in my lifetime.
What level would you set UBI at?
We already effectively have a UBI given how easy it is to claim benefits of different varieties, the problem is then people get trapped on benefits not seeing any point in working more as they don't want to lose them.
I'd set UBI at a comparable rate to how we offer benefits today, no more, no less. But then tax people consistently and not have a NYC skyline of tax rates.
Incorrect. We have in effect a Minimum Income Guarantee. Lots of people confuse the two.
Yes, hence why I said effectively not actually.
We already have incomes going to people.
The question is simply the best way to do it.
I think the best way to do it is to tax incomes the least possible but consistently across the board, so that people keep more of what they earn across the board. Rather than lightly taxing some while so excessively taxing others that they don't bother working or engage evasion schemes to avoid the cliff edge.
No, you're still confusing them. We do not have anything that resembles a UBI at the moment.
It does not resemble a UBI I agree because of the flaws I mentioned, I'm not confused.
Which is why I would switch it to a UBI which would be a far superior system.
But Pagan is asking how much to cost/set it at - well we already have comparable figures, that would be my starting point as we transition into a UBI would be my viewpoint.
Video allegedly showing the MT Sounion exploding and on fire in the Red Sea. The tanker is carrying 150,000 metric tons of oil. A full release of the cargo would make it one of the worst tanker oil spills in history
Not sure why, but I get an immediate fake vibe off that.
Why do all these pensioners need state hand outs when they have been working so hard and saving so much their entire lives?
Can't have it both ways. My own grandparents, who worked hard and saved magnificently from working class roots, would have had no time for those who were equally successful but are now grasping to the state for support.
OAP poverty is almost as high as child poverty in the UK. The government would do well to focus support on those people - and is precisely what they have done by boosting uptake of pension credit in lieu of the cut to WFP.
Perhaps the level for Pension Credit should be higher. Perhaps, too, such benefits should not be subject to a simple cut-off, but graduated in some way.
Trouble is, that would require a lot of paper-shifters.
I think there is definitely an argument that the State Pension should be set at a much higher value but tapered away. You'd want to be careful about disincentives though, as you end up with UC.
Disincentives for people on UC are a far more serious problem as they're actually working and can change their hours etc.
That we tax at 70-100% people who are working 16 hours so they don't see any point in working more, but then panic about taxing evenly people who are not working because of the disincentive that might cause, is just utterly insane.
The simplest solution would be to merge NI, Income Tax, "Student Loans" (basically a tax in all but name now) all into one and have everyone of the same income pay the same tax on all their income - and provide universal education to anyone who wants it.
Hmm, it could be a serious problem if it disincentives people from saving for their own pension.
Maybe we should worry more about disincentives that people actually do face, on a daily basis, than theoretical hypothetical disincentives they may face in the future.
"I can't work more than 16 hours because if I do I'll lose my benefits" is a far more real and pressing attitude than "I can't save because I won't get a fuel allowance so what's the point?"
I can be concerned about more than one thing at the same time, though I don't have quite the single-minded energy that you have tbf.
If the government were actually getting rid of cliff edges, I would 100% support that.
Excessively and exclusively worrying about a minor cliff edge that might affect a few people, by a few pounds, who aren't working anyway as a possible edge case? I'll pass on that thanks.
Eh?
I'm talking about a hypothetical dis-incentive to saving into a pension pot should the taper rate on a reformed State Pension be too high.
That could be utterly catastrophic to the public finances as millions of people fail to save and instead depend on this higher payment. It's why introducing such a taper would be a risk.
I wouldn't taper pensions, I'd just tax pensioners at the same rate as a young graduate pays their taxes.
Which would have the same net effect as tapering pensions, but would not disincentivise anything more than we already disincentivise work which is a far more pressing concern.
I think you are a graduate...why should I pay the graduate tax when I didn't get to go get your advantages nor did most pensioners
Because it’s a public good. I’m happy to pay for many things that I will never use myself (maternity hospitals) because it’s for the good of the country (which ultimately benefits me).
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4842868-trump-harris-biden-texas-poll-2024/ Former President Trump holds a slight lead over Vice President Harris in Texas, according to a poll published Thursday. The survey from the University of Houston and Texas Southern University, found Trump with support from 49.5 percent of likely voters in Texas, holding a lead of less than 5 points over Harris’s 44.6 percent. Independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. had 2 percent of likely voters, while the Green Party’s Jill Stein had 0.7 percent and Libertarian Chase Oliver had 0.5 percent, according to the poll. About 2.7 percent were undecided. The latest findings for the Lone Star State showed a slight increase — 0.6 percentage points — in support for Trump, who received 48.9 percent in June. But Harris’s support also jumped 4.3 percentage points from where President Biden was polling in June, when he was the Democratic presidential candidate in June; the incumbent had 40.3 percent support at the time, pollsters found. Kennedy’s vote was 2.7 percentage points lower than in June...
Probably not quite close enough to be a realistic pickup possibility. But interesting to watch if there’s a Texas poll next week.
Cruz’s challenger for the Senate seat is within about 2% of his vote, with 6.5% of those polled undecided.
Why do all these pensioners need state hand outs when they have been working so hard and saving so much their entire lives?
