UK Politics

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

OK, so you would rather I say it is wonderful and Labour are great despite taking money from people who struggle to pay their heating bills?

 

Yes

[Nobody Interesting]

Just now, steviewevie said:

Yes

 

Well I will not say that due to the part of my comment you chose to remove - the part that says that is a very Tory way of thinking................................. are you a Tory now?

[philipsteak]

Saw a guy yesterday wearing a 'Robinson for PM' t-shirt yesterday. In a small town in Northumberland. Genuinely caught me off guard. Now he could just be a Time Team and Blackadder fan but I don't think that's the Robinson he was referring too.

[steviewevie]

14 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

Well I will not say that due to the part of my comment you chose to remove - the part that says that is a very Tory way of thinking................................. are you a Tory now?

a Tory way of thinking?

Ok. We've been over this but I don't disagree with this policy, if going to make savings then making a benefit means tested is ok with me. Of course some people will lose out, and maybe they need to do something to get those not claiming pension credits, and also others who should maybe still be getting this benefit. 

But, pensioners have done pretty well last decade or so, triple lock and all that, as well has universal benefits like that, whereas younger working people have not done so well, like those public sector workers, so maybe a little bit of redistribution is a good thing I reckon.

[kaosmark2]

15 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

a Tory way of thinking?

Ok. We've been over this but I don't disagree with this policy, if going to make savings then making a benefit means tested is ok with me. Of course some people will lose out, and maybe they need to do something to get those not claiming pension credits, and also others who should maybe still be getting this benefit. 

But, pensioners have done pretty well last decade or so, triple lock and all that, as well has universal benefits like that, whereas younger working people have not done so well, like those public sector workers, so maybe a little bit of redistribution is a good thing I reckon.

 

I agree with this. It's also one of the very few benefits that have risen in line with what they cover, despite not being means tested. 

 

And, because the testing is linked so closely to another benefit (pension credit), the means testing will cost next to nothing.

 

Of all the options to make cuts, means testing a pensioner-only benefit or two seems pretty reasonable to me. My parents, like many other pensioners, don't need it.

[Nobody Interesting]

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

a Tory way of thinking?

Ok. We've been over this but I don't disagree with this policy, if going to make savings then making a benefit means tested is ok with me. Of course some people will lose out, and maybe they need to do something to get those not claiming pension credits, and also others who should maybe still be getting this benefit. 

But, pensioners have done pretty well last decade or so, triple lock and all that, as well has universal benefits like that, whereas younger working people have not done so well, like those public sector workers, so maybe a little bit of redistribution is a good thing I reckon.

 

Why then are there more pensioners officially living in poverty than there were 10 years ago?

[Nobody Interesting]

1 hour ago, philipsteak said:

Saw a guy yesterday wearing a 'Robinson for PM' t-shirt yesterday. In a small town in Northumberland. Genuinely caught me off guard. Now he could just be a Time Team and Blackadder fan but I don't think that's the Robinson he was referring too.

 

You mean they might have meant the Robinson who is on the run from the law seeking refuge in overseas countries?

[kaosmark2]

20 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

Why then are there more pensioners officially living in poverty than there were 10 years ago?

If they've selected the cut off fairly, then making a benefit means tested won't affect the ones living in poverty.

Edited July 31 by kaosmark2

[philipsteak]

25 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

You mean they might have meant the Robinson who is on the run from the law seeking refuge in overseas countries?

That'll be the one. 

The far right don't really do irony do they?

[zahidf]

Polling in favour of mean testing winter fuel payments.

[Nobody Interesting]

14 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

If they've selected the cut off fairly, then making a benefit means tested won't affect the ones living in poverty.

 

That is the entire point of what I have been saying since the announcement - along with Age UK, Martin Lewis and so many others................. it DOES NOT protect all those living in poverty as many of them live in poverty due to bills etc as the measure is percentage of income spent. This measure will directly harm many, up to 3 million according to Martin Lewis.

I do not disagree that it needs stopping for the wealthy but the way it is now some vulnerable people will be effected badly.

