|
|
Post by AvonCalling on Aug 21, 2024 15:58:54 GMT
There is always much rhetoric. Is it more important in your view for the state to spend its resources on subsidising fuel bills for people in a strong financial position just because they are old or instead use those resources for people of whatever age who are struggling financially. For me it sounds like the current proposal doesn't do enough to protect those who aren;t in a financially strong position. But I agree there is a lot of non costed/ non empirical emotive rhetoric. The first one I see for example is we can house asylum seekers whilst our pensioners die of hypothermia rhetoric. It's a symptom of our Social Media/algorythm driven bi partisan times IMO |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2024 16:09:03 GMT
If you're not on state benefits and receive a miniscule pension and can barely afford to heat your home, or even can't afford to do so, you should get the WFA and those who don't get it will suffer. Those who are entitled to state pension but don't get it will suffer terribly if not on other state benefits, that is wrong. I've seen only hostile actions from Labour's DWP so far, they seem unlikely to help matters, they want austerity and they want to save money. That's very Tory like. Sad to see such things being endorsed on here (not by you) I am not “convinced” the state pension is miniscule. I looked at this recently as I was thinking about retiring and worked out that the state pension is not far off what I live on anyway. There are a few mitigating factors…I am very tight. I have a very low mortgage. I drive a tiny car. It’s probably worth while looking at international pension comparisons if that is possible. Has anybody seen any worked examples about hwo people will suffer? My understanding was that this was about removing handouts to “wealthy pensioners” to buy votes (pensioners disproportionately vote Tory IIRC) but I am not denying that there may be some people who suffer and that it sounds like some tweeking would be necessary to avoid some “terrible injustices” I get what you're saying about pensioners voting Tories and buying them off, good point. But IIRC it isn't the highest in Europe when compared inews.co.uk/news/world/uk-state-pension-compare-europe-2773342?srsltid=AfmBOory-lgszmf9P5rgqvO1ykLGfQy-T69YFU2iGuDxJ5I4ljYtE7BAIt's not the lowest either, but it's not that generous. I agree tweaking is necessary and that's really all I am calling for, but Lab are often hypocritical about these things when it comes to calling the Tories out If pointed towards me, I've never said anything of the sort I'm simply saying it should be tweaked so less people lose out, that's it, you appear to agree with me above |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2024 16:11:25 GMT
There is always much rhetoric. Is it more important in your view for the state to spend its resources on subsidising fuel bills for people in a strong financial position just because they are old or instead use those resources for people of whatever age who are struggling financially. None of the above They should by all means cut WFA to rich pensioners, but not cut it to anyone who is not on state benefits, many poor don't qualify, don't know to claim it or are too proud to claim it and should be given help where help is needed, that's it |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,698
|
Post by Steve on Aug 21, 2024 17:29:40 GMT
Comparing state pensions across Europe is always misleading. Many countries in Europe have far higher contributions to the state pension as they have effectively nationalised private pensions. We go for a mixed pension system which allowed people to choose how much to save for their pension, many people were stupid and put aside the minimum and guess what, they've got small pensions as a result.