Can't have it both ways. My own grandparents, who worked hard and saved magnificently from working class roots, would have had no time for those who were equally successful but are now grasping to the state for support.
OAP poverty is almost as high as child poverty in the UK. The government would do well to focus support on those people - and is precisely what they have done by boosting uptake of pension credit in lieu of the cut to WFP.
Perhaps the level for Pension Credit should be higher. Perhaps, too, such benefits should not be subject to a simple cut-off, but graduated in some way.
Trouble is, that would require a lot of paper-shifters.
I think there is definitely an argument that the State Pension should be set at a much higher value but tapered away. You'd want to be careful about disincentives though, as you end up with UC.
Disincentives for people on UC are a far more serious problem as they're actually working and can change their hours etc.
That we tax at 70-100% people who are working 16 hours so they don't see any point in working more, but then panic about taxing evenly people who are not working because of the disincentive that might cause, is just utterly insane.
The simplest solution would be to merge NI, Income Tax, "Student Loans" (basically a tax in all but name now) all into one and have everyone of the same income pay the same tax on all their income - and provide universal education to anyone who wants it.
And the best solution would be UBI (offset against tax for higher earners) and completely abolish most existing benefits forever. 'Means testing' would effectively be built into the taxation system and the simplification would itself result in considerable savings.
I'd do it all through tiered tax rates including negative rates at the bottom end of the income scale. Completely remove pretty much all testing, assessments, moral judgements and stigmas, perverse incentives and unintended consequences.
I suspect it would actually be possible for poorer people to be a bit better off under this sort of system and still have it end up costing less because there is so much administrative wanky fat to be trimmed. There is a genuinely Libertarian case for a 'small, but relatively generous state that can be generous because it's small'.
But given that the number of politicians I've heard advocating for this kind of radical change are vanishingly few in number, I suspect nothing even approaching it will happen in my lifetime.
What level would you set UBI at?
We already effectively have a UBI given how easy it is to claim benefits of different varieties, the problem is then people get trapped on benefits not seeing any point in working more as they don't want to lose them.
I'd set UBI at a comparable rate to how we offer benefits today, no more, no less. But then tax people consistently and not have a NYC skyline of tax rates.
Incorrect. We have in effect a Minimum Income Guarantee. Lots of people confuse the two.
Yes, hence why I said effectively not actually.
We already have incomes going to people.
The question is simply the best way to do it.
I think the best way to do it is to tax incomes the least possible but consistently across the board, so that people keep more of what they earn across the board. Rather than lightly taxing some while so excessively taxing others that they don't bother working or engage evasion schemes to avoid the cliff edge.
No, you're still confusing them. We do not have anything that resembles a UBI at the moment.
It does not resemble a UBI I agree because of the flaws I mentioned, I'm not confused.
Which is why I would switch it to a UBI which would be a far superior system.
But Pagan is asking how much to cost/set it at - well we already have comparable figures, that would be my starting point as we transition into a UBI would be my viewpoint.
You need a figure as a starting point tbh for discussing UBI, I am not necessarily opposed. But a lot of proponents of UBI posit a saving of an end to all benefits as funding it. I think to do that UBI would need to be higher than may think
If starmer can't face down pensioners, then young skilled private sector workers in this country are just going to get more and more hacked off about carrying the tax burden, just as they were under the last government. Other more dynamic economies, less burdened by debt and by unsustainable political promises, will welcome them with open arms.
Private sector workers are already hacked off at outrageous public sector pension contributions that get paid and we are funding. I am fed up of friends that work in the public sector explaining to me that there pension isn't gold plated as the will only get 15K a year index linked when I will be lucky to get 5 to 6k a year non index linked. Despite the fact I am paying more out of my pay in pounds than they are.
Have you thought about switching to the public sector? Free market and all that.
Why do all these pensioners need state hand outs when they have been working so hard and saving so much their entire lives?
Can't have it both ways. My own grandparents, who worked hard and saved magnificently from working class roots, would have had no time for those who were equally successful but are now grasping to the state for support.
OAP poverty is almost as high as child poverty in the UK. The government would do well to focus support on those people - and is precisely what they have done by boosting uptake of pension credit in lieu of the cut to WFP.
Perhaps the level for Pension Credit should be higher. Perhaps, too, such benefits should not be subject to a simple cut-off, but graduated in some way.
Trouble is, that would require a lot of paper-shifters.
I think there is definitely an argument that the State Pension should be set at a much higher value but tapered away. You'd want to be careful about disincentives though, as you end up with UC.
Disincentives for people on UC are a far more serious problem as they're actually working and can change their hours etc.
That we tax at 70-100% people who are working 16 hours so they don't see any point in working more, but then panic about taxing evenly people who are not working because of the disincentive that might cause, is just utterly insane.
The simplest solution would be to merge NI, Income Tax, "Student Loans" (basically a tax in all but name now) all into one and have everyone of the same income pay the same tax on all their income - and provide universal education to anyone who wants it.
And the best solution would be UBI (offset against tax for higher earners) and completely abolish most existing benefits forever. 'Means testing' would effectively be built into the taxation system and the simplification would itself result in considerable savings.
I'd do it all through tiered tax rates including negative rates at the bottom end of the income scale. Completely remove pretty much all testing, assessments, moral judgements and stigmas, perverse incentives and unintended consequences.
