news & politics:discussion

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

At what point should pensioner benefits be considered for cuts?

Bearing in mind literally everything else has been cut over the last 12 years while the richest generation have continued to rise above inflation.

I don’t want either pensioners benefits cut or workers benefits cut (for want of a better term). We should tax the wealthy, ensure big corporations pay their fair share of tax and ensure we distribute wealth out more fairly; with a bit of that no one should see any benefits cut or loss of income.

I’m not narrow minded enough just to only think about myself, I try to see other peoples situations. Other people would do well to try some of that.  

Edited October 18, 2022 by Ozanne

[kaosmark2]

1 minute ago, Ozanne said:

I don’t want either pensioners benefits cut or workers benefits cut (for want of a better term). We should tax the wealthy, ensure big corporations pay their fair share of tax and ensure we distribute wealth out more fairly; with a bit of that no one should see any benefits cut or lose of income.

I’m not narrow minded enough just to only think about myself, I try to see other peoples situations. Other people would do well to try some of that.  

If you're in favour of more equitable wealth distribution, you should oppose the pension triple lock. It's poor working young people funding those of higher wealth to continue living in relative luxury.

It's not about a refusal to think about people other than myself, it's about thinking that generational inequality shouldn't grow even further.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

If you're in favour of more equitable wealth distribution, you should oppose the pension triple lock. It's poor working young people funding those of higher wealth to continue living in relative luxury.

It's not about a refusal to think about people other than myself, it's about thinking that generational inequality shouldn't grow even further.

I didn’t mean you, I meant generally.

Don’t punch down, punch up. Focus on the idiots in power that create this massive wealth disparity and have ensure poverty has grown in this country. Focus on the mega-rich that avoid paying their share of tax and the big corporations that barely pay any; not the pensioners just like us are trying to get by. 

[fraybentos1]

3 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

I didn’t mean you, I meant generally.

Don’t punch down, punch up. Focus on the idiots in power that create this massive wealth disparity and have ensure poverty has grown in this country. Focus on the mega-rich that avoid paying their share of tax and the big corporations that barely pay any; not the pensioners just like us are trying to get by. 

Saying that quite a big chunk of pensioners are quite well off isn't punching down

[Guest]

 

[kaosmark2]

Just now, Ozanne said:

I didn’t mean you, I meant generally.

Don’t punch down, punch up. Focus on the idiots in power that create this massive wealth disparity and have ensure poverty has grown in this country. Focus on the mega-rich that avoid paying their share of tax and the big corporations that barely pay any; not the pensioners just like us are trying to get by. 

It's still worth examining all aspects of inequality and try and find equitable ways to redistribute wealth. Is it fair that many people in their 30s work 2 jobs while renting in a 4 person flat share in a 2/3 bed, with pensioners sitting a road away with 1 or 2 people in a purchased semi detached 3 bed, paying no income tax and having their mortgage paid off decades ago?

Pensioners, on average, have the most disposable income. I don't think it's callous to suggest that the income they get from the public purse shouldn't have greater protection from inflation than things like the NHS, or public transport, or universal credit. I think it's both practical and fair.

[kaosmark2]

2 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

 

No-one here is defending the removal of the bankers bonus cap. But it's not an either or. There can be multiple redistributive measures, and removing the triple lock should be one of them.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, kaosmark2 said:

It's still worth examining all aspects of inequality and try and find equitable ways to redistribute wealth. Is it fair that many people in their 30s work 2 jobs while renting in a 4 person flat share in a 2/3 bed, with pensioners sitting a road away with 1 or 2 people in a purchased semi detached 3 bed, paying no income tax and having their mortgage paid off decades ago?

Pensioners, on average, have the most disposable income. I don't think it's callous to suggest that the income they get from the public purse shouldn't have greater protection from inflation than things like the NHS, or public transport, or universal credit. I think it's both practical and fair.

No that’s not fair at all, but the answer to 30/40 year olds being poor isn’t to make pensioners poorer. It is pretty callous to want someone else to be worse off. Surely the aim is to make everyone better off, give everyone a better standard of living?

