I'm not arguing one way or the other about the amount of money pensioners should or shouldn't receive, but when looking at it, don't forget how much of it goes straight back into the economy. Lots of pensioners drive new(ish) cars, have holidays, eat out in cafes, visit tourist attractions. Some of them even buy season tickets. Many are providing free child care, doing school runs, and supporting their families in lots of other ways. Reduce their income by all means, but don't underestimate the value of the "grey pound". Where would all those businesses and industries be without it?
Younger generations are going to work their ******** off and likely not even get a state pension, let alone a triple locked one. I'm laughing at the idea that people would voluntarily opt out of the triple lock. Like it or not, the pensions liability is huge and will only grow. You can surely understand why there is some hostility. Younger people can't afford a house but there is a substantial tax contribution going to people who bought the houses they can't afford for cheap and have benefitted from massive capital appreciation?
Was said tongue in cheek to opt out mate, if feel you don’t need give it up eh?.....I was also stating my father’s, and he his no rich man by any means and struggled cash wise all his working life pal. All pensioners aren’t millionaires trust me. Also as I already said “a lot don’t enjoy too many years in retirement, through I’ll health, come about through working their entirety in heavy industry.
I think the welfare bill and the positive parts of it are being drowned out by the negative. If you are getting pip and need it lifelong you won't be affected in fact you'll be better off as you won't be bothered again to go through the demeaning assesment process. Those who are claiming it and could be in work with support should be able to access that support and be helped back to work. UC will rise above inflation to support those back at work who may need UC and the benefits attached to that. More money going in to mental health support and local hubs to address the chronic lack of support in this area. In most cases people won't be affected by the changes and those that are will be given more support and help as they get back to work. Pip claims have doubled since 2020, are we really that much sicker as a nation or are people who can work taking advantage because it was moved away from a face to face assement by the last lot and not returned after the pandemic? I suffer with terrible anxiety but can't imagine not working and it holding me back, the support has to be there though and that's where my issues lay as to whether it's moving to fast and support won't be there for everyone that needs it. Welfare spending will still go up but not to the levels it might do and what is saved will be used to support people in to work.
You say the pensioners have benefitted from massive capital appreciation. But that's bricks and mortar. Who do you actually think will benefit in the long run. Not all pensioners are cash rich. And let's be honest, not all young ones are skint. Preferring a luxury present lifestyle over the future consequences. My Mrs lived in abject poverty growing up. But we are now enjoying the fruits of our labour's by planning ahead from the day we married. Never had debt. Only through the miners strike. (My wife wasn't working as most mothers didn't when bringing up a young family) But that was cleared within weeks. (I don't regret for one minute what we fought for, JOBS for future generations. Regardless of the outcome, A huge proportion of the pensioners today in this area worked in the mines. Suffered health wise, physically far more than any other working group, Should they not reap the rewards of their labours in later life. Mostly shortened) I'm not saying for one minute it's easy to get on the housing ladder. But many youngsters want what some of us pensioners achieved over the years. Not the here and now. (by starting lower then aiming higher) Hostility is aimed at the wrong people. If you are saying pensioners. Ragged trousered philanthropist. Explains it all. If you spend more than you haven't got on luxuries, you can't bleat by banging it all on the credit cards creating debt.
I know at least 3 people badly enough affected by long Covid that they likely won't be able to work again - two 40s-50s, the other early 20s. Lots of lingering affects from the pandemic on people - and that's without those who were seriously ill.
I'm a Labour member and supporter of Starmer, in general, but I'm glad that my local MP has added his name to the proposed amendment on the Welfare Bill. Anyone thinking that the opposition to this is coming just from the left of the party are misguided, as this is cutting all the way through the membership. I fully accept that welfare needs to be reformed, but these proposals include elements that would effectively punch down on the most vulnerable in society, and going ahead with them would 100% be the wrong thing to do. As I read somewhere yesterday, this isn't left vs right, it's right vs wrong. The proposed amendment, to basically remove next week's vote and go back to the drawing board on this, is a perfectly reasonable proposal at this stage, and the consequences of ploughing ahead regardless would undermine any of the good work being done elsewhere by this government. Kendall, Reeves and Starmer digging their heels in on this is just a terrible look, as they've backed themselves into a corner and, if reports are to be believed, are now falling back on the whips office playing dirty to try to contain the rebellion. A worse look for the government would be if they got the vote through next week, having relied on Tory votes to do so, which doesn't look beyond the realms of possibility at present. It was a massive tactical mis-step to backtrack on the Winter Fuel Allowance to the extent that they did (i.e. for pensioners with incomes of £35k pa) while still potentially pulling the support rug away from disabled and vulnerable people, as these reforms would do. The promised safety nets to protect them are inadequate and come into effect far too late anyway. I have an autistic daughter, and the removal of SEND provisions hits home very hard, and will do with any other parent who's had to navigate through the existing system. Given the adverse reaction to this bill from 'moderate' members of the party, such as myself, it could potentially be a disaster for Labour's future prospects if they undermine the core support from the base that elected them last year. This bill has the potential to do just that.
