|
Post by dappy on Aug 26, 2024 13:37:44 GMT
Anyone who claims to believe that the creation of Great British Energy would result in £400 reduction in energy bills in first few months is either deluded on simply lying.
If you want to means test a small in monetary value benefit like WFA, you have to means test it based on an existing measure available to central government.
It is worth noting that state pensions have risen well above inflation in the last two years as an impending election prevented sensible decision to be made about the triple lock. The above inflation element is I believe well above the value of the withdrawn WFA.
If you want higher state pension contribution rates need to increase substantially.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2024 13:38:32 GMT
As for having to pay £3k for private dentistry, millions of taxpayers who are funding winter fuel payments simply don't have that option because they do not have even a few hundred laying around let alone 12k.
The problem there of course isn't winter fuel payments nor savings thresholds at all, but the lack of NHS dentists, an entirely separate issue which needs to be addressed urgently.
I myself have to somehow pay for private dentistry due to lack of NHS dentists and my savings account has less than 2 quid in it!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2024 13:44:59 GMT
Anyone who claims to believe that the creation of Great British Energy would result in £400 reduction in energy bills in first few months is either deluded on simply lying. If you want to means test a small in monetary value benefit like WFA, you have to means test it based on an existing measure available to central government. It is worth noting that state pensions have risen well above inflation in the last two years as an impending election prevented sensible decision to be made about the triple lock. The above inflation element is I believe well above the value of the withdrawn WFA. If you want higher state pension contribution rates need to increase substantially. Indeed. I think the state pension itself should be linked to inflation only with pension credit triple locked instead, though as I suggested earlier the first £300 per month of any private pension should be excluded when calculating pension credit entitlement. The minimum wage should be triple locked as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2024 13:55:25 GMT
Having acknowledged that the cut off point for winter fuel payments is probably too low, and that this will result in some pensioners struggling, and suggested a solution above, we do need to beware of pensioners pleading poverty. Not all of them are as badly off as they claim. I well remember many years ago hearing one pensioner moaning to his mate about how he couldn't afford to both eat and heat. This was just after I was stood behind him in the queue in the nearby shop and saw him waste £30 on scratch cards, and more on fags. This is an example of how sometimes bad budgeting choices can be a factor rather than lack of funds, though this can hold true for people of any age, not just the elderly. Yesterday on LBC on the Carol Vorderman show - I happened to be driving home from work at the time with the radio on - I heard one pensioner relating her tale of woe since she could not get pension credit and thus would lose the winter fuel payment. When asked why she wasn't getting pension credit she said they wouldn't pay it because she had money set aside for emergencies, aka savings, and everyone was being very sympathetic. But I happen to know - because I have looked into it for my mum - that your savings need to exceed £12k before you lose pension credit. So this lady must have at least that in savings, which is surely enough for her not to have to worry about the bills. Why should taxpayers be expected to give handouts to people who have over £12k of their own? And if she had only a little over she could easily have got some of it looked after by trusted friends or relatives so it doesnt get counted. Probably a fair few already do such things or else spend some of it on holidays or whatever so that they never have more than £!2k in their name. So I suspect that this lady probably has substantially more than £12k. But I cannot know that. So even if she only has a little more than £12k is it reasonable when you have such a sum to expect taxpayers to help you with your bills? And if £12k is considered too miserly a threshold, then perhaps it should be increased a bit. But expecting taxpayer help with the bills when you have £12k at least in the bank is in my view wholly unreasonable. the labour peer in the House of Lords Prem Sikka was calling out his own labour government for removing the winter fuel payment , the politics of misery and cruelty. We are also reading how the cash grab has had no assessment apparently on how this might plunge millions into misery and difficulty . A crusade by such Tory media organs on behalf of Tory-voting pensioners is unlikely to appeal much to progressive hearts like mine. The instinctive reaction I have to that is to want to dig my heals in against it. Fortunately though, I tend to try and avoid thinking with kneejerk emotions. Whilst believing that it is senseless and unaffordable to give freebies to people who clearly dont need them, I acknowledge that the cut off point is low enough for some to struggle as a result. I have suggested ways of helping these and am open to other ideas. If some way of helping some of those who are just on the wrong side of the cut off point could be found it would be welcome, and probably good politics, so would not be surprised if something were pulled out of the hat in the autumn statement. But we shall see in due course.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2024 13:59:03 GMT
Incidentally, a timely reminder. The winter fuel payment is not being abolished. It is merely being limited to those most in need of it, the ones poor enough to claim pension credit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2024 14:52:08 GMT
I know how the party will be reacting behind the scenes. It employs a lot of fairly young, university educated twonks who run databases into which is fed any info gathered on the doorstep in regards to past voting patterns and present voting intentions. This is married up with demographic breakdowns of which sort of people tend to live where, with calculations as to how persuadable certain voters are and by what messages. Into all these data bases is fed input from focus groups made up of the kind of people who might be persuaded to vote Labour. The sort of people who don't make it onto a Labour focus group tend to be those who are regarded as unreconcilable to the party, who are written off as too hard to persuade. This probably includes many who have been long term Tory voters or who have backed Reform or who feel strongly on woke issues. Labour - informed by it's twonks - will have made a strategic decision on whose votes are winnable and who to go after. And there is every sign both in the Winter Fuel announcement and in their rhetoric about supporting working people, that they are going for the working age vote rather than the pensioner vote, probably because they have decided that this is potentially more fruitful territory for them.