As I say don’t punch down, punch up. I don’t want anyone to be poorer. Not every pensioner is how you do describe, quite a few rely on the triple lock and poverty for the elderly is a very real thing. We can be better than this.

 

[kaosmark2]

2 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

No that’s not fair at all, but the answer to 30/40 year olds being poor isn’t to make pensioners poorer. It is pretty callous to want someone else to be worse off. Surely the aim is to make everyone better off, give everyone a better standard of living?

As I say don’t punch down, punch up. I don’t want anyone to be poorer. Not every pensioner is how you do describe, quite a few rely on the triple lock and poverty for the elderly is a very real thing. We can be better than this.

 

Wealth doesn't come from nowhere, means testing pensioner benefits and removing the triple lock would be a huge redistributive measure. You can't create a fairer society merely by taxing the top 1%, everyone above the median disposable income could send should lose out to rebalance societal inequality.

There are plenty of cheaper and fairer ways to protect the poorest pensioners than the triple lock. 

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

Wealth doesn't come from nowhere, means testing pensioner benefits and removing the triple lock would be a huge redistributive measure. You can't create a fairer society merely by taxing the top 1%, everyone above the median disposable income could send should lose out to rebalance societal inequality.

There are plenty of cheaper and fairer ways to protect the poorest pensioners than the triple lock. 

I’ve given a few different methods to help get a fairer society and I’ll say it again but you don’t make society better by making everyone worse off. The goal should be improved lives for all the population along with a fair distribution of wealth but for some reason you just seem to want to make elderly people poorer.

Just because things for our generation might have been worse than the one before shouldn’t mean we should want those people to be worse off. Let’s be better, kinder and more caring than that. 

[Guest]

If this means there’s a slight chance that Truss is going tomorrow or Thursday then Starmer should throw a VONC in for good measure. 

[fraybentos1]

11 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

I’ve given a few different methods to help get a fairer society and I’ll say it again but you don’t make society better by making everyone worse off. The goal should be improved lives for all the population along with a fair distribution of wealth but for some reason you just seem to want to make elderly people poorer.

Just because things for our generation might have been worse than the one before shouldn’t mean we should want those people to be worse off. Let’s be better, kinder and more caring than that. 

he Mentioned means testing pensions. That would not make poor pensioners worse off 

[kaosmark2]

15 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

I’ve given a few different methods to help get a fairer society and I’ll say it again but you don’t make society better by making everyone worse off. The goal should be improved lives for all the population along with a fair distribution of wealth but for some reason you just seem to want to make elderly people poorer.

Just because things for our generation might have been worse than the one before shouldn’t mean we should want those people to be worse off. Let’s be better, kinder and more caring than that. 

You're completely ignoring my point and misrepresenting what I said.

Doing 7 redistributive measures is better than doing 3. Pensioners are the wealthiest generation in British society. Changing some of the things that benefit all pensioners to means tested methods would be a huge positive for everyone in need, including poorer pensioners.

I would advocate for free bus travel for everyone, public transport becoming genuinely available en masse, but I'd rather see it free for the poorest 1/3 of pensioners and for all UC claimants, than free for all pensioners. Removing the triple lock applying to all pensions and means testing the benefits would enable that funding to be redirected more appropriately. Positive steps often involve making the middle class slightly poorer.

[steviewevie]

Wasn't keeping the triple lock pension a  manifesto pledge?

[kaosmark2]

2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Wasn't keeping the triple lock pension a  manifesto pledge?

Yes.

I don't actually blame Labour for attacking this, it's an obvious U-turn and easy target they'd be followed to ignore, but while I think it's politically expedient, I don't agree with it long term. Same as the "dementia tax".

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

You're completely ignoring my point and misrepresenting what I said.

Doing 7 redistributive measures is better than doing 3. Pensioners are the wealthiest generation in British society. Changing some of the things that benefit all pensioners to means tested methods would be a huge positive for everyone in need, including poorer pensioners.