I suspect it would actually be possible for poorer people to be a bit better off under this sort of system and still have it end up costing less because there is so much administrative wanky fat to be trimmed. There is a genuinely Libertarian case for a 'small, but relatively generous state that can be generous because it's small'.
But given that the number of politicians I've heard advocating for this kind of radical change are vanishingly few in number, I suspect nothing even approaching it will happen in my lifetime.
What level would you set UBI at?
We already effectively have a UBI given how easy it is to claim benefits of different varieties, the problem is then people get trapped on benefits not seeing any point in working more as they don't want to lose them.
I'd set UBI at a comparable rate to how we offer benefits today, no more, no less. But then tax people consistently and not have a NYC skyline of tax rates.
Incorrect. We have in effect a Minimum Income Guarantee. Lots of people confuse the two.
Yes, hence why I said effectively not actually.
We already have incomes going to people.
The question is simply the best way to do it.
I think the best way to do it is to tax incomes the least possible but consistently across the board, so that people keep more of what they earn across the board. Rather than lightly taxing some while so excessively taxing others that they don't bother working or engage evasion schemes to avoid the cliff edge.
No, you're still confusing them. We do not have anything that resembles a UBI at the moment.
It does not resemble a UBI I agree because of the flaws I mentioned, I'm not confused.
Which is why I would switch it to a UBI which would be a far superior system.
But Pagan is asking how much to cost/set it at - well we already have comparable figures, that would be my starting point as we transition into a UBI would be my viewpoint.
Right, so it's not in effect a UBI.
And the point about UBI is that it's universal, so your idea of basing it on the current suite of benefit eligibilities and payments... would be the precise opposite.
One option would be to use the lowest UC Standard Allowance of £312 per month for all UK residents, at a cost of £250 billion a year.
Why do all these pensioners need state hand outs when they have been working so hard and saving so much their entire lives?
Can't have it both ways. My own grandparents, who worked hard and saved magnificently from working class roots, would have had no time for those who were equally successful but are now grasping to the state for support.
OAP poverty is almost as high as child poverty in the UK. The government would do well to focus support on those people - and is precisely what they have done by boosting uptake of pension credit in lieu of the cut to WFP.
Perhaps the level for Pension Credit should be higher. Perhaps, too, such benefits should not be subject to a simple cut-off, but graduated in some way.
Trouble is, that would require a lot of paper-shifters.
I think there is definitely an argument that the State Pension should be set at a much higher value but tapered away. You'd want to be careful about disincentives though, as you end up with UC.
Disincentives for people on UC are a far more serious problem as they're actually working and can change their hours etc.
That we tax at 70-100% people who are working 16 hours so they don't see any point in working more, but then panic about taxing evenly people who are not working because of the disincentive that might cause, is just utterly insane.
The simplest solution would be to merge NI, Income Tax, "Student Loans" (basically a tax in all but name now) all into one and have everyone of the same income pay the same tax on all their income - and provide universal education to anyone who wants it.
And the best solution would be UBI (offset against tax for higher earners) and completely abolish most existing benefits forever. 'Means testing' would effectively be built into the taxation system and the simplification would itself result in considerable savings.
I'd do it all through tiered tax rates including negative rates at the bottom end of the income scale. Completely remove pretty much all testing, assessments, moral judgements and stigmas, perverse incentives and unintended consequences.
I suspect it would actually be possible for poorer people to be a bit better off under this sort of system and still have it end up costing less because there is so much administrative wanky fat to be trimmed. There is a genuinely Libertarian case for a 'small, but relatively generous state that can be generous because it's small'.
But given that the number of politicians I've heard advocating for this kind of radical change are vanishingly few in number, I suspect nothing even approaching it will happen in my lifetime.
What level would you set UBI at?
We already effectively have a UBI given how easy it is to claim benefits of different varieties, the problem is then people get trapped on benefits not seeing any point in working more as they don't want to lose them.
I'd set UBI at a comparable rate to how we offer benefits today, no more, no less. But then tax people consistently and not have a NYC skyline of tax rates.
Incorrect. We have in effect a Minimum Income Guarantee. Lots of people confuse the two.
Yes, hence why I said effectively not actually.
We already have incomes going to people.
The question is simply the best way to do it.
I think the best way to do it is to tax incomes the least possible but consistently across the board, so that people keep more of what they earn across the board. Rather than lightly taxing some while so excessively taxing others that they don't bother working or engage evasion schemes to avoid the cliff edge.
No, you're still confusing them. We do not have anything that resembles a UBI at the moment.
It does not resemble a UBI I agree because of the flaws I mentioned, I'm not confused.
Which is why I would switch it to a UBI which would be a far superior system.
But Pagan is asking how much to cost/set it at - well we already have comparable figures, that would be my starting point as we transition into a UBI would be my viewpoint.
You need a figure as a starting point tbh for discussing UBI, I am not necessarily opposed. But a lot of proponents of UBI posit a saving of an end to all benefits as funding it. I think to do that UBI would need to be higher than may think
Yes absolutely the entire point is to abolish all means tested benefits.
So I would start to do so as a starting point by adding together all existing means tested benefits, making them universal, then setting a tax rate so that the cost is netted out as neutral.