Saying "it's not easy" to get on the housing ladder is an understatement. Unless you have parents to rely on either for a deposit contribution or to live with whilst saving then it's basically impossible for a large number of people. I don't think young people want what pensioners have here and now. What they want is the same opportunities in terms of affording their own home, and they don't want to be lectured about how it's avocados and iphones preventing them getting a house by people who paid 50p for theirs.
I think the pay our payroll system works just isn't defined enough. It should be clearer what you are paying for each month. Also tied in to how they are determined. Make it clearer for the everyday person. For instance if you are employed on your payslip show.. £xxx for State Pension Funding £xxx for Old Age Social Care Funding £xxx for NHS funding I think people would be less likely to complain if the elements above were increased fairly in a budget or annually to reflect real terms because they are things they really rely on. These % deductions should also be set at a level by the whole parliament not just the sitting government. Everything else within your Tax payment can be driven by political choice by who we vote for.
Labour are deceptively mis-selling this bill for a number of reasons. There has been no proper impact assessment. Apart from some random meetings (see article below)there has been no proper, full consultation with disability groups about specific impacts (its obvious why) even though the manifesto said they would work with disability groups on legislation. There is also as yet no clear explanation of how, in practical terms, people who lose their support will be helped into work. The government is trying to gaslight people on this and to suggest there is a lot of fraud going on when there is no clear evidence that that is the case. In pure and simple terms this is clearly an attempt to save money by targeting the most vulnerable people in society. It is not 'reform' it is cuts. The government know what they want to save on this as they've said so. The saving of money is, therefore, the real reason for the bill and not any pretend argument about making peoples' lives more meaningful as they've suggested. The bill is nasty, cruel, ill-thought out and NOT a Labour Party thing to do yet it is being done by the Labour Party. It will cause immense hardship, distress and, no doubt, death. That is why in spite of what the Labour leadership say it is also immoral. There are alternatives if the government wants to rein in 5bill a year but they've chosen this route because, I suspect, they think its an easy option. Its also another political mistake - targeting people mist likely to vote Labour. This is one reason why I, personally, will not be voting Labour again. I suggest you read this article. MPs hear from disabled people about life-threatening risks posed by ‘very, very dangerous’ cuts to benefits https://www.disabilitynewsservice.c...osed-by-very-very-dangerous-cuts-to-benefits/ On another issue I hope you manage your anxiety well enough - I know its incredibly distressing and can be debilitating. Best wishes.
cannot understand some of ther comments about taking money from pensioners - ask your parents how they fee-for a start the living wage is over £10 per hour-state pension is just over half that -we pay the same gas and electric bills -rates -rent- food etc.--having worked for over 60 years through thick and thin times- I paid n.i. i-ncome tax- etc. i am i.m.h.o welcome to little r and r. Imho we are living too long- check the death rates over the last 20 years, many of our parents died at lot earlier, than now. All of you now working -time and age is just a blink of an eye- you will all be pensioners 1 day
When the pension was introduced there were 12 working age people to every pensioner. It's now 2.5 to every pensioner. By the middle of this century it will be 1. There will not be a triple-locked state pension for people under the age of 40, and any state pension will look signficantly different to how it does today, that is the reality. At some point it will change, so why the hell should they fork out now? The current crop of pensioners can see what it's going be like for people in their thirties and absolutely do not like the look of it. They'd rather prolong the gravy train at their kids' expense rather than live in the same circumstances that their children will have to.
Getting on the housing ladder is nothing new. My parents along with my older brother waited 4 yrs to get a council house. Living with my grandparents. Rented.as i did when i got married(as seen today) essential items. TV's white goods etc. As they were unaffordable. Some essential items like school clothing were expensive in comparison to today. There are items today that cost significantly more today in comparison. (Food items) But income tax was much more, standard rates 30-35% (NI 8%+) in the 70s. . So many things to take into consideration. I'm fully aware lots can't get on the ladder. I f you applied for a council house in the 70s it could be between 1-5yrs afore you got one. Obviously Thatcher made it much worse. But it would not have been as bad if councils were allowed to reinvest it all in new housing . Let's just hope more affordable houses get built. As for lecturing. As to what folk can afford. Luxuries. I think you make the mistake between my comment of being prudent rather than over indulgent. (Not the latest iPhone but summat more affordable or hanging on to the one you have) Pensioners in the main have not had it all, their entire life. But most put away for a rainy day if possible. Are you saying all young uns that CAN, ( not those that can't afford to), can't do the same. ?. Which is my point.