I respect that opinion, there's no doubt Tories made things a lot worse but I genuinely can't believe what Labour are doing given all they did for 14 years was say how the Tories were taking away from the poorest in society. Maybe I should have said both as bad as each other.
Thanks. I will. I've tried to debate politics on here for about 6 years and it basically boils down to people not liking brown people who talk a bit funny. So forgive me if I dismissive this view point with the scorn it deserves.
A lot aren't actually millionaires...as your link says " And while the Sunday Times’s article brings up the statistic in the context of talking about the disposable income of the baby boomers, these figures aren’t about how much money people have in the bank." The ONS’s definition doesn’t just include disposable financial wealth, but other forms of wealth such as property value and pension pots." I don't know how it was calculated but if they included pension pots as a lump sum, it could be a significant figure, but most people draw pensions in relatively small amounts from the pot in order to see it last throughout their remaining lifetime....similarly an incredibly overvalued house price is not ready cash to spend.
So it’s the government’s fault that they don’t want to claim what they’re entitled to? Even when they spent money and resource setting up helplines and further assistance to try and ensure that all those entitled DID claim? Aye ok then.
No you can’t. But you can create conditions which enable businesses to thrive and generate tax revenue.
Ok so by ‘vulnerable people’ you mean you. Your statement suggests Labour have done more to affect people with vulnerabilities detrimentally than the Tories did in 14 years. They haven’t. At all. You may feel that you have it harder - I’d suggest that’s not likely the case, but even if it is, it doesn’t make correct a sweeping generalisation like you made. Can I ask, had the Tories won the last election, or if Reform were in power, do you think your situation (or that of any other disabled, low income, elderly, or in fact anyone with any vulnerability) would be any better? Do you think PIP assessments would be fairer - both for those being assessed and the country as a whole? I’m disabled. I’m fortunate enough to still be able to work. I haven’t applied for DLA or PIP, I think I’d likely qualify - at least at a lower level - but I don’t at the moment have need for it. It is my decision not to pursue it. (When I was out of work briefly last year the advisor at the DWP suggested I apply as it would be ‘free money’, ‘won’t make any difference to your wages or tax’, and ‘will even make it easier to get a job from some places as you can tell them you’re disabled. There’s quotas in some firms’). I couldn’t quite believe it. As I say. It was my personal choice to not apply. I found myself a new contract and am content earning my own money. I will fight for equality and fairness for all factions of society but can’t support it being abused to go too far the other way. I’m sure the PIP assessments changes will impact some who genuinely need the support and no I don’t condone that, but I also don’t condone a system which might facilitate someone who could very much contribute in some way relying solely on the state. It might not sound very socialist of me and I do consider myself to be more than left leaning - but especially in a fiscal environment such as we are in now, you can’t pay benefits to those who don’t need them. Hence winter fuel payments on an indiscriminate basis were scrapped - rightly, though perhaps implemented too quickly and with a line in the sand not quite in the right place - and a change in PIP criteria. I’ve no idea what conditions or issues you live with and it is none of my business. When you are re-assessed I hope you retain your support, assuming you do have need for it. I’m sure you do and I hope your fears are not founded. Some people who shouldn’t be excluded will slip through the net, I don’t doubt that, but the majority of people who have reduction or removal of PIP will be because they no longer require it or should never have been awarded it in the first place. Just like some who will struggle due to having no fuel allowance will exist - but that doesn’t justify spending billions annually on millions of pensioners with assets and income far in excess of the average income of the working population when they already have inflation busting triple locked pension increases. At least three million OAPs are living in the U.K. that have cash and assets worth over a million.
That’s because the Tories created an industry for their mates. It should be low cost and quick decisions. They did it deliberate to fuel anger and channel money
My grandma died a few year back now. She wouldn't have been entitled to pension credit but at 91 didnt have a mobile didn't use email, eyesight was shocking. Not every elderly person has family to help them claim things. Like I said over 700k haven't claimed what there entitled to because of this. Suppose it was easier to get it before it was means tested but weather you take it as a dig at your party or not the means testing is flawed.
those receiving a basic state pension which is 12k less than minimum wage in some instances won’t qualify. That’s mad. Still better than a wealth tax according to Starmer
These things are of course all true but is there not an argument that if you, in retirement, can’t afford to heat and light the property you live in - which is say, worth x hundred thousand or y million pounds, that you perhaps consider liquidising the asset, live in more appropriately proportioned housing and partly support yourself in that way? As opposed to expect the government to pay even more than the annually increasing pension as an extra to support those costs? Winter fuel allowance isn’t a traditional or expected benefit in retirement. It shouldn’t be a crutch to lean on to maintain wealth - it should be support to pay for a basic need for those who can’t otherwise afford it by any means. (And might I add those sitting on assets of high value but perhaps without huge monthly income that are complaining about WFA, often also complain that their kids or grandkids have inheritance tax to pay on inheriting that house - that the taxpayer has paid to heat for years?) Pensioners are hugely protected. More so than many other factions of society and perhaps more than any other vulnerable group. In many ways completely correctly, of course. And I’m not saying they should be turfed out of their family house on retirement. But if a working person lost their job, had a lower income, their right to stay in the house if they couldn’t service the costs of doing so wouldn’t be there. They would have to sell up and buy/rent smaller. Even if they were mortgage free etc. if they couldn’t afford to live there they wouldn’t be able to. It isn’t really right to let people (of any age) garner all the benefits of the increasing value of properties but not shoulder the burden of the increasing costs to live in them.
I give zero *****. "I live in a household with assets of over a million pounds but I'm not really a millionaire. Don't take my benefits." They can get in the ******* sea.
They’re not my party (I’ve voted for them in the past, wouldn’t do so currently but certainly wouldn’t go to Tory or reform in a month of Sundays) - and as I’ve said I don’t doubt there are flaws - but nobody criticising the WFA changes have suggested what should have been done differently other than continuing to pay it out to all pensioners - which wasn’t fair on the taxpayer, nor sustainable for the country to shoulder the burden of. The problem of people not claiming what they’re entitled to is a separate argument - again, what is the expectation for any government of any political persuasion, to do about that? It can’t be ‘a lot of older people don’t have a phone or family support so we’ll pay all older people a load of money just in case they need it and won’t claim’ - it really just can’t. I’m happy for my tax to go towards assisting the needy in society. There are plenty of sections of people this applies to. Not necessarily as happy to prop up those who have other means to support themselves if they chose to do so, but are trousering the benefits of asset value increase whilst milking the system to pay for basics they should cover themselves.
Your style of ‘debate’ is to slander and insult. It says more about you than whoever you choose to attack.
Following years of debate and discussion on here and banging my head against a brick wall, its the only thing left when it comes to dealing with the Stop The Boats bunch. Nice to see my stalker is still up and about too. Enjoy the rest of your day.
Yes, I have no time whatsoever to bother with the semantics of if somebody who lives in a house with total assets of a million pounds is a millionaire or just millionaire-adjacent. And I am very prejudiced that those people, whatever the **** they should be, should absolutely not receive state benefits.
I think Labour are dogger. Having said that, I agree with most things they’ve announced thatthey’ll bring in up to now while they’ve been in charge to bring the country’s finances into shape. I just don’t think they’re either strong enough or bright enough to implement them properly.