If starmer can't face down pensioners, then young skilled private sector workers in this country are just going to get more and more hacked off about carrying the tax burden, just as they were under the last government. Other more dynamic economies, less burdened by debt and by unsustainable political promises, will welcome them with open arms.
Private sector workers are already hacked off at outrageous public sector pension contributions that get paid and we are funding. I am fed up of friends that work in the public sector explaining to me that there pension isn't gold plated as the will only get 15K a year index linked when I will be lucky to get 5 to 6k a year non index linked. Despite the fact I am paying more out of my pay in pounds than they are.
Have you thought about switching to the public sector? Free market and all that.
Naebody ever does. That's why we can't fill posts. Despite it being a piece of piss.
In an honest system, the entire Kennedy family would have been locked up.
Hardly, apart from maybe Ted Kennedy after he killed a woman in a car crash and fled the scene of the crime and of course apart from RFK Jr the rest of the Kennedy family back Harris
In an honest system, the entire Kennedy family would have been locked up.
Hardly, apart from maybe Ted Kennedy after he killed a woman in a car crash and fled the scene of the crime and of course apart from RFK Jr the rest of the Kennedy family back Harris
In an honest system, the entire Kennedy family would have been locked up.
Hardly, apart from maybe Ted Kennedy after he killed a woman in a car crash and fled the scene of the crime and of course apart from RFK Jr the rest of the Kennedy family back Harris
There is no doubt RFK would have run against and likely beaten Trump as he probably would have beaten Nixon in 1968 had he lived and won the Democratic nomination. As his brother of course beat Nixon narrowly in 1960
If starmer can't face down pensioners, then young skilled private sector workers in this country are just going to get more and more hacked off about carrying the tax burden, just as they were under the last government. Other more dynamic economies, less burdened by debt and by unsustainable political promises, will welcome them with open arms.
Private sector workers are already hacked off at outrageous public sector pension contributions that get paid and we are funding. I am fed up of friends that work in the public sector explaining to me that there pension isn't gold plated as the will only get 15K a year index linked when I will be lucky to get 5 to 6k a year non index linked. Despite the fact I am paying more out of my pay in pounds than they are.
Have you thought about switching to the public sector? Free market and all that.
Naebody ever does. That's why we can't fill posts. Despite it being a piece of piss.
One of the issues around University lecturers strikes was degrading the pension. Mist academics could earn significantly more out of academia but the pension makes up for lower salaries. Take that away and the world outside of Uni becomes more attractive. But yes, if you work in the private sector and are so outraged by public sector pay and/or pensions etc, why not become a public sector worker?
In an honest system, the entire Kennedy family would have been locked up.
Hardly, apart from maybe Ted Kennedy after he killed a woman in a car crash and fled the scene of the crime and of course apart from RFK Jr the rest of the Kennedy family back Harris
There is no doubt RFK would have run against and likely beaten Trump as he probably would have beaten Nixon in 1968 had he lived and won the Democratic nomination. As his brother of course beat Nixon narrowly in 1960
One the great counterfactuals of usa history is RFK not being shot.
I think he would have been one of all time great presidents.
Why do all these pensioners need state hand outs when they have been working so hard and saving so much their entire lives?
Can't have it both ways. My own grandparents, who worked hard and saved magnificently from working class roots, would have had no time for those who were equally successful but are now grasping to the state for support.
OAP poverty is almost as high as child poverty in the UK. The government would do well to focus support on those people - and is precisely what they have done by boosting uptake of pension credit in lieu of the cut to WFP.
Perhaps the level for Pension Credit should be higher. Perhaps, too, such benefits should not be subject to a simple cut-off, but graduated in some way.
Trouble is, that would require a lot of paper-shifters.
I think there is definitely an argument that the State Pension should be set at a much higher value but tapered away. You'd want to be careful about disincentives though, as you end up with UC.
Disincentives for people on UC are a far more serious problem as they're actually working and can change their hours etc.
That we tax at 70-100% people who are working 16 hours so they don't see any point in working more, but then panic about taxing evenly people who are not working because of the disincentive that might cause, is just utterly insane.
The simplest solution would be to merge NI, Income Tax, "Student Loans" (basically a tax in all but name now) all into one and have everyone of the same income pay the same tax on all their income - and provide universal education to anyone who wants it.
And the best solution would be UBI (offset against tax for higher earners) and completely abolish most existing benefits forever. 'Means testing' would effectively be built into the taxation system and the simplification would itself result in considerable savings.
I'd do it all through tiered tax rates including negative rates at the bottom end of the income scale. Completely remove pretty much all testing, assessments, moral judgements and stigmas, perverse incentives and unintended consequences.
I suspect it would actually be possible for poorer people to be a bit better off under this sort of system and still have it end up costing less because there is so much administrative wanky fat to be trimmed. There is a genuinely Libertarian case for a 'small, but relatively generous state that can be generous because it's small'.
But given that the number of politicians I've heard advocating for this kind of radical change are vanishingly few in number, I suspect nothing even approaching it will happen in my lifetime.
What level would you set UBI at?
We already effectively have a UBI given how easy it is to claim benefits of different varieties, the problem is then people get trapped on benefits not seeing any point in working more as they don't want to lose them.
