|
Post by oggyoggy on Sept 9, 2024 15:29:34 GMT
I really wouldn't give half as many fucks if they weren't such hypocritical cunts. I love how some people are thick enough to not know EVERY decision made by a government is a choice.
|
|
|
Post by AlliG on Sept 9, 2024 15:29:40 GMT
It is very easy to spend someone else's money Benefits should be targeted and not universal There are about 12M Pensioners in UK and 2M 16% of them live in poverty calculated in UK at *60% of median income. Astonishingly about one third of the 2M who do qualify for Pensions Credit and thus Fuel Allowance are not claiming it. Labour is putting a concerted effort in ensuring they do claim it. There are slightly more children under 16 than Pensioners at 12.7M in UK but a whopping 4.3M 34% live in poverty by the same 60% of Median Income There are 3M 25% Pensioners in UK classified as Millionaires many via Property Assets. These form part of the 10M Pensioners we hear about losing a £200 a year Fuel Allowance I am not trying to play off Pensioners against Children but the first priority should be to lift the 2M Pensioners and 4.3M Children out of relative poverty *I also have an issue with the measurement of poverty in UK because there are some very high net worth individuals at the top by the time you get to the middle it's a relatively low number and 60% of that is pathetic and we should have a much more ambitious target Stokeson made a very astute and much overlooked Post a few days ago where he suggested Labour will most likely link Housing Benefits to Fuel Allowance such that many more than the 2M Pensioners will be benefit but not the 3M Asset Rich Millionaires Labour must also urgently tackle Child Poverty but again it shouldn't be based on the number of children you have but on need. When Jacob Rees-Mogg decided to have six children that was a personal choice but he shouldn't receive State Benefits for doing so. I have to admit from a PR Standpoint although removing Universal Benefits are the right thing to do Labour have made a complete Pigs Ear of this akin to Maggie Thatcher, Milk Snatcher. They can recover and I expect they will not to repair their reputation but because it's the right thing to do. On your first point; the 60% poverty line is around £16,800 a year but to be eligible for pension credits you need a pension of £11,344 or less, therefore a substantial percentage of the pensioners below the poverty line are going to be ineligible for pension credits.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 9, 2024 15:36:20 GMT
It is very easy to spend someone else's money Benefits should be targeted and not universal There are about 12M Pensioners in UK and 2M 16% of them live in poverty calculated in UK at *60% of median income. Astonishingly about one third of the 2M who do qualify for Pensions Credit and thus Fuel Allowance are not claiming it. Labour is putting a concerted effort in ensuring they do claim it. There are slightly more children under 16 than Pensioners at 12.7M in UK but a whopping 4.3M 34% live in poverty by the same 60% of Median Income There are 3M 25% Pensioners in UK classified as Millionaires many via Property Assets. These form part of the 10M Pensioners we hear about losing a £200 a year Fuel Allowance I am not trying to play off Pensioners against Children but the first priority should be to lift the 2M Pensioners and 4.3M Children out of relative poverty *I also have an issue with the measurement of poverty in UK because there are some very high net worth individuals at the top by the time you get to the middle it's a relatively low number and 60% of that is pathetic and we should have a much more ambitious target Stokeson made a very astute and much overlooked Post a few days ago where he suggested Labour will most likely link Housing Benefits to Fuel Allowance such that many more than the 2M Pensioners will be benefit but not the 3M Asset Rich Millionaires Labour must also urgently tackle Child Poverty but again it shouldn't be based on the number of children you have but on need. When Jacob Rees-Mogg decided to have six children that was a personal choice but he shouldn't receive State Benefits for doing so. I have to admit from a PR Standpoint although removing Universal Benefits are the right thing to do Labour have made a complete Pigs Ear of this akin to Maggie Thatcher, Milk Snatcher. They can recover and I expect they will not to repair their reputation but because it's the right thing to do. Thank you for providing the stats and confirming exactly what I thought and why I have defended means testing this benefit. The question that should be asked is at what level of income and capital these pensioners be able to claim the winter fuel payments. The rich don’t need it and shouldn’t get it. you done necessary save money by means testing. That was the argument for not allowing child benefit for high earners. it took many years for child benefit taxation to come in.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Sept 9, 2024 15:50:40 GMT
Thank you for providing the stats and confirming exactly what I thought and why I have defended means testing this benefit. The question that should be asked is at what level of income and capital these pensioners be able to claim the winter fuel payments. The rich don’t need it and shouldn’t get it. you done necessary save money by means testing. That was the argument for not allowing child benefit for high earners. it took many years for child benefit taxation to come in. I agree. You don’t. But it is universal income for all. Or means testing for all. Anything in between is illogical.
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Sept 9, 2024 17:45:04 GMT
I don't get it. Why are pensioners being punished but already well paid train drivers, being paid even more? Unions?