When they announce something big and unexpected, they have almost invariably run it past their focus groups first to gauge their reactions. However these groups are made up and whatever was run by them, they must have concluded that amongst those whose votes they are after, the reaction was more positive than negative, or at least neutral.
And indeed, the vast majority of the sound and fury is coming from media elements and individuals who never vote Labour anyway, even on this forum. So cynical, yes in the extreme. The typical party centrist has no principle they won't trade for power. They have likely done this after a process of cold calculation.
Comparatively well off pensioners and their supporters seething with anger is probably drowning out a much quieter sense of approval from many younger working age people who are struggling and having to pay the taxes to support others. This is no doubt the calculation.
But no one wants to see genuinely struggling pensioners cast into fuel poverty, and focus groups will probably flag that up if it appears that too many who are not that well off are losing out. All the more so since most of those on these focus groups will include pensioners amongst their relatives. And they will know how genuinely struggling they may or may not be compared to themselves. Long and the short of it is if too many pensioners are hurt badly by this it could backfire. Which is why if this becomes a thing, Labour will amend the policy to help a few more of those who are not well off yet don't claim pension credit.
Understanding how they think and operate behind the scenes is a good guide to me in understanding what is actually likely to be going on
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 26, 2024 14:59:17 GMT
the labour peer in the House of Lords Prem Sikka was calling out his own labour government for removing the winter fuel payment , the politics of misery and cruelty. We are also reading how the cash grab has had no assessment apparently on how this might plunge millions into misery and difficulty . A crusade by such Tory media organs on behalf of Tory-voting pensioners is unlikely to appeal much to progressive hearts like mine. The instinctive reaction I have to that is to want to dig my heals in against it. Fortunately though, I tend to try and avoid thinking with kneejerk emotions. Whilst believing that it is senseless and unaffordable to give freebies to people who clearly dont need them, I acknowledge that the cut off point is low enough for some to struggle as a result. I have suggested ways of helping these and am open to other ideas. If some way of helping some of those who are just on the wrong side of the cut off point could be found it would be welcome, and probably good politics, so would not be surprised if something were pulled out of the hat in the autumn statement. But we shall see in due course. Steve again please dont shoot the messenger but address what is being said. The platform isnt the issue , the issue is labours lack of apparent assessment on how these cuts are going to affect the less well off pensioners? I dont buy this argument. I remember the Cameron government originally being quizzed over the winter fuel payment and how they responded that means testing would cost more than savings so they left them as they were. further , that line of thinking leads to a race to the bottom. The retort would then be why should taxpayers fund the lifestyle of the feckless , the less educated , those who are work shy , and generally those who dont pay any substantial amount if anything into the safety net when those that do are denied a share? Does it ever occur to you richer pensioners may be very well helping grandchildren or less well of family members rather than using the winter fuel to buy copious amounts of champagne? From what ive read , labours decision , which has ramifications for the devolved governments , is going to cause 300 000 less well off pensioners in scotland alone misery. two to three million uk wide. We need to get away from the politics of envy , and stop implying that rich pensioners are the norm and they make up the bulk of those who can easily afford to give up this payment. clearly , age uk , and other charities are arguing otherwise. its not some tory plot to undermine labour. Earlier , it was implied it was all snp lies.its a disgraceful decision , at a bad time , during an energy crises , by a government that is clearly so far out of touch and lacking in any ideas.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 26, 2024 15:15:21 GMT
Comparatively well off pensioners and their supporters seething with anger is probably drowning out a much quieter sense of approval from many younger working age people who are struggling and having to pay the taxes to support others. This is no doubt the calculation. How can it be progressive to take the winter fuel payment from pensioners , while energy companies profits soar through the roof? As usual , labour tackle the symptoms of the problem , rather than the root of the problem itself. I would have a quiet sense of approval if labour stopped the three billion to Ukraine , gave the pensioners their fuel payment back , and started showing us some fucking progressive labour policies instead of red tory imitation policies?