I'd set UBI at a comparable rate to how we offer benefits today, no more, no less. But then tax people consistently and not have a NYC skyline of tax rates.
Incorrect. We have in effect a Minimum Income Guarantee. Lots of people confuse the two.
Yes, hence why I said effectively not actually.
We already have incomes going to people.
The question is simply the best way to do it.
I think the best way to do it is to tax incomes the least possible but consistently across the board, so that people keep more of what they earn across the board. Rather than lightly taxing some while so excessively taxing others that they don't bother working or engage evasion schemes to avoid the cliff edge.
No, you're still confusing them. We do not have anything that resembles a UBI at the moment.
It does not resemble a UBI I agree because of the flaws I mentioned, I'm not confused.
Which is why I would switch it to a UBI which would be a far superior system.
But Pagan is asking how much to cost/set it at - well we already have comparable figures, that would be my starting point as we transition into a UBI would be my viewpoint.
Right, so it's not in effect a UBI.
And the point about UBI is that it's universal, so your idea of basing it on the current suite of benefit eligibilities and payments... would be the precise opposite.
One option would be to use the lowest UC Standard Allowance of £312 per month for all UK residents, at a cost of £250 billion a year.
I don't like UBI at all. Let's take four people as an example:
1) An 18 year old who doesn't have the willpower to get a job and/or enter further education 2) A 30-year old single parent of two pre-school children who's partner left the country and is in rental accomodation 3) A 55 year-old who has quit hit their job in the hope of living on relatively modest but adequate savings through to early retirement - the UBI makes all the difference 4) A 90-year old who has depleted their savings and lives in rental accomodation, but is in otherwise good health.
I want a benefit system to act as a safety net for people like those in scenarios 2 and 4, not as an excuse for people to not to bother working like in scenarios 1 and 3.
And the point about UBI is that it's universal, so your idea of basing it on the current suite of benefit eligibilities and payments... would be the precise opposite.
One option would be to use the lowest UC Standard Allowance of £312 per month for all UK residents, at a cost of £250 billion a year.
Indeed. A lot of people don't seem to get the point about Universality. If it exists alongside a whole load of other complicated benefits the very point of UBI is nullified.
It's why I'm very sceptical about studies in Scandinavia and bits of the US and various other places where a small group are put into an isolated 'UBI' experiment and everybody else continues as normal.
You're not going to find out if it's workable or not from that. It won't tell you anything about how effectively a streamlined overall system would work. At best, you'll get anecdata from the individuals in receipt of the UBI about how much they're enjoying it or not. But even that won't be particularly indicative because in the real world the Universality would mean that any comparisons with others to ascertain relative wealth or poverty would be completely different.
Why do all these pensioners need state hand outs when they have been working so hard and saving so much their entire lives?
Can't have it both ways. My own grandparents, who worked hard and saved magnificently from working class roots, would have had no time for those who were equally successful but are now grasping to the state for support.
OAP poverty is almost as high as child poverty in the UK. The government would do well to focus support on those people - and is precisely what they have done by boosting uptake of pension credit in lieu of the cut to WFP.
Perhaps the level for Pension Credit should be higher. Perhaps, too, such benefits should not be subject to a simple cut-off, but graduated in some way.
Trouble is, that would require a lot of paper-shifters.
I think there is definitely an argument that the State Pension should be set at a much higher value but tapered away. You'd want to be careful about disincentives though, as you end up with UC.
Disincentives for people on UC are a far more serious problem as they're actually working and can change their hours etc.
That we tax at 70-100% people who are working 16 hours so they don't see any point in working more, but then panic about taxing evenly people who are not working because of the disincentive that might cause, is just utterly insane.
The simplest solution would be to merge NI, Income Tax, "Student Loans" (basically a tax in all but name now) all into one and have everyone of the same income pay the same tax on all their income - and provide universal education to anyone who wants it.
And the best solution would be UBI (offset against tax for higher earners) and completely abolish most existing benefits forever. 'Means testing' would effectively be built into the taxation system and the simplification would itself result in considerable savings.
I'd do it all through tiered tax rates including negative rates at the bottom end of the income scale. Completely remove pretty much all testing, assessments, moral judgements and stigmas, perverse incentives and unintended consequences.
I suspect it would actually be possible for poorer people to be a bit better off under this sort of system and still have it end up costing less because there is so much administrative wanky fat to be trimmed. There is a genuinely Libertarian case for a 'small, but relatively generous state that can be generous because it's small'.
But given that the number of politicians I've heard advocating for this kind of radical change are vanishingly few in number, I suspect nothing even approaching it will happen in my lifetime.
What level would you set UBI at?
We already effectively have a UBI given how easy it is to claim benefits of different varieties, the problem is then people get trapped on benefits not seeing any point in working more as they don't want to lose them.
I'd set UBI at a comparable rate to how we offer benefits today, no more, no less. But then tax people consistently and not have a NYC skyline of tax rates.
Incorrect. We have in effect a Minimum Income Guarantee. Lots of people confuse the two.
Yes, hence why I said effectively not actually.
We already have incomes going to people.
The question is simply the best way to do it.
