Welfare Bill

Serious challenge for the government tonight, reports Pippa Crerar. An amendment tabled by Dame Meg Hillier and supported by many of her fellow select committee chairmen calls on the government to reconsider the proposals, while recognising the need for reform. This will please many on here. The government has to remember to take it's MP's with it. Interesting time ahead.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-bill-rise-18billion-YEAR-without-reform.html

Something needs to be done.

 

Far be it for me to suggest the Daily Mail has its facts wrong but……. the Daily Mail has its facts wrong.

No problem with discussing the increasing costs of welfare but it’s always handy to look at where benefits go. It doesn’t need a lot of research to work out the budget is made up principally of benefit payments to Pensioners - whether they need those benefits or not.

 

That article is false. The report doesn't say it is expected to increase by 18b a year it says 18b between now and 2029.

 

Pensioners get roughly 50-60% of benefits spent on them, along with >50% of the NHS budget and the majority of social care spending - which accounts for a large chunk of all local authority spending. But any attempts to change that are politically toxic...

 

The triple lock should go, for sure (perhaps just retaining the CPI link). But it could only be done with cross-party agreement and Reform's rising fortunes further complicate that scenario, as Nige is promising the Earth and all that's in it to everyone.

 

Perhaps they should expand the scope of the Assisted Dying proposals!!! I’m 68, paid an awful lot of tax (still do), and I refuse to feel guilty. But I do accept that my generation had the opportunity to progress if we worked hard. Some of us did. Some didn’t.

 

agree with yer totally from a 77yo

 

We are in the lower middle of European nations in benefit spend. While it may suit the 2 main right wing parties and the further right wing one to claim otherwise. It’s simply not true.

 

Let’s keep knocking pensioners eh?.....

 

Hard to argue we pensioners don't have it good.

 

Have you worked all your life mate?

 

As long as work would have me.

 

Very good, I have just finished work but won’t get my pension for 2 years as I am only 64. However I made a decision to save so as to be able to finish 2 years early. I thought that after working 48 year I probably worked enough. I think 35 years is the amount that you need to qualify for state pension?....if so then I have paid a third more than necessary, I don’t begrudge that but I would do if once I got to state pension age and they stopped the triple lock mate. Also a lot of men my age in our area( me included) have worked in an heavy industrial climate, i.e. mines, steelworks, glassworks, building etc. Do you not believe that we shouldn’t enjoy later life, because I know plenty that haven’t and not been able to enjoy it for long due to ill health caused by working in the afore mentioned industries. Why not give pensioners a choice then if you feel strongly enough and let those that don’t want the triple lock because they comfortable without, let them opt out .....end of.

 

F

Needs a fair deal for all not pensioner bashing.

 

Total respect for working for 48 years, and I think you were right to step down two years early. For pensioners, much depends on whether you have an occupational pension, or whether you are reliant solely on the state pension. I think that the value of the state pension should be preserved by keeping it index-linked (to the CPI). By linking it also to the level of average earnings growth, pensioners are given an extra advantage in years when the CPI has risen by less than that level. Similarly with the "or 2.5%" proviso. Money is tight, notwithstanding what the fantasy left-wing economists might argue. Young 'uns are feeling the pinch, and their prospects have not improved. So while it would cost me (and you) I think that fairness would be served by a CPI-linked state pension alone. I don't need the WFA, but I look set to get it this year, which is also unfair to younger taxpayers who are struggling along. Many of these benefits were introduced not on basis of need, but purely as vote-winners. Benefits should be based on need, in my view, and not be indiscriminate.

 

Also this, another example, my dad, worked his bollockks off all his life. Joiner(proper graft and no electric tools) by trade back in days when they didn’t get the good wages they get today and in the days when they were laid off with next to no money so we’re back on dole with family(us 4 kids) to look after, feed, clothe and everything thing else. He has never had a cracker all his life and walked with a stick since he was 65ish because of all hard work he did. He now 93 so you reckon he doesn’t deserve triple lock eh?.....he his knackered obviously but I hope he keeps getting everything he deserves for the hardship he had through out majority of his working life and chuff thee!!!!!!!

 

So do I mate. But are we really going to award pensions and other benefits on what people "deserve"? I might get nowt at that rate!

 

Be nice if good old fashioned Barnsley values were on show on this board at times.

 

Nob