|
Post by foghornsgleghorn on Sept 10, 2024 11:36:12 GMT
If you don't believe the Tory Organ who are you going to believe www.telegraph.co.uk/money/pensions/news/number-millionaire-pensioners-quadruples/The average Train Driver in UKs salary is about £48K with a starting salary of about £30K www.reed.com/articles/train-driver-salary-benefitsYou may find that excessive on a peer to peer basis. Personally I think it's far more warranted than say a "Marketing Person" who is trying to flog a product that many maybe don't need or can't afford, but maybe that's just me. A Train Driver is a Skilled Profession that requires a range of training and responsibilities not least the safety of passengers. "Marketing" is an empty Profession that produces nothing and only retains loyalty to the "Brand" until the next commission cheque is paid. I could use many other professions as comparators. Sorry bA train driver has consistency both in terms of earnings, hours and the role and respectfully, the risk and pressure associated with the role isn't even comparable. [ When was the last time something in marketing was responsible for the safety of perhaps several thousand people in a day?? When was the last time someone committed suicide by jumping out in front of someone striking a sales deal? When was the last time someone in marketing couldn't have alcohol up to 48 hours before starting work.
|
|
|
Post by wagsastokie on Sept 10, 2024 11:41:38 GMT
I wouldn’t know but surely it’s got to be better than the status quo Surely there has to be a measure of success rates otherwise how do we know if it's worthwhile? If it keeps say 80% off drugs and contributing to society it's a worthwhile venture. If that figure is much lower then how low does it have to be before it's a comparative waste of money? For an extreme example, let's say only 2% actually stayed off drugs, would you consider that worthwhile? Apparently any where between 70 and 30 percent depending on length and quality of the rehab So yes it’s probably worth it Something has to be done as just sticking a roof over their heads and pretending they don’t exist neither benefits society or the individuals themselves
|
|
|
Post by adri2008 on Sept 10, 2024 11:44:44 GMT
I still think a big hike in inheritance tax is the way forward here to balance the books - in particular on the sale of properties. My house has doubled in value in the past 12 years - what have I done to earn this? - absolutely bugger all so why should I be able to leave a huge some of money to the kids? - I've not taken a risk or contributed to the economy by building up a business and created jobs, I've simply lived in my home and bought at the 'right' time. And I'm someone in my 40s - my parents + grandparents have houses worth 7/8 times their initial purchase price.
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Sept 10, 2024 11:48:49 GMT
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Sept 10, 2024 11:56:06 GMT
Surely there has to be a measure of success rates otherwise how do we know if it's worthwhile? If it keeps say 80% off drugs and contributing to society it's a worthwhile venture. If that figure is much lower then how low does it have to be before it's a comparative waste of money? For an extreme example, let's say only 2% actually stayed off drugs, would you consider that worthwhile? Apparently any where between 70 and 30 percent depending on length and quality of the rehab So yes it’s probably worth it Something has to be done as just sticking a roof over their heads and pretending they don’t exist neither benefits society or the individuals themselves What was the average length of abstention for that 30-70%? Or is that complete abstention for good? All well and good if it's for 12 months but then they're back where they started. They ran a relatively successful scheme in Teesside based on a similar one in Switzerland. Called Heroin Assisted Treatment, the one in Switzerland is ongoing, after 3 years on the scheme 85% have quit for good. As far as I'm aware funding for the Teeside one was removed by the last government. Maybe the Daily Mail didn't like it 🤷
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Sept 10, 2024 12:02:00 GMT
Imagine the conservatives taking £300 off old people you'd be paralytic with rage. That does not answer the question asked of you: "Why should someone get extra benefits not available to people in a much needier position just because (they are) retired?"I guess its the hassle and expense of assessing the whole process. Maybe the govt should open a fund and any benevolent rich pensioners who get any random state funding that just appears in their bank accounts that they don't need, then they can simply send it back for it to be apportioned elsewhere. Would be interesting to see how that went to be fair.. Not very well probably. But at least it would give people a half decent reason to hate the very generation who helped rebuild the country after ww2, having lost parents and grand parents during said war.
|
|
|
Post by Huddysleftfoot on Sept 10, 2024 12:02:41 GMT
I'm a democratic Socialist mate, Starmer clearly isn't. It's difficult to know precisely what you're basing that assumption on given the budget hasn't happened yet and we only know about means testing a winter fuel benefit and that working people won't pay extra tax. Somewhat short of giving free money away during lockdown, it's almost as though it's easier for some (presumably yourself from your view of Starmer's social democratic credentials) to accept the Conservative press narrative than it is to face up to the fact that those same Conservatives lied to the OBR about the state of the economy when setting those departmental spending limits which have subsequently scuppered any immediate plans Labour had. Starmer is a neoliberal stooge, simple.
