Westminster Politics 2024-2029
- Thread starter Pexbo
- Start date
Narratives aside, what really matters is whether.the markets think it's the BoE or the government setting interest rates. If they believe the Bank is operationally independent and can set rates according to its judgement, then thats.what matters. Similarly for the OBR. That is nominally independent too but if the govt ignores it because it is owned by the government, the markets will punish the govt, as we saw with Liz Truss.
Seems to me this is the government trying to claw back some of the very large state pension increases - nearly 20% - that the triple lock gave them over the last 2 years. Why is this especially bad, particularly if those who most need it continue to get it?
Starmer has lost the countdown lady!
The first thing labour does is apply a means test to the wealthiest demographic in the country. I mean, not so bad when you put it like that...?
Thank god somebody has finally said it
No idea, go ask the person who tweeted it
You are allowed to have an opinion about the stuff you post, you know.
Unfortunately I don't have a convenient meme for what you call a socialist who comes down on the side of the wealthy.
I do; have an opinion and know that I can have an opinion.
If Labour really wanted to go after the wealthiest demographic they'd implement some sort of wealth tax but that seems to be one difficult decision they won't make
Peek Boomer, Paul.
It's the budget in a few weeks, and thats when governments talk about tax. Why don't we criticise their tax policy after, rather than before?
Peek or peak?
Not a UK resident so don't get it.
All those multi-millionaire pensioners in the Uk do though
Unfortunately, my Labour MP voted with the government. So I have emailed him and asked him to tell me how many of his constituents have informed him that they agree with bringing in means test and how many told him that they were against it. And as he was elected to look after the interests of his constituents, he should have voted according to the views of his constituents.
I understand that Labour are trying to get pensioners to claim unclaimed benefits. If all these pensioners do claim all these unpaid benefits then the net gain from the savings for the government will be zero.
What's it like being a wealthy pensioner in the UK? (I am joking)
Last edited:
God forbid pensioners should have their benefits means tested, just like everyone else.
That's not the point - firstly it raises peanuts in financial terms, secondly it depends on what level the means test is set at. Thirdly, a UK pension is a pittance.
Fourthly what's wrong with raising taxes on the really wealthy and if that includes pensioners, so be it?
Fifthly I don't think Starmer has a clue what to do.
It is the point. It is a welcome signal to everyone that pensioner interests are no longer paramount after a solid decade of their needs being put first, because the costs of super serving an ageing population will flatten us all if we don't start to get a grip.
Second the UK pension is a pittance compared to what? I see this said all the time yet it is due to misleading comparisons with differently funded systems in other countries. In the UK there is an expectation that people will save some money privately to supplement the state pension. Other countries extract that money in different ways.
Third, theres nothing wrong with raising taxes, but taxation policy is announced in Budgets so how about we see whats in it before we criticise it?
So why not wait until the budget? It's such a tiny amount. It's certainly not going to fix even a tiny fraction of the UK's problems.
How many people does Starmer want to annoy before the first three months are up?
Any savings will be lost anyway if just a small amount of pensioners have to use the NHS because of this over the winter, or any other chains of events not taken into account.
People in other countries save money other than the state pension if they can but also pay more into the state system to pay for it than the UK.
In France we've got the extreme left and extreme right trying to make the retirement age 60 and have a far-fetched way of saying they can finance it but people believe them.
Wonder what the next genius move by Starmer is?
Is this slimy Cnut taking the fecking piss?
We simply need to execute the 50 richest people in the country, claim their estates, and we're golden.
It's what they're doing to everyone else a thousand times over. Fair's fair.
It's what they're doing to everyone else a thousand times over. Fair's fair.
I might agree with this if that iswhat they did. They could do that by putting the threshold at £25K or so, but they did not.
They put it at £11, 900. People just above that limit are not wealthy, and its either ignirance or lies to claim they are.
Maybe the thought that they're in the wealthiest demographic will be enough to keep them warm.
I’ll let my dad know, because he was under the illusion that he struggled for money (even with my help) so he’ll be made up to find out he’s actually well off.
I agree the threshold should be higher. But a lot of people aren't debating the threshold here and are also ignoring that these same pensioners are also receiving nearly £1300 extra per year guaranteed thanks to the triple lock. Did any other group of people in receipt of benefits get such a big % or indeed actual, increase?
Last edited:
Probably a bit different from being a wealthy pensioner in France.
And one thing that often gets missed is that in the UK, if you reached 65 before 2016, which millions did, including my wife and me, you are treated as second class pensioners. Because the state pension is lower than after 2016 by quite a few pounds.
And because the state pension is always a percentage, that difference continues to grow.
Indeed they do and yet the generation we are talking about here in the UK refused to pay higher taxes to fund a system like that, when they were working and their own parents were the pensioners.
In the UK there are a lot of tax incentives to save money into personal schemes that as far as I know, don't exist elsewhere in the same way.
Last edited:
Benefits recipients. the winter fuel payment is a benefit.
Ok. But you seem to be suggesting that people who receive the state pension are getting something they aren't entitled to receive. Or have I got that wrong.
No, I'm just saying other benefits get means tested, so why not this one too.
Fair enough. I am of the opinion that the level of so called means test is set too low and a much fairer system would have been to align it with income tax. If you don't have to pay income tax, you would still receive the winter fuel allowance. And if you do pay income tax, you won't.
I have suggested this to my MP but no response yet.
Anyway. The decision has been made.
So you're not against means testing the winter fuel allowance, you just want a different test?
Why would anyone be against means testing it? My in laws go on about 8 holidays a year and they get it.
Unless the argument is that it costs more to check than the saving.
Unless the argument is that it costs more to check than the saving.
Two things.
The pension is not a benefit - it is a specific scheme you pay into throughout your working life, and you cannot opt out. How much pension you get depends on how long you have paid NI. That is not a benefit, so stop calling it one.
Our pension is the lowest in the developed world.
The pension is not a benefit - it is a specific scheme you pay into throughout your working life, and you cannot opt out. How much pension you get depends on how long you have paid NI. That is not a benefit, so stop calling it one.
Our pension is the lowest in the developed world.
Yes. There is no doubt that some form of cut off is perfectly reasonable. And nickm makes a fair point.
100% do you think labour will stop state pensions for people starting work after 2006, this was the private auto enrollment date (I think)? Or even put in a means value?
I'm no where near retirement age, just despise all politicians - it's the kinda crappie thing these lot (and the others) would do.