Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,698
Member is Online
|
Post by Steve on Aug 23, 2024 18:45:10 GMT
You'll save bugger all off the welfare bill shaving off money by making supposedly rich pensioners pay prescription charges. But you will piss off many many people and likely become unelectable. The way to really cut the welfare bill is to get more people into real jobs (ie not NMW or zero hours) How can you get people into real jobs when all the migrants are coming here nicking the jobs And bringing their monkey pox riddled family with them Many a true word spoken in jest ^. Immigration has long been a cause of relative poverty and unemployment for people born as Brits.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2024 19:15:11 GMT
How can you get people into real jobs when all the migrants are coming here nicking the jobs And bringing their monkey pox riddled family with them Many a true word spoken in jest ^. Immigration has long been a cause of relative poverty and unemployment for people born as Brits. Yup, Yvette Cooper's wonderful proposals to return migrants to Timor-Leste and Vietnam instead of Rwanda is so much better than the Tories' Rwanda scheme www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/rwanda-scheme-flights-deportation-vietnam-migrants-b2585708.htmlAnother right-wing victory for Labour stealing the swivel eyed spammon vote
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2024 21:20:30 GMT
You'll save bugger all off the welfare bill shaving off money by making supposedly rich pensioners pay prescription charges. But you will piss off many many people and likely become unelectable. The way to really cut the welfare bill is to get more people into real jobs (ie not NMW or zero hours) You will also need to reduce housing costs.....and taking freebies away from better off pensioners who never vote Labour anyway is a free hit - politically speaking - because the ones being pissed off never vote Labour anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2024 21:25:34 GMT
You'll save bugger all off the welfare bill shaving off money by making supposedly rich pensioners pay prescription charges. But you will piss off many many people and likely become unelectable. The way to really cut the welfare bill is to get more people into real jobs (ie not NMW or zero hours) You will also need to reduce housing costs.....and taking freebies away from better off pensioners who never vote Labour anyway is a free hit - politically speaking - because the ones being pissed off never vote Labour anyway. Sounds spiteful IMHO, very Tory-like in approach and I've always found it reduces me as person when I go down that road of thinking, hopefully you won't take that as a personal sleight..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2024 21:48:50 GMT
You will also need to reduce housing costs.....and taking freebies away from better off pensioners who never vote Labour anyway is a free hit - politically speaking - because the ones being pissed off never vote Labour anyway. Sounds spiteful IMHO, very Tory-like in approach and I've always found it reduces me as person when I go down that road of thinking, hopefully you won't take that as a personal sleight.. To be fair I am citing the cold political calculations behind this because these Labour centrist types can be coldly calculating at times to the detriment of principle. Nevertheless, I do not in the slightest think it spiteful to withdraw handouts from people who simply don't need them. There is an argument for a higher threshold before freebies are removed, but the principle of targeting support where it is most needed, at the cost of withdrawing handouts from those who don't need them is reasonable and in no way spiteful. Especially when many of those losing handouts are better off than many of the working age people paying the taxes to finance this.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,698
Member is Online
|
Post by Steve on Aug 23, 2024 21:52:15 GMT
You will also need to reduce housing costs.....and taking freebies away from better off pensioners who never vote Labour anyway is a free hit - politically speaking - because the ones being pissed off never vote Labour anyway. Sounds spiteful IMHO, very Tory-like in approach and I've always found it reduces me as person when I go down that road of thinking, hopefully you won't take that as a personal sleight.. Didn't read well did it. Don't think he meant it that way.
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Aug 24, 2024 9:14:16 GMT
Sounds spiteful IMHO, very Tory-like in approach and I've always found it reduces me as person when I go down that road of thinking, hopefully you won't take that as a personal sleight.. To be fair I am citing the cold political calculations behind this because these Labour centrist types can be coldly calculating at times to the detriment of principle. Nevertheless, I do not in the slightest think it spiteful to withdraw handouts from people who simply don't need them. There is an argument for a higher threshold before freebies are removed, but the principle of targeting support where it is most needed, at the cost of withdrawing handouts from those who don't need them is reasonable and in no way spiteful. Especially when many of those losing handouts are better off than many of the working age people paying the taxes to finance this. I think this is an excellent idea, very easy to put in place, reduces overall spend but covers most of the borderline cases.