I think the best way to do it is to tax incomes the least possible but consistently across the board, so that people keep more of what they earn across the board. Rather than lightly taxing some while so excessively taxing others that they don't bother working or engage evasion schemes to avoid the cliff edge.
No, you're still confusing them. We do not have anything that resembles a UBI at the moment.
It does not resemble a UBI I agree because of the flaws I mentioned, I'm not confused.
Which is why I would switch it to a UBI which would be a far superior system.
But Pagan is asking how much to cost/set it at - well we already have comparable figures, that would be my starting point as we transition into a UBI would be my viewpoint.
Right, so it's not in effect a UBI.
And the point about UBI is that it's universal, so your idea of basing it on the current suite of benefit eligibilities and payments... would be the precise opposite.
One option would be to use the lowest UC Standard Allowance of £312 per month for all UK residents, at a cost of £250 billion a year.
I don't like UBI at all. Let's take four people as an example:
1) An 18 year old who doesn't have the willpower to get a job and/or enter further education 2) A 30-year old single parent of two pre-school children who's partner left the country and is in rental accomodation 3) A 55 year-old who has quit hit their job in the hope of living on relatively modest but adequate savings through to early retirement - the UBI makes all the difference 4) A 90-year old who has depleted their savings and lives in rental accomodation, but is in otherwise good health.
I want a benefit system to act as a safety net for people like those in scenarios 2 and 4, not as an excuse for people to not to bother working like in scenarios 1 and 3.
I thought the basic UBI was that it would be enough to live on, but a pretty shit life. So your lazy 18 year old would need to work to buy a better phone, or have a car etc.
If starmer can't face down pensioners, then young skilled private sector workers in this country are just going to get more and more hacked off about carrying the tax burden, just as they were under the last government. Other more dynamic economies, less burdened by debt and by unsustainable political promises, will welcome them with open arms.
Private sector workers are already hacked off at outrageous public sector pension contributions that get paid and we are funding. I am fed up of friends that work in the public sector explaining to me that there pension isn't gold plated as the will only get 15K a year index linked when I will be lucky to get 5 to 6k a year non index linked. Despite the fact I am paying more out of my pay in pounds than they are.
Have you thought about switching to the public sector? Free market and all that.
I've tried that - and failed - a few times. Despite a fairly decent CV that includes 20+ years of working fairly extensively *with* the public sector at a senior level and a solid track record in doing so.
(Purely out of self-interest - the idea of a cushy life on the gravy train appeals to me, especially at times of ill health which are becoming more frequent)
I do wonder if they deliberately don't want to employ people who are sceptical of their necessity, size and general effectiveness, and it's no secret that I consider the very existence of the state a necessary evil *at best* and am unlikely to start suddenly lying about that.
In an honest system, the entire Kennedy family would have been locked up.
Hardly, apart from maybe Ted Kennedy after he killed a woman in a car crash and fled the scene of the crime and of course apart from RFK Jr the rest of the Kennedy family back Harris
There is no doubt RFK would have run against and likely beaten Trump as he probably would have beaten Nixon in 1968 had he lived and won the Democratic nomination. As his brother of course beat Nixon narrowly in 1960
Andre Dutra is a YouTuber fast developing a niche in Presidential things. He did RFK this week. His video is below
The Loser is not a conservative. A conservative would not want Putin and Kim for best friends. (Bernie Sanders might, or at least as friends. As you may know, he honeymooned in the old Soviet Union.)
A conservative would not propose a budget that had reckless tax cuts and spending. (Trump was warned about deficits, and what they would do -- but cynically replied that he would be out of office by then.)
Since Ronald Reagan, conservatives have been in favor of free trade. Reagan proposed NAFTA, GHWB negotiated it, and, to his credit, Clinton got it ratified. GWB negotiated freer trade agreements with countries with friendly govenrments, notably Colombia. (Incidentally, Biden has kept many of Trump's trade policies.)
Conservatives honor those who served in our military, instead of calling them "losers".
It's seriously brave of Labour going for WFP. I predicted this kind of reaction after the experience of Sunak's NICs cut - older voters are exceptionally sensitive to any policy change that does not directly benefit them. When you actually cut one of their benefits...
Comments
Can't have it both ways. My own grandparents, who worked hard and saved magnificently from working class roots, would have had no time for those who were equally successful but are now grasping to the state for support.
OAP poverty is almost as high as child poverty in the UK. The government would do well to focus support on those people - and is precisely what they have done by boosting uptake of pension credit in lieu of the cut to WFP.
They missed a trick here: "Make Fishing Great Again" should have been "Make Angling Great Again" and hey MAGA!
Most people are going to work for their income though - and then have to pay rent or a mortgage out of it.
Not live rent-free, mortgage-free without having to go to work and then still expecting more unearned freebies too, just because.
That a line should be drawn is not a difficult question to answer.
Yes, this is the right thing to do.
Stop bellyaching is the only message that should go to any entitled people who are upset.
I am fortunate not to need the WFA but there are a large number of pensioners who do and a way needs to be found to help those on the margin of this decision
And that's before you chuck in the difference between individual and household pension income, state pension, WFP, CWP, PC, WHD, CTR, DLA, PIP, CA, housing wealth, investments... I'm getting flashbacks.
and there's that stupid Christmas bonus! £10 every year. WTF.