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 26, 2024 15:17:37 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 26, 2024 15:22:20 GMT
Comparatively well off pensioners and their supporters seething with anger is probably drowning out a much quieter sense of approval from many younger working age people who are struggling and having to pay the taxes to support others. This is no doubt the calculation. In a poll by YouGov for the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU), two thirds of people (67%) were aware of the move to remove winter fuel allowance payments from pensioners, apart from those who receive means-tested benefits. The pollsters found that 59% opposed it, with only 28% in favour.
www.endfuelpoverty.org.uk/ministers-winter-fuel-payment-plans-hit-by-chaos/#:~:text=In%20a%20poll%20by%20YouGov,with%20only%2028%25%20in%20favour.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2024 15:23:44 GMT
A crusade by such Tory media organs on behalf of Tory-voting pensioners is unlikely to appeal much to progressive hearts like mine. The instinctive reaction I have to that is to want to dig my heals in against it. Fortunately though, I tend to try and avoid thinking with kneejerk emotions. Whilst believing that it is senseless and unaffordable to give freebies to people who clearly dont need them, I acknowledge that the cut off point is low enough for some to struggle as a result. I have suggested ways of helping these and am open to other ideas. If some way of helping some of those who are just on the wrong side of the cut off point could be found it would be welcome, and probably good politics, so would not be surprised if something were pulled out of the hat in the autumn statement. But we shall see in due course. Steve again please dont shoot the messenger but address what is being said. The platform isnt the issue , the issue is labours lack of apparent assessment on how these cuts are going to affect the less well off pensioners? I dont buy this argument. I remember the Cameron government originally being quizzed over the winter fuel payment and how they responded that means testing would cost more than savings so they left them as they were. further , that line of thinking leads to a race to the bottom. The retort would then be why should taxpayers fund the lifestyle of the feckless , the less educated , those who are work shy , and generally those who dont pay any substantial amount if anything into the safety net when those that do are denied a share? Does it ever occur to you richer pensioners may be very well helping grandchildren or less well of family members rather than using the winter fuel to buy copious amounts of champagne? From what ive read , labours decision , which has ramifications for the devolved governments , is going to cause 300 000 less well off pensioners in scotland alone misery. two to three million uk wide. We need to get away from the politics of envy , and stop implying that rich pensioners are the norm and they make up the bulk of those who can easily afford to give up this payment. clearly , age uk , and other charities are arguing otherwise. its not some tory plot to undermine labour. Earlier , it was implied it was all snp lies.its a disgraceful decision , at a bad time , during an energy crises , by a government that is clearly so far out of touch and lacking in any ideas. Anyone wittering on about the politics of envy loses my attention almost at once. Because it has nothing to do with envy and everything to do with struggling taxpayers not having to fund freebies to those who don't need them. I don't envy people who are better off than me. But I do resent having to pay for handouts they don't need when they are better off than me to start with. "Need" being the operative word. And pensioners in a position to be able to help their kids and grandkids are highly unlikely to be prevented from doing so by no longer getting a couple of hundred quid from taxpayers. It does always seem to be a thing that right wingers (aka right whingers, lol) resent helping anyone who needs it unless it is either themselves or other reasonably well off people, for whom ever more should be shovelled their way. The less you need it the more you deserve it seems to be the default assumption. But it is one mostly limited to supporters of the Tories or other right wing headbangers. I am certain of one thing. Your opposition no matter what is most assuredly taken so much for granted they probably don't even care what you think, because they know you will never vote for them anyway. So whinge away to your heart's content. You might as well bark at the moon for all the good it will do.