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,698
Member is Online
|
Post by Steve on Aug 24, 2024 10:44:39 GMT
As I said, move it into Universal Credit instead
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2024 20:17:56 GMT
As I said, move it into Universal Credit instead A seemingly sensible suggestion but with a glaring problem. Only working age people are entitled to universal credit so putting the pensioner fuel payment onto it would not work. Pensioners have a completely different set of benefits to most of the ones available to working age people, Putting it onto pension credit might make a lot more sense and is probably what you are driving at, but this too has inherent complications. Many pensioners might spend most of the year well above the pension credit limit except for the one month when the winter fuel payment is added to it. This would involve a bureaucratic nightmare with fresh claims having to be made every winter. The situation can be made even more complicated by the fact that other help for pensioners is often dependent on pension credit receipt, so getting it for just one month a year would hugely complicate that. In practice quite a lot wouldn't bother applying For it to work more easily the payment would have to be spread evenly throughout the whole year, but of course the problem then is that they are getting extra when their heating bills are minimal and correspondingly much less when they most need it. Better to keep the winter fuel payment but make the eligibility a bit less stringent, by for example including in it all pensioners who are tenants and all pensioners living in Band A properties
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,698
Member is Online
|
Post by Steve on Aug 24, 2024 21:31:13 GMT
True but (a) put it in pension credit instead and (b) why shouldn't people on Universal Credit be left out?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2024 7:50:16 GMT
True but (a) put it in pension credit instead and (b) why shouldn't people on Universal Credit be left out? I agree with the latter point though again it raises the issue of where is the funding for that going to come from. And putting it onto pension credit is far more complicated in practice for the reasons I stated above. Far easier to simply expand the eligibility criteria a little and I suggested a couple of ways this could be done.
|
|
|
Post by dappy on Aug 25, 2024 8:09:09 GMT
Great to have you back MrBenn.
The trouble with your expanded eligibility criteria is that central government are unlikely to have a list of people over 66 (?) who live in rented accommodation or those who live in band A properties. Local government have the latter at least but very doubtful that their systems would talk to central. This is quite a small benefit (equivalent of £4 per week) so can’t justify a significant admin cost to base eligibility on previously uncollected criteria.
I suspect ideally government would have politically chosen to only remove it from those earning say more than £20k per year but again not really practically possible
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2024 9:58:32 GMT
Why don't Labour go after the tax dodgers?
Why don't they pursue foreign billionaires who are ripping off the country?
Why don't they pursue the COVID PPE loan fraud both in government and outside of it?
Why take money instead from fricking winter fuel allowance? Because pensioners are too frail to fight back and it's a politically easy move?
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,698
Member is Online
|
Post by Steve on Aug 25, 2024 10:40:14 GMT
Government after government has talked of funding spend from clamping down on tax avoidance and evasion and their success rate has been patchy though the Tories did get the tax gap down from 7.4% to 4.8% So yes they should try and try again but best to wait and see if they succeed before spending the money. www.gov.uk/government/statistics/measuring-tax-gaps/1-tax-gaps-summary
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Aug 25, 2024 11:43:38 GMT
YouGov: Sharp drop in UK Government’s approval rating
THE UK Labour government has seen a sharp drop in approval ratings in the past few weeks, according to YouGov polling.
According to YouGov’s government approval tracker, the latest figures, published on August 19, show that 47% of people disapprove of the UK Government while just 26% approve...
…According to the Twitter/X account Stats for Lefties, one of the main reasons for the drop is a “collapse in support amongst over-65s”.
www.thenational.scot/news/24540017.yougov-sharp-drop-uk-governments-approval-rating/
|
|