Providing welfare to those who most need it is one thing. Bunging people who absolutely do not is preposterous.
The exception would be if it were genuinely universal, universal meaning going to everyone not everyone of a certain age - then having universality is a good way to avoid the poverty trap. But its not even universal, its just a pointless waste of money on people that don't need it, taxing people who don't get it to fund it.
Trouble is, that would require a lot of paper-shifters.
That we tax at 70-100% people who are working 16 hours so they don't see any point in working more, but then panic about taxing evenly people who are not working because of the disincentive that might cause, is just utterly insane.
The simplest solution would be to merge NI, Income Tax, "Student Loans" (basically a tax in all but name now) all into one and have everyone of the same income pay the same tax on all their income - and provide universal education to anyone who wants it.
But the average pensioner has no rent or mortgage to pay, doesn't pay NI or student loan repayments, and has a higher post-tax, post-housing income than the average person of working age.
I find the whole 'war between the generations' thing incredibly depressing. Today's retirees have done perfectly well for themselves - and for society at large. They should be rewarded for that, and should expect to be looked after.
But the Winter Fuel Payment was (at least!) ten times more than the Cold Weather Payment that people on other types of benefit get. I know, I'm a stuck record, it's really boring - but ten times more - ten times more! How can that possibly have happened?
I suspect mainly because they wont miss wfa but my suggestion would cost them a lot more
And, I agree.
The V22 isn’t the safest of aircraft.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Boeing_V-22_Osprey#Accidents
.@VP Kamala Harris and @SecondGentleman Doug Emhoff board an Osprey at Chicago’s Soldier Field the day after her keynote Democratic National Convention speech
https://x.com/dannyctkemp/status/1827063851516326003
"I can't work more than 16 hours because if I do I'll lose my benefits" is a far more real and pressing attitude than "I can't save because I won't get a fuel allowance so what's the point?"
It is choices and Murray had no answer
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/trevor-phillips-skewers-minister-for-keeping-two-child-benefit-cap_uk_669cbb54e4b050b0f3f6c514
Jack Surfleet
@jacksurfleet
·
13m
Saturday's TIMES: Reeves feels the heat over winter fuel benefit cuts
#TomorrowsPapersToday
Excessively and exclusively worrying about a minor cliff edge that might affect a few people, by a few pounds, who aren't working anyway as a possible edge case? I'll pass on that thanks.
And the best solution would be UBI (offset against tax for higher earners) and completely abolish most existing benefits forever. 'Means testing' would effectively be built into the taxation system and the simplification would itself result in considerable savings.
I'd do it all through tiered tax rates including negative rates at the bottom end of the income scale. Completely remove pretty much all testing, assessments, moral judgements and stigmas, perverse incentives and unintended consequences.
I suspect it would actually be possible for poorer people to be a bit better off under this sort of system and still have it end up costing less because there is so much administrative wanky fat to be trimmed. There is a genuinely Libertarian case for a 'small, but relatively generous state that can be generous because it's small'.
But given that the number of politicians I've heard advocating for this kind of radical change are vanishingly few in number, I suspect nothing even approaching it will happen in my lifetime.
I'm talking about a hypothetical dis-incentive to saving into a pension pot should the taper rate on a reformed State Pension be too high.
That could be utterly catastrophic to the public finances as millions of people fail to save and instead depend on this higher payment. It's why introducing such a taper would be a risk.
Evil bird killing machine.
Which would have the same net effect as tapering pensions, but would not disincentivise anything more than we already disincentivise work which is a far more pressing concern.
I'd set UBI at a comparable rate to how we offer benefits today, no more, no less. But then tax people consistently and not have a NYC skyline of tax rates.
Ruth Igielnik
Aug. 23, 2024, 4:48 p.m. ET7 minutes ago
Ruth Igielnik
Kennedy’s decision to suspend his campaign is unlikely to significantly change the nature of the race. Even if all Republicans or independents who supported Kennedy now switch to supporting Trump, Trump would only gain an average of 1 percentage point across swing states, according to our polling.
I'd be amongst the most stuffed by what I'm proposing, having both paid for my own education by myself and then being left paying for others. But shit happens and I'm OK with that, I'm putting myself last here and putting the right thing to do first.
Why should we offer education? Because its the right thing to do.
On topic, so much for the supposedly racist Tory members who would never support Kemi4Leader...
We already have incomes going to people.
The question is simply the best way to do it.
I think the best way to do it is to tax incomes the least possible but consistently across the board, so that people keep more of what they earn across the board. Rather than lightly taxing some while so excessively taxing others that they don't bother working or engage evasion schemes to avoid the cliff edge.
Video allegedly showing the MT Sounion exploding and on fire in the Red Sea. The tanker is carrying 150,000 metric tons of oil. A full release of the cargo would make it one of the worst tanker oil spills in history
You'll all be pleased to know I'm back from my holidays and anxious to resume sharing my basic bitch political opinions with the group.
The excrescence above is a "salmon sandwich cake", which the swedish think is food.
In their defence, their actual sweet cakes are excellent. Cakes which taste as good as they look - who'd have thought?
Which is why I would switch it to a UBI which would be a far superior system.