|
|
|
Post by elystokie on Sept 10, 2024 12:05:25 GMT
Surely there has to be a measure of success rates otherwise how do we know if it's worthwhile? If it keeps say 80% off drugs and contributing to society it's a worthwhile venture. If that figure is much lower then how low does it have to be before it's a comparative waste of money? For an extreme example, let's say only 2% actually stayed off drugs, would you consider that worthwhile? Apparently any where between 70 and 30 percent depending on length and quality of the rehab So yes it’s probably worth it Something has to be done as just sticking a roof over their heads and pretending they don’t exist neither benefits society or the individuals themselves I suppose it depends how it's calculated etc but having had a Google around I'm not filled with confidence. www.rehabcenter.net/does-rehab-work/'According to Medscape, drug overdose is now the leading cause of injury-related deaths in the United States. In fact, the Center for Disease Control estimates that approximately 115 people die daily due to drug-related incidents. Despite these statistics, only an estimated 10 percent of people get the drug treatment they need. And of those who do seek treatment, only a small percentage stay sober in the long term.'
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Sept 10, 2024 12:37:34 GMT
I gave some examples which back up the points I am making. Nothing “dreamy” about it. No pedestal whatsoever. That’s all you. I didn’t make personal comments about you. Try arguing the points. Why should someone (like my dad) get extra benefits not available to people in a much needier position than him, just because he is retired? Imagine the conservatives taking £300 off old people you'd be paralytic with rage. Labour has not taken £300 off old people. It has changed the eligibility for a state benefit. Nobody has had money taken away. You are not at all arguing your reasons why you think all old people, regardless as to whether or not they may be a millionaire, should receive state benefits purely because of their age.
|
|
|
Post by ravey123 on Sept 10, 2024 12:47:23 GMT
Imagine the conservatives taking £300 off old people you'd be paralytic with rage. Labour has not taken £300 off old people. It has changed the eligibility for a state benefit. Nobody has had money taken away. You are not at all arguing your reasons why you think all old people, regardless as to whether or not they may be a millionaire, should receive state benefits purely because of their age. Tell that to the families of some extra pensioners who may die this winter over a fear of not put the heating on. I know I can't prove this or it is not a definite but any decent person with a modicum on common sense will know this will happen
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 10, 2024 12:50:32 GMT
Imagine the conservatives taking £300 off old people you'd be paralytic with rage. Labour has not taken £300 off old people. It has changed the eligibility for a state benefit. Nobody has had money taken away. You are not at all arguing your reasons why you think all old people, regardless as to whether or not they may be a millionaire, should receive state benefits purely because of their age. Bollocks if Jeremy Hunt had did this it would be Hunt the pensioner killing cunt. Apparently she's announced cuts to the winter fuel allowance. A Labour Government. Fucking Hell..... This is a massive political choice, two weeks in office before they had a full view of everything she decides to do this. This was planned months ago. Lots of pensioners on very low incomes will suffer for this. Not all are entitled to the pension credit i will also add if making people sign up to pension credit will cost more it means Labour lied when they blamed this cut on the national finances
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 10, 2024 13:12:44 GMT
Conservative Edward Leigh - the longest serving MP in the Commons - says he accepts that spending more and more every year on pensioners will eventually "bankrupt the country".
He says he is willing to have a debate about "why people like me" should get the winter fuel payment, but points to individuals who have "served their country" and will only just miss out on the payment. They will face hardship, he adds.
Leigh says the winter fuel change raises a question of public trust because it was not in Labour's manifesto, and says ministers are carrying out a "punishment beating" against pensioners.
He also says the £22bn budget shortfall described by Labour as a "black hole" is actually a relatively small amount of money, describing it as an "accounting device".
Cannot argue against any of that
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Sept 10, 2024 13:20:57 GMT
Labour has not taken £300 off old people. It has changed the eligibility for a state benefit. Nobody has had money taken away. You are not at all arguing your reasons why you think all old people, regardless as to whether or not they may be a millionaire, should receive state benefits purely because of their age. Tell that to the families of some extra pensioners who may die this winter over a fear of not put the heating on. I know I can't prove this or it is not a definite but any decent person with a modicum on common sense will know this will happen Perhaps the pensioner should just keep the heating on, not die, and use the additional cash they are getting with the state pension increases to cover it (and have change leftover). Or the families can put their hands in their pockets if they really are that concerned. I would if I was concerned about an elderly relative because of this. Remember, the budget hasn’t yet been announced so I don’t think people need to be too dramatic quite yet.