I would advocate for free bus travel for everyone, public transport becoming genuinely available en masse, but I'd rather see it free for the poorest 1/3 of pensioners and for all UC claimants, than free for all pensioners. Removing the triple lock applying to all pensions and means testing the benefits would enable that funding to be redirected more appropriately. Positive steps often involve making the middle class slightly poorer.

You aren’t going to suddenly magic up a means tested benefit system for pensioners so the choice is either the triple lock as it is now or make all pensioners poorer. That’s it, there isn’t another solution ready for the next few months. We are in a cost of living crises where quite a few elderly people will be concerned about heating there homes and you want to make them worse off because our generation hasn’t had it as good as them. That doesn’t seem very civilised to me.

If you want to make the middle class less well off then ok in that case I’ll assume you’ll be wanting to tax the rich and scrap private schools tax loopholes more than make the elderly poorer? As I haven’t seen you ever mention that in this thread before. 
 

8 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

Wasn't keeping the triple lock pension a  manifesto pledge?

Yes, but it’s ok for the Tories to break manifesto pledges apparently. 

[kaosmark2]

2 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

You aren’t going to suddenly magic up a means tested benefit system for pensioners so the choice is either the triple lock as it is now or make all pensioners poorer. That’s it, there isn’t another solution ready for the next few months. We are in a cost of living crises where quite a few elderly people will be concerned about heating there homes and you want to make them worse off because our generation hasn’t had it as good as them. That doesn’t seem very civilised to me.

If you want to make the middle class less well off then ok in that case I’ll assume you’ll be wanting to tax the rich and scrap private schools tax loopholes more than make the elderly poorer? As I haven’t seen you ever mention that in this thread before. 
 

Yes, but it’s ok for the Tories to break manifesto pledges apparently. 

No, I want a huge protection and benefit that mostly helps the richest removed to help fund a well targeted benefit that helps everyone that is actually struggling with the cost of living crisis.

I do want to tax the rich, and I do think private schools shouldn't get charitable status. 

Just because you having petty arguments with other people has dominated this thread for the past few months don't think you know what everyone on this forum thinks.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

No, I want a huge protection and benefit that mostly helps the richest removed to help fund a well targeted benefit that helps everyone that is actually struggling with the cost of living crisis.

I do want to tax the rich, and I do think private schools shouldn't get charitable status. 

Just because you having petty arguments with other people has dominated this thread for the past few months don't think you know what everyone on this forum thinks.

You aren’t getting those measures not anytime soon to help with the CoL and besides you never started this off with that as your point you just wanted rid of the triple lock which would make the elderly poorer this winter because there isn’t another option.

Aren’t you now telling me how I think? 😉 Don’t use me as an excuse for why you haven’t posted here, I’m not that imposing!

If you feel that strongly about those other issues I look forward to seeing you comment on them here in the future. 

Edited October 18, 2022 by Ozanne

[fraybentos1]

Can we please just ban @Ozanneat this point to at least try get an intelligent discussion on here. 
 

Once more he cannot let people have a different opinion to him, even a clearly left wing guy like @kaosmark2

In the last couple weeks that must have been 5 or so arguments with regulars he’s had?

[steviewevie]

Eventually they will probably have to bring in means testing for pensions...in meantime I'd be amazed if they got rid of triple lock now...that will lead to a lot of very fucked off Tory voters, members, and MPs.

[Guest]

I think they’ll try to do it but won’t have enough Tory MPs willing to do it again. 

[steviewevie]

and actually there are quite a few pensioners who haven't got much money...

I think they should raise income tax.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

and actually there are quite a few pensioners who haven't got much money...

I think they should raise income tax.

That’s partly my point, I shared a tweet that had poverty rates for the elderly a little while ago, I didn’t realise it was that bad here tbh. 

Edited October 18, 2022 by Ozanne

[fraybentos1]

No one is denying that there’s plenty poor pensioners. There is just a lot more well off ones. So instead of giving them all X amount of pension, give the well off ones less and the poor ones more. Hardly controversial. 

[Guest]

It doesn’t seem ideal to scrap the triple lock.