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Sept 9, 2024 17:53:41 GMT
I don't get it. Why are pensioners being punished but already well paid train drivers, being paid even more? Unions? It’s disgusting
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Sept 9, 2024 17:55:07 GMT
I don't get it. Why are pensioners being punished but already well paid train drivers, being paid even more? Unions? It’s disgusting 25% of pensioners are millionaires
|
|
|
Post by stokeson on Sept 9, 2024 17:55:25 GMT
I don't get it. Why are pensioners being punished but already well paid train drivers, being paid even more? Unions? Well 1 in 5 pensioners are millionares not sure how many train drivers?
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Sept 9, 2024 17:56:19 GMT
I don't get it. Why are pensioners being punished but already well paid train drivers, being paid even more? Unions? Well 1 in 5 pensioners are millionares not sure how many train drivers? One of us is wrong! My 25% comes from Wannabe above
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Sept 9, 2024 17:56:49 GMT
I don't get it. Why are pensioners being punished but already well paid train drivers, being paid even more? Unions? Well 1 in 5 pensioners are millionares not sure how many train drivers? Oggy says one in 4. Get ya stories straight lads😉
|
|
|
Post by stokeson on Sept 9, 2024 17:57:07 GMT
Well 1 in 5 pensioners are millionares not sure how many train drivers? One of us is wrong! Just checked its 27%......
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Sept 9, 2024 17:57:33 GMT
I don't get it. Why are pensioners being punished but already well paid train drivers, being paid even more? Unions? Well 1 in 5 pensioners are millionares not sure how many train drivers? What a daft way of comparing, who’s got the biggest proportion of millionaires? I despair
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Sept 9, 2024 17:58:46 GMT
Just checked its 27%...... I’d be a millionaire if I had a pound for everytime I heard a lefty say train drivers should get a pay rise😉
|
|
|
Post by stokeson on Sept 9, 2024 17:59:24 GMT
Well 1 in 5 pensioners are millionares not sure how many train drivers? What a daft way of comparing, who’s got the biggest proportion of millionaires? I despair All benifits should be means tested its simple..................
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Sept 9, 2024 17:59:57 GMT
Well 1 in 5 pensioners are millionares not sure how many train drivers? What a daft way of comparing, who’s got the biggest proportion of millionaires? I despair Don’t you think poorer people should be prioritised for benefits? More children live in poverty than pensioners (by number and proportion).
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Sept 9, 2024 18:01:02 GMT
What a daft way of comparing, who’s got the biggest proportion of millionaires? I despair Don’t you think poorer people should be prioritised for benefits? More children live in poverty than pensioners (by number and proportion). Not necessarily no, not at all in fact.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Sept 9, 2024 18:01:29 GMT
What a daft way of comparing, who’s got the biggest proportion of millionaires? I despair All benifits should be means tested its simple.................. Go on…….
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Sept 9, 2024 18:03:58 GMT
Don’t you think poorer people should be prioritised for benefits? More children live in poverty than pensioners (by number and proportion). Not necessarily no, not at all in fact. Why? Are you a supporter of universal income? In which case I get that as an argument. Do away with all benefits and have universal income for all. It has shown to be a success in Finland and doesn’t disincentivise people from working.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Sept 9, 2024 18:06:37 GMT
Not necessarily no, not at all in fact. Why? Are you a supporter of universal income? In which case I get that as an argument. Do away with all benefits and have universal income for all. It has shown to be a success in Finland and doesn’t disincentivise people from working. To be honest I don’t know what the benefits are but if it involves giving jobless dossers enough money to feed their addictions I’m out. And by addictions I don’t just mean drugs and alcohol
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Sept 9, 2024 18:33:22 GMT
Just checked its 27%...... Even if this was true, what about the remaining 73%? Also, why do train drivers who are already earning very well, get to earn significantly more? Make it make sense.