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Aug 26, 2024 15:32:58 GMT
Given that you don’t want WFA to be a universal benefit and given that there is no obvious measure of income/need for pensioners available to central government beyond pension credit, is it the case that the policy the government has adopted is the best one available Mr Benn?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2024 15:36:13 GMT
Comparatively well off pensioners and their supporters seething with anger is probably drowning out a much quieter sense of approval from many younger working age people who are struggling and having to pay the taxes to support others. This is no doubt the calculation. How can it be progressive to take the winter fuel payment from pensioners , while energy companies profits soar through the roof? As usual , labour tackle the symptoms of the problem , rather than the root of the problem itself. I would have a quiet sense of approval if labour stopped the three billion to Ukraine , gave the pensioners their fuel payment back , and started showing us some fucking progressive labour policies instead of red tory imitation policies? Energy companies' soaring profits is something that needs to be addressed. They ought to windfall tax the hell out of them. But that is a separate issue. There is however nothing the least bit progressive about taxing productive but struggling workers to pay for handouts to those who dont need them and who are much better off than them already in many cases. Being progressive is all about taxing on the basis of ability to pay and using those funds to support those in need of help. The latter does not include a lot of pensioners. Those in genuine need should of course be helped. But then again, no one likes having a freebie taken away. It is always somebody else - and usually somebody much worse off than them already - who should take the hit instead. I see flaws in what the government has done, but your silly arguments are far more persuasive than anything Labour has said, that it is actually the right thing to do. Most of the objections by avowed right wingers who in most cases are already reasonably well off pensioners, or heading that way, do seem rather self serving and self interested in the extreme. If you lot don't actually need the money - and anyone who thinks £12k is not very much clearly doesn't - stop whingeing about losing your handout when there are millions of others in far greater need, and whom helping is the real progressive thing to do.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 26, 2024 15:36:33 GMT
Steve again please dont shoot the messenger but address what is being said. The platform isnt the issue , the issue is labours lack of apparent assessment on how these cuts are going to affect the less well off pensioners? its not some tory plot to undermine labour. Earlier , it was implied it was all snp lies.its a disgraceful decision , at a bad time , during an energy crises , by a government that is clearly so far out of touch and lacking in any ideas. Anyone wittering on about the politics of envy loses my attention almost at once. Because it has nothing to do with envy and everything to do with struggling taxpayers not having to fund freebies to those who don't need them. I don't envy people who are better off than me. But I do resent having to pay for handouts they don't need when they are better off than me to start with. "Need" being the operative word. And pensioners in a position to be able to help their kids and grandkids are highly unlikely to be prevented from doing so by no longer getting a couple of hundred quid from taxpayers. It does always seem to be a thing that right wingers (aka right whingers, lol) resent helping anyone who needs it unless it is either themselves or other reasonably well off people, for whom ever more should be shovelled their way. The less you need it the more you deserve it seems to be the default assumption. But it is one mostly limited to supporters of the Tories or other right wing headbangers. I am certain of one thing. Your opposition no matter what is most assuredly taken so much for granted they probably don't even care what you think, because they know you will never vote for them anyway. So whinge away to your heart's content. You might as well bark at the moon for all the good it will do. well im exactly the same when folk witter on about "the poor". Many poor are undeserving of help , because they won't help themselves , and see benefits as a lifestyle choice , rather than a safety net for hard times. but thats exactly what my earlier article was talking about. Apparently its going to save 2billion , but how do you know its freebies being cut for those who dont need them when labour themselves haven't costed the impact , or told us how this is going to affect pensioners ? Further , why are we only talking about freebies to a small amount of pensioners as yet unquantified , but not talking about savings on an even bigger amount of freebies to Ukraine , or 5 times the amount of freebies to Africa regarding climate change? It really does seem selective , and thus makes people think it's all about envy of the elderly , who are not contrary to the perception of some all "well off". 5000 elderly died last year according to labour peer Prem Sikka WITH the winter fuel payment , how many more need to die this year ? Let me be clear Steve. I grew up in abject poverty. On a Glaswegian council estate. I dragged myself out of poverty , worked hard , and have done my best as I can in life from my lowly start. Please dont get me started on "the poor" as though they are one big homogenous block. Many of the "poor" are as undeserving , if not more , than rich pensioners you talk about for freebies . Leeches on society , who have no wish to contribute and merely wish to leech off those very same hard working taxpayers you talk about. Labour and their support can spin about rich pensioners not needing the winter fuel payment , but so far , it looks like a badly thought out policy , at the wrong time , for the starmer government , and everyone everywhere outside of the labour bubble is making capital out of it. long may it continue.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2024 15:37:10 GMT
Given that you don’t want WFA to be a universal benefit and given that there is no obvious measure of income/need for pensioners available to central government beyond pension credit, is it the case that the policy the government has adopted is the best one available Mr Benn? It is the easiest and therefore least costly.
|
|