But Pagan is asking how much to cost/set it at - well we already have comparable figures, that would be my starting point as we transition into a UBI would be my viewpoint.
S
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4842868-trump-harris-biden-texas-poll-2024/
Former President Trump holds a slight lead over Vice President Harris in Texas, according to a poll published Thursday.
The survey from the University of Houston and Texas Southern University, found Trump with support from 49.5 percent of likely voters in Texas, holding a lead of less than 5 points over Harris’s 44.6 percent.
Independent candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. had 2 percent of likely voters, while the Green Party’s Jill Stein had 0.7 percent and Libertarian Chase Oliver had 0.5 percent, according to the poll. About 2.7 percent were undecided.
The latest findings for the Lone Star State showed a slight increase — 0.6 percentage points — in support for Trump, who received 48.9 percent in June.
But Harris’s support also jumped 4.3 percentage points from where President Biden was polling in June, when he was the Democratic presidential candidate in June; the incumbent had 40.3 percent support at the time, pollsters found.
Kennedy’s vote was 2.7 percentage points lower than in June...
Probably not quite close enough to be a realistic pickup possibility. But interesting to watch if there’s a Texas poll next week.
Cruz’s challenger for the Senate seat is within about 2% of his vote, with 6.5% of those polled undecided.
And the point about UBI is that it's universal, so your idea of basing it on the current suite of benefit eligibilities and payments... would be the precise opposite.
One option would be to use the lowest UC Standard Allowance of £312 per month for all UK residents, at a cost of £250 billion a year.
So I would start to do so as a starting point by adding together all existing means tested benefits, making them universal, then setting a tax rate so that the cost is netted out as neutral.
That's why we can't fill posts. Despite it being a piece of piss.
https://x.com/KerryKennedyRFK/status/1827061350452887816
https://x.com/joekennedy/status/1827065844142121379
https://x.com/skynews/status/1827092602417447149
✅ Approve 26% (-3)
❌ Disapprove 47% (+16)
Via
@YouGov
, 19 Aug (+/- vs 29 July)
https://x.com/LeftieStats/status/1827069060603113814
The main cause of the drop in government approval is a collapse in support amongst over-65s.
Labour's net approval amongst over-65s has plunged almost as low as the Tories' approval in June 2024.
🟦-43 (CON, June 2024)
🟥-39 (LAB, August 2024)
Via
@YouGov
, 19 Aug
https://x.com/LeftieStats/status/1827069060603113814
But yes, if you work in the private sector and are so outraged by public sector pay and/or pensions etc, why not become a public sector worker?
I think he would have been one of all time great presidents.
1) An 18 year old who doesn't have the willpower to get a job and/or enter further education
2) A 30-year old single parent of two pre-school children who's partner left the country and is in rental accomodation
3) A 55 year-old who has quit hit their job in the hope of living on relatively modest but adequate savings through to early retirement - the UBI makes all the difference
4) A 90-year old who has depleted their savings and lives in rental accomodation, but is in otherwise good health.
I want a benefit system to act as a safety net for people like those in scenarios 2 and 4, not as an excuse for people to not to bother working like in scenarios 1 and 3.
Indeed. A lot of people don't seem to get the point about Universality. If it exists alongside a whole load of other complicated benefits the very point of UBI is nullified.
It's why I'm very sceptical about studies in Scandinavia and bits of the US and various other places where a small group are put into an isolated 'UBI' experiment and everybody else continues as normal.
You're not going to find out if it's workable or not from that. It won't tell you anything about how effectively a streamlined overall system would work. At best, you'll get anecdata from the individuals in receipt of the UBI about how much they're enjoying it or not. But even that won't be particularly indicative because in the real world the Universality would mean that any comparisons with others to ascertain relative wealth or poverty would be completely different.
https://news.sky.com/story/fridays-national-newspaper-front-pages-12427754?postid=8169980#liveblog-body
She has a tin-ear as far as retail politics goes.
Terrible start.
Does not bode well for the Halloween nightmare budget.
How long before crowds are booing at sporting events?
I've tried that - and failed - a few times. Despite a fairly decent CV that includes 20+ years of working fairly extensively *with* the public sector at a senior level and a solid track record in doing so.
(Purely out of self-interest - the idea of a cushy life on the gravy train appeals to me, especially at times of ill health which are becoming more frequent)
I do wonder if they deliberately don't want to employ people who are sceptical of their necessity, size and general effectiveness, and it's no secret that I consider the very existence of the state a necessary evil *at best* and am unlikely to start suddenly lying about that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18xiwtUUrmw
A conservative would not propose a budget that had reckless tax cuts and spending. (Trump was warned about deficits, and what they would do -- but cynically replied that he would be out of office by then.)
Since Ronald Reagan, conservatives have been in favor of free trade. Reagan proposed NAFTA, GHWB negotiated it, and, to his credit, Clinton got it ratified. GWB negotiated freer trade agreements with countries with friendly govenrments, notably Colombia. (Incidentally, Biden has kept many of Trump's trade policies.)
Conservatives honor those who served in our military, instead of calling them "losers".
If you don't believe me, ask John Bolton or George Will (who just put out a column defending the 13th amendment against Trump).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bolton
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Will
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c2505v8gwe9t
Grim times all round.