Winter Fuel Vote

All sorted long ago, old chap!

The Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013 (legislation.gov.uk)

 

You're completely ignoring the genuinely needy and trying to overstate the number of people taking the piss to support your viewpoint. There's always going to be some element of abuse in any system and while we should attempt to root it out where possible, it's not justification for just scrapping any reforms intended to benefit the poor and needy.

As for why it should fall on those who've done well, that's due to the diminishing marginal utility of capital. £200 is worth a lot less in practical terms to someone earning £100k than someone earning **** all.

If Starmer passes laws which increases taxes on the wealthy then his taxes will go up and yes, he is contributing.

 

Vote tory then. If you think you'll be better off. That's the crux of the argument.
Not the fact that I'm a starmer fan in the main (if you've read my posts in the past you'd be aware, and said on numerous I hate the tories more than I love labour so would vote anyone barring reform to keep em out of power in a marginal Tory seat.) . But a socialist who thinks it's the closest we'll get whilst I'm alive. If you dont think those better off shouldn't help those worse off. So be it.
Who did you vote for and why.
I've given my reasons. On numerous occasions.

Pensioner who has fought all his life for all to have the dignity of a decent living standard without handouts. What's your bag.

Btw there will be lots of those middle/upper class willing to contribute more to society if they can afford it. Like any other class.

Interesting read.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...-press-labour-government-green-energy-workers

 

I've emailed Dan Jarvis our MP. Told him 2 months ago he came a-calling asking for our Vote. Only fair he reciprocates, and votes AGAINST it. I'm not one of those who say they don't need it - If they don't need it why don't they contact DWP and return the payments to them and inform, the authorities you want no further payments

 

You can vote for who you like. I'd just ask people to look in detail at what they vote for. Ask yourself why reform is the only party without a democratic model. Farridge is the owner and controls it. He's already got rid of it's leader because it suited him, then it's chairman.

And would you be happy with a privatised NHS and not having a state to help those who need it? immigration is often the thing that picks up votes for reform and the pretence Farridge is a man of the people (did you see last year he earned more than any other MP?) but other policies he's muted over time are pretty heinous.

And did you see just weeks after getting elected on 'promises' ... He ditched them unilaterally?

I'd be very concerned about a man like him. And as I say, thankfully he'll get nowhere near the levers of power because of our electoral system.

 

Should we ask all those high earners, obscene in some cases to give up there ill gotten gains in some cases. (Eg Water and post office bosses) to pop down to the tax office and tell em to up it. Or do the right thing and tax em more regardless, to benefit others.

 

You're paying tax because of the conservatives, not labour. You're also going to get £400 more next year on your state pension. That more than offsets anything you might lose from winter payment removal.

 

Latest out today estimates £460 mate.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9wjz7jzqd0o

 

I'm fairly confident that people receiving only the state pension will never be asked to pay income tax. Even after next April's triple lock uplift, the state pension will be c.£500 short of the personal allowance threshold. If the pension figure rises to that level in subsequent years then I would expect the threshold to rise to a figure above it. So far as I am aware there is no PAYE mechanism attaching to the state pension arrangements, so huge numbers of pensioners would otherwise have to begin filing tax returns, leading to chaos and further expense. Those with additional occupational pensions already pay income tax via PAYE on their occupational pensions. I haven't seen anything to indicate that Labour propose to levy national insurance payments on state pensioners, so perhaps the earlier poster made that up?

 

I'll be interested to see who gets credit for that. Labour aren't changing it, but its something they've inherited. I'm sure the right wing media will give it minimal coverage and focus on the lesser amount being taken away for a large number of people who don't need it.

 

My fear is mate is that the energy price cap estimates that Bill's will rise by about 10%. Over the coming year. Typically £150 on an average of £1500 at the mo. An increase in personal allowance would benefit all not just pensioners. (Difficult decisions ahead but sure the wealthiest in society could make that up)

 

But only for retirees post 2016 .
Pre 2016 it is a lower rate , to be £2800 difference according to your article .

It is false reporting by media , politicians , DWLC and yourself to group ALL pensioners as receiving large increases .

 

What do you class as genuinely needy? I have no problem with people who are getting enough to get by - what we have created though is a system that allows people to claim things so they have a choice not to work and an attitude of 'whats the point of working 40 hours to only be £30 a week better off' attitude

In your 'needy' or low income category are also people who could cook their books to claim a benefit, but tick a box when it comes to demographics. Someone earning £100000 a year will likely make sacrifices and have made sacrifices beyond all comprehension of someone who wants to plod along. Last year, someone earning £100000 a year will pay approximately £33000 in tax and NI, someone earning £20000 a year (before any benefits) will pay approximately £2200. So they earn 5 times as much but pay 15 times more tax, and people think it is right to tax them even more?

Let's then assume that they have more in savings, more in equity etc - yet the example on £20000 has none of these - the example would then get care home fees paid, the one who has paid more gets nothing as they have to tap into assets

On KS - then his income will be taxed - however it depends if assets have been moved about in the build up to the budget

 

I've said many times before, I'm no fan of Starmer, but out of the options available it was the least worst. But their inheritance is a dreadful place to have to start from. Everything needs investment just to get to a basic standard and that will cost hundreds of billions. And the worst part is that the tories intentionally made it worse. Delaying decisions on spend, delaying compensation schemes and the pushing through swift NI cuts. It's cynical and destructive beyond belief and solely to hinder a political parties attempts to govern.

I'll be interested to see what they come up with in the budget, but I really hope they tax wealth rather than cut spending projects.

 

You miss the point - the budget is the end of october - this is obviously being debated now with the WFA

 

It's currently an estimate based on released wage increase statistics, no? And crikey... I didn't realise I carried as much sway as the whole of the media... I really must carry that responsibility with care!

 

Thanks for pointing that out and stand corrected. Says £353 post 2016. My bad not the article. (Glad someone reads em) And that only means those with maximum state pensions. Not those with less. Either through lack of full NI contributions like my mrs. Or serps which I believe also affects the figures

 

A £460 increase does outstrip the £200 or £300 a pensioner might have got.
However, that £460 was supposedly to compensate for inflation/price rises (so kinda already “allocated”).
The money can’t be spent twice.

I actually agree with the removal of the WFA.
I think it should be removed completely and added to the state pension.
Those who don’t pay tax, get the full benefit.
Those who do pay tax, get a fraction of it.

The SP in this country isn’t where it should be, fact.
It’s about half of minimum wage to put it into perspective.
And the majority of the SP will probably be spent on food (goes up when energy and raw material prices rise), energy (also taxed), transport (fuel tax) and possibly rent/mortgage. And if they’re in a care home, it’s well over a grand a week.

income tax and wealth taxes have been cut, though we’re still paying one of the highest levels of tax in history.
Tax avoidance is rife.
Adverts for bankruptcy services almost encourage people to take on debt, then take measures to avoid paying it back.

I’d suggest Labour look to block the holes leaking money out of the bucket, before they increase the flow of the tap putting it in.

 

You are right in everything you say. But it wont happen overnight. Some have thrown the Teddy out of the cot thinking it will and should. I too and most others advocate a wage/income that gives dignity not handouts.

 

I mean people who are struggling to keep their heads above the poverty line and/or have a reasonable standard of existence.

Yes, I think it's fine to tax high earners a lot more. For the person on £20k each pound they earn is much, much more valuable in real terms than it is for the person on £100k. And I don't think everyone on £100k has made u fathom able sacrifices, far from it.

I think you're massively overestimating the amount people "choosing not to work" and are happy to cut adrift a lot of genuinely needy people to get at that minority.