Also, it is estimated that the Trussell Trust receives around £50 million in donations from those who do not need the WFA donating it to them - how will that be dealt with especially as it directly effects the poorest and most vulnerable?

[kaosmark2]

32 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

That is the entire point of what I have been saying since the announcement - along with Age UK, Martin Lewis and so many others................. it DOES NOT protect all those living in poverty as many of them live in poverty due to bills etc as the measure is percentage of income spent. This measure will directly harm many, up to 3 million according to Martin Lewis.

I do not disagree that it needs stopping for the wealthy but the way it is now some vulnerable people will be effected badly.

Also, it is estimated that the Trussell Trust receives around £50 million in donations from those who do not need the WFA donating it to them - how will that be dealt with especially as it directly effects the poorest and most vulnerable?

 

Then fight the threshold, not the measure. I'm fully in favour of uplifting thresholds so they protect everyone in poverty, but introducing very cheap means testing on benefits that largely go to a lot of wealthy people in society, is a good thing.

 

And your argument about the Trussell Trust is just the one right-wingers use about "philanthropy". "If you tax/cut money from the rich, what will happen to all the poor charities we donate to (to help dodge tax)". It's bogus.

[Nobody Interesting]

Just now, kaosmark2 said:

 

Then fight the threshold, not the measure. I'm fully in favour of uplifting thresholds so they protect everyone in poverty, but introducing very cheap means testing on benefits that largely go to a lot of wealthy people in society, is a good thing.

 

And your argument about the Trussell Trust is just the one right-wingers use about "philanthropy". "If you tax/cut money from the rich, what will happen to all the poor charities we donate to (to help dodge tax)". It's bogus.

 

Which is exactlky what I have been doinbg and saying from the moment it was announced!!

[kaosmark2]

20 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

Which is exactlky what I have been doinbg and saying from the moment it was announced!!

I mean, it didn't read like that, it just seemed like "how dare you let pensioners go cold! Tax the wealthy!" and... this is cutting a benefit to many wealthy people. Can you quote an early comment you made where you said the threshold was the problem (or similar wording?)

[kaosmark2]

So given that everyone seemed to agree that 5 years for peaceful protest blocking a motorway was appropriate, how long should the sentences be for plotting and starting a race riot, arson, and throwing bricks at police?

[lazyred]

14 hours ago, fraybentos1 said:

so what? they should claim it then. Personal responsibility to claim what you are due

Some are too proud, some too confused. 

As a general rule, benefits need tapering away, taking it all away for a pound extra income is not right. 

By the way this is your future that you are making worse. 

[steviewevie]

1 hour ago, zahidf said:

Polling in favour of mean testing winter fuel payments.

Osborne's benefit cuts were pretty popular too. The two child benefit cap also popular. People like other people's benefits being taken away, scroungers etc.

(although don't get me wrong I love this policy because I hate old people).

[steviewevie]

4 minutes ago, lazyred said:

Some are too proud, some too confused. 

As a general rule, benefits need tapering away, taking it all away for a pound extra income is not right. 

By the way this is your future that you are making worse. 

so can't they just get the credits automatically?

Yes tapering better, but more complicated/costly I guess.

Simplest is make it universal and bin it for everyone.

Or even simpler reverse those bloody NI cuts.

[SheffJeff]

25 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

So given that everyone seemed to agree that 5 years for peaceful protest blocking a motorway was appropriate, how long should the sentences be for plotting and starting a race riot, arson, and throwing bricks at police?

 

2 bricks to the head and 1 to the balls!

 

 

[Nobody Interesting]

On 7/30/2024 at 9:09 AM, Nobody Interesting said:

 

There are so many who will not get the WFA who are struggling, Martin Lewis (who has loads of info) estimates around 3 million might be badly effected.

I wouldn't be against scrapping the winter fuel payment for the wealthy, but the way they're doing it seems to exacerbate an extremely unfair situation for people who get the full new state pension and no other income.

How can it be right that someone who isn't entitled to state pension because of missing contributions actually comes out with more than someone with 45 years of contributions?