|
|
|
Post by wannabee on Sept 9, 2024 18:34:51 GMT
It is very easy to spend someone else's money Benefits should be targeted and not universal There are about 12M Pensioners in UK and 2M 16% of them live in poverty calculated in UK at *60% of median income. Astonishingly about one third of the 2M who do qualify for Pensions Credit and thus Fuel Allowance are not claiming it. Labour is putting a concerted effort in ensuring they do claim it. There are slightly more children under 16 than Pensioners at 12.7M in UK but a whopping 4.3M 34% live in poverty by the same 60% of Median Income There are 3M 25% Pensioners in UK classified as Millionaires many via Property Assets. These form part of the 10M Pensioners we hear about losing a £200 a year Fuel Allowance I am not trying to play off Pensioners against Children but the first priority should be to lift the 2M Pensioners and 4.3M Children out of relative poverty *I also have an issue with the measurement of poverty in UK because there are some very high net worth individuals at the top by the time you get to the middle it's a relatively low number and 60% of that is pathetic and we should have a much more ambitious target Stokeson made a very astute and much overlooked Post a few days ago where he suggested Labour will most likely link Housing Benefits to Fuel Allowance such that many more than the 2M Pensioners will be benefit but not the 3M Asset Rich Millionaires Labour must also urgently tackle Child Poverty but again it shouldn't be based on the number of children you have but on need. When Jacob Rees-Mogg decided to have six children that was a personal choice but he shouldn't receive State Benefits for doing so. I have to admit from a PR Standpoint although removing Universal Benefits are the right thing to do Labour have made a complete Pigs Ear of this akin to Maggie Thatcher, Milk Snatcher. They can recover and I expect they will not to repair their reputation but because it's the right thing to do. On your first point; the 60% poverty line is around £16,800 a year but to be eligible for pension credits you need a pension of £11,344 or less, therefore a substantial percentage of the pensioners below the poverty line are going to be ineligible for pension credits. I am a Pensioner but I'm quite certain you know more about the exact figures than I do. I never bothered looking into them as I'm certain i wouldn't be eligible and only recently discovered after checking that I received a Fuel Allowance that I neither need nor even knew I got. Your projections I'm sure are entirely correct based on current rules, my projection is that Labour will change the rules so that more Pensioners become eligible than apparently the current 2M of which a third don't claim Pension Credit even though they could At the end of the end of the exercise if more Pensioners who need Benefits receive them and those that don't need them don't i consider it a job well done. As in a lot of things speculated about what Labour will or won't do we won't know until 30th October
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Sept 9, 2024 18:55:37 GMT
Why? Are you a supporter of universal income? In which case I get that as an argument. Do away with all benefits and have universal income for all. It has shown to be a success in Finland and doesn’t disincentivise people from working. To be honest I don’t know what the benefits are but if it involves giving jobless dossers enough money to feed their addictions I’m out. And by addictions I don’t just mean drugs and alcohol It mostly means money to disabled people, people who cannot work, carers, poor people, lower income families with children, and, until recently, rich pensioners as well as poor pensioners.
|
|
|
Post by foghornsgleghorn on Sept 9, 2024 19:01:45 GMT
Just checked its 27%...... Even if this was true, what about the remaining 73%? Also, why do train drivers who are already earning very well, get to earn significantly more? Make it make sense. Train drivers- supply and demand, hence why they earn an average of £48,000 . Here's how you can apply routesintorail.org/how-to-become-a-train-driver/
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Sept 9, 2024 19:08:24 GMT
They should means test free prescriptions for over 60s, there's surely lots of people between 60 and 67 with houses paid for and a decent salary or pension. Keeping needy pensioners warm is a bigger priority than giving free prescriptions to those that can easily afford them. They should be getting both just like people of all ages get free prescriptions in Wales, Scotland and N Ireland. Don't let the Westminster elite let you think its one or the other. I have no way of knowing for sure what can or can't be realistically afforded. I was just pointing out that where a choice has to be made, it's logical to make it so that those who can easily afford it anyway, do so.
|
|
|
Post by thehartshillbadger on Sept 9, 2024 19:14:15 GMT
To be honest I don’t know what the benefits are but if it involves giving jobless dossers enough money to feed their addictions I’m out. And by addictions I don’t just mean drugs and alcohol It mostly means money to disabled people, people who cannot work, carers, poor people, lower income families with children, and, until recently, rich pensioners as well as poor pensioners. I’m all for the first three and the last one as givens
|
|
|
Post by scfcbiancorossi on Sept 9, 2024 19:14:35 GMT
Even if this was true, what about the remaining 73%? Also, why do train drivers who are already earning very well, get to earn significantly more? Make it make sense. Train drivers- supply and demand, hence why they earn an average of £48,000 . Here's how you can apply routesintorail.org/how-to-become-a-train-driver/But it's not about supply and demand at all is it? It's about Labour appeasing their mates. A process you were very quick to criticise during the Tory reign. Or do you agree with friends of the Tory government earning shed loads during covid? Supply and demand right? 😊
|
|
|
Post by foghornsgleghorn on Sept 9, 2024 19:24:49 GMT
But it's not about supply and demand at all is it? It's about Labour appeasing their mates. A process you were very quick to criticise during the Tory reign. Or do you agree with friends of the Tory government earning shed loads during covid? Supply and demand right? 😊 You need to look what happened to train driver salaries following Tory rail privatisation to let market forces to take hold, but yeah, "Labour and its mates"
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Sept 9, 2024 19:31:12 GMT
It mostly means money to disabled people, people who cannot work, carers, poor people, lower income families with children, and, until recently, rich pensioners as well as poor pensioners. I’m all for the first three and the last one as givens So that means you should be in favour of means testing the winter fuel allowance so it benefits poor pensioners and not all pensioners. The question is at what level it should be payable.
|
|
|
Post by Davef on Sept 9, 2024 19:32:22 GMT
Limiting the winter fuel payment will save about £1.5bn a year. Meanwhile, we're still going to honour the commitment to spunk £11.6bn up the wall on overseas climate aid. Brilliant.
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Sept 9, 2024 19:34:22 GMT
Limiting the winter fuel payment will save about £1.5bn a year. Meanwhile, we're still going to honour the commitment to spunk £11.6bn up the wall on overseas climate aid. Brilliant. Also the cost of the illegal migrants
|
|