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Aug 21, 2024 17:48:53 GMT
There is always much rhetoric. Is it more important in your view for the state to spend its resources on subsidising fuel bills for people in a strong financial position just because they are old or instead use those resources for people of whatever age who are struggling financially. None of the above They should by all means cut WFA to rich pensioners, but not cut it to anyone who is not on state benefits, many poor don't qualify, don't know to claim it or are too proud to claim it and should be given help where help is needed, that's it As I understand the numbers, pension credit guarantees that a. Pensioners will receive £218 per week and winter fuel allowance pushes that up to £222 (£224 if over 80) That number can further increase if there are property costs. Pension credit is the threshold we already use to determine the minimum expectancy for poor people over retirement age. If you accept the principle that winter fuel allowance should not be universal, it’s a little hard to see what measure apart from pension credit should be used as the decision point to determine whether or not a person qualifies. Could you explain what you would use instead. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2024 18:28:22 GMT
Comparing state pensions across Europe is always misleading. Many countries in Europe have far higher contributions to the state pension as they have effectively nationalised private pensions. We go for a mixed pension system which allowed people to choose how much to save for their pension, many people were stupid and put aside the minimum and guess what, they've got small pensions as a result. Probably because wages are so low in England et al and they couldn't afford it, but in some people's worlds that makes them stupid |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2024 18:29:13 GMT
None of the above They should by all means cut WFA to rich pensioners, but not cut it to anyone who is not on state benefits, many poor don't qualify, don't know to claim it or are too proud to claim it and should be given help where help is needed, that's it As I understand the numbers, pension credit guarantees that a. Pensioners will receive £218 per week and winter fuel allowance pushes that up to £222 (£224 if over 80) That number can further increase if there are property costs. Pension credit is the threshold we already use to determine the minimum expectancy for poor people over retirement age. If you accept the principle that winter fuel allowance should not be universal, it’s a little hard to see what measure apart from pension credit should be used as the decision point to determine whether or not a person qualifies. Could you explain what you would use instead. Those who are in real fuel poverty but don't qualify? |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,698
|
Post by Steve on Aug 21, 2024 18:44:29 GMT
Comparing state pensions across Europe is always misleading. Many countries in Europe have far higher contributions to the state pension as they have effectively nationalised private pensions. We go for a mixed pension system which allowed people to choose how much to save for their pension, many people were stupid and put aside the minimum and guess what, they've got small pensions as a result. Probably because wages are so low in England et al and they couldn't afford it, but in some people's worlds that makes them stupid Or because they went on foreign holidays, bought flashier cars etc. Anyone can speculate but the fact is some chose not to put anything but the legal minimum into their future pensions. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2024 19:15:05 GMT
Well wages are very low in England, that's provable fact, how many on those low incomes can even afford great cars or foreign holidays regularly?
Don't something like 5% of people make over 90% of all flights and boat trips?
Sounds once again like blaming the poor, Tory / Daily Mail style rhetoric
|
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Aug 21, 2024 21:01:11 GMT
As I understand the numbers, pension credit guarantees that a. Pensioners will receive £218 per week and winter fuel allowance pushes that up to £222 (£224 if over 80) That number can further increase if there are property costs. Pension credit is the threshold we already use to determine the minimum expectancy for poor people over retirement age. If you accept the principle that winter fuel allowance should not be universal, it’s a little hard to see what measure apart from pension credit should be used as the decision point to determine whether or not a person qualifies. Could you explain what you would use instead. Those who are in real fuel poverty but don't qualify? Who do you define “in real fuel poverty” |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,698
|
Post by Steve on Aug 21, 2024 21:11:25 GMT
Well wages are very low in England, that's provable fact, how many on those low incomes can even afford great cars or foreign holidays regularly? Don't something like 5% of people make over 90% of all flights and boat trips? Sounds once again like blaming the poor, Tory / Daily Mail style rhetoric Reads once again like inventing grievances against other posters. Too many people in well paid jobs didn't put in more than the minimum, their choice which is why the pension laws were changed. Comparing European pensions with ours is at best pointless unless you compare the contributions. NI in UK is 8%, the equivalent in Germany is 19.325% so no surprise they pay better pensions. We now require people to pay a minimum 5% into a private pension precisely because many people in the past didn't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2024 21:54:36 GMT
Those who are in real fuel poverty but don't qualify? Who do you define “in real fuel poverty” Those who are on meager private pensions and can't afford to heat their homes due to unbelievably high utility prices? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2024 21:55:11 GMT
Well wages are very low in England, that's provable fact, how many on those low incomes can even afford great cars or foreign holidays regularly? Don't something like 5% of people make over 90% of all flights and boat trips? Sounds once again like blaming the poor, Tory / Daily Mail style rhetoric Reads once again like inventing grievances against other posters. Too many people in well paid jobs didn't put in more than the minimum, their choice which is why the pension laws were changed. Comparing European pensions with ours is at best pointless unless you compare the contributions. NI in UK is 8%, the equivalent in Germany is 19.325% so no surprise they pay better pensions. We now require people to pay a minimum 5% into a private pension precisely because many people in the past didn't.
"Too many people in well paid jobs didn't put in more than the minimum" Proof please? |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,698
|
Post by Steve on Aug 21, 2024 22:14:29 GMT
Start with all those women that didn't pay any NI while in work relying instead on the husbands contributions to get them a minimum pension
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,698
|
Post by Steve on Aug 21, 2024 22:19:47 GMT
|
|