That's bonkers. Why not use the higher rate tax threshold as the cut off?

This is from the Labour Manifesto

"We will support pensioners and give them the dignity and security they deserve in retirement." 

 

 

19 hours ago, lazyred said:

Looks like Housing Benefit won't get you the fuel allowance just the Pension Credit. So just income below 218 single or 332 couple. As you said this affects too many people. 850,000 eligible households don't even claim the credit.

 

 

2 hours ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

That is the entire point of what I have been saying since the announcement - along with Age UK, Martin Lewis and so many others................. it DOES NOT protect all those living in poverty as many of them live in poverty due to bills etc as the measure is percentage of income spent. This measure will directly harm many, up to 3 million according to Martin Lewis.

I do not disagree that it needs stopping for the wealthy but the way it is now some vulnerable people will be effected badly.

Also, it is estimated that the Trussell Trust receives around £50 million in donations from those who do not need the WFA donating it to them - how will that be dealt with especially as it directly effects the poorest and most vulnerable?

 

1 hour ago, kaosmark2 said:

I mean, it didn't read like that, it just seemed like "how dare you let pensioners go cold! Tax the wealthy!" and... this is cutting a benefit to many wealthy people. Can you quote an early comment you made where you said the threshold was the problem (or similar wording?)

 

I am not allowed to suggest to posters to read what I wrote properly so instead just selected the post you replied to and put one part in bold as well as finding another one where I said the same from before.

I also quoted another person who agreed with my view and showed how those on housing benefit would lose out.

I could have also quoted those where I showed what Age UK said and Martin Lewis said and could have quoted where I said that despite pension triple lock rises more pensioners live in poverty now than 10 years ago - but they are all there to read should anyone wish.

Have  a nice day.

[Nobody Interesting]

1 hour ago, steviewevie said:

so can't they just get the credits automatically?

Yes tapering better, but more complicated/costly I guess.

Simplest is make it universal and bin it for everyone.

Or even simpler reverse those bloody NI cuts.

 

They could get the credits automatically but if they did that would likely cost more than keeping the WFA for all.

and the part in bold is what I said the day they were announced, I said Labour should immediately say they will reverse them and was roundly 'shouted down' on here for suggesting it.

[Nobody Interesting]

1 hour ago, kaosmark2 said:

So given that everyone seemed to agree that 5 years for peaceful protest blocking a motorway was appropriate, how long should the sentences be for plotting and starting a race riot, arson, and throwing bricks at police?

 

If you compare the two then they need sentences of at least 20 years.

[fraybentos1]

1 hour ago, lazyred said:

Some are too proud

Couldn't care less, not having a benefit being universal over means tested because some people are too proud to claim what they are due.

 

1 hour ago, lazyred said:

some too confused

sorry but this doesn't wash for me. It is simply not that hard to do and there will be a range of help avaiable to those who need it, There always is 

 

1 hour ago, lazyred said:

By the way this is your future that you are making worse

Nah the state pension it totally unsustainable and will either not exist in 40 years or the retirement age will be about 80. I'm working on the assumption I will get 0. Nothing I can do will change that

[steviewevie]

8 minutes ago, Nobody Interesting said:

 

They could get the credits automatically but if they did that would likely cost more than keeping the WFA for all.

and the part in bold is what I said the day they were announced, I said Labour should immediately say they will reverse them and was roundly 'shouted down' on here for suggesting it.

The injustice 

[kaosmark2]

1 hour ago, Nobody Interesting said:

I am not allowed to suggest to posters to read what I wrote properly so instead just selected the post you replied to and put one part in bold as well as finding another one where I said the same from before.

I also quoted another person who agreed with my view and showed how those on housing benefit would lose out.

I could have also quoted those where I showed what Age UK said and Martin Lewis said and could have quoted where I said that despite pension triple lock rises more pensioners live in poverty now than 10 years ago - but they are all there to read should anyone wish.

Have  a nice day.

 

I mean, I asked, I'm not going to have a go at you for doing what I asked. Fair enough though, I'd missed that first one.