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Sept 10, 2024 13:22:40 GMT
Labour has not taken £300 off old people. It has changed the eligibility for a state benefit. Nobody has had money taken away. You are not at all arguing your reasons why you think all old people, regardless as to whether or not they may be a millionaire, should receive state benefits purely because of their age. Bollocks if Jeremy Hunt had did this it would be Hunt the pensioner killing cunt. Apparently she's announced cuts to the winter fuel allowance. A Labour Government. Fucking Hell..... This is a massive political choice, two weeks in office before they had a full view of everything she decides to do this. This was planned months ago. Lots of pensioners on very low incomes will suffer for this. Not all are entitled to the pension credit i will also add if making people sign up to pension credit will cost more it means Labour lied when they blamed this cut on the national finances I have never agreed with winter fuel allowance being universal for pensioners so no, I wouldn’t have said that about Hunt or a Tory chancellor.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Sept 10, 2024 13:29:42 GMT
A few weeks back we had a number of Labour supporters on here supporting the whip being removed from 7 MPs for voting for an amendment to abolish the two child benefit cap. The reason this was supported by these individuals was because the MPs weren't elected on an manifesto to abolish the cap.
I presume those same posters will be supportive of the whip being removed from any Labour MP who votes to cut the winter Fuel allowance today?
Given that Labour weren't elected on a manifesto to abolish it.
Or was that all just "playing politics" to defend Starmer and nothing about manifestos?
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Sept 10, 2024 13:33:03 GMT
On the flip side. It's very refreshing to see so many posters suddenly take a U turn into supporting socialist policies on here and state hand outs
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 10, 2024 13:40:39 GMT
Tell that to the families of some extra pensioners who may die this winter over a fear of not put the heating on. I know I can't prove this or it is not a definite but any decent person with a modicum on common sense will know this will happen Perhaps the pensioner should just keep the heating on, not die, and use the additional cash they are getting with the state pension increases to cover it (and have change leftover). Or the families can put their hands in their pockets if they really are that concerned. I would if I was concerned about an elderly relative because of this. Remember, the budget hasn’t yet been announced so I don’t think people need to be too dramatic quite yet. They seem to be drip feeding the budget weekly
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Sept 10, 2024 13:46:32 GMT
Perhaps the pensioner should just keep the heating on, not die, and use the additional cash they are getting with the state pension increases to cover it (and have change leftover). Or the families can put their hands in their pockets if they really are that concerned. I would if I was concerned about an elderly relative because of this. Remember, the budget hasn’t yet been announced so I don’t think people need to be too dramatic quite yet. They seem to be drip feeding the budget weekly As per
|
|
|
Post by superjw on Sept 10, 2024 14:02:04 GMT
Whatever your thoughts on this Winter Fuel Allowance debate, considering how quickly labour did this, it was clearly in their manifesto from the beginning and they chose to not disclose the plan to voters.
Politics is about choices and not necessarily decisions, there are things they could have chosen to do in order to balance things, but they chose to go after this.
I don’t know what’s been reported in terms of savings, but it will not be as simple as X number won’t be eligible so therefore it’s £x saved. It cost (likely a lot) of money to means test, I wonder what the Net £ saving will actually turn out to be.
Oh btw it would be good if ministers voted to remove their own energy allowance whilst they were at it…
|
|
|
Post by emretezzy on Sept 10, 2024 14:18:46 GMT
Imagine the conservatives taking £300 off old people you'd be paralytic with rage. That does not answer the question asked of you: "Why should someone get extra benefits not available to people in a much needier position just because (they are) retired?"They clearly shouldn't. But you're not just taking them off a small percentage of Old People who don't need them. You are taking it off them all, thus putting thousands of old people immediately into Energy Poverty. I thought this would be a drum you lot could beat to all day.... If any of you can come up with a cost effective way of taking it directly from Rich pensioners without intentionally harming a large proportion of old people I am all ears. It's a fucking shit decision, you lot know it is, but you won't admit it.
|
|
|
Post by emretezzy on Sept 10, 2024 14:29:45 GMT
On the flip side. It's very refreshing to see so many posters suddenly take a U turn into supporting socialist policies on here and state hand outs To be honest Gawa mate. It's been a shock to see people on the left wanting to stick old people in a freezer.
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Sept 10, 2024 14:44:30 GMT
On the flip side. It's very refreshing to see so many posters suddenly take a U turn into supporting socialist policies on here and state hand outs It's less that and more the fact that means testing is the fairest way of handing out benefits.
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Sept 10, 2024 14:46:25 GMT
On the flip side. It's very refreshing to see so many posters suddenly take a U turn into supporting socialist policies on here and state hand outs To be honest Gawa mate. It's been a shock to see people on the left wanting to stick old people in a freezer. True! I think Oggy to be fair raises some good points and I can see an argument for not giving it to those who don't need it. Problem is we've had over a decade of austerity and Labour were meant to bring "change". This is anything but change. Only one Labour MP (bar those with whip removed) voted against it:
|
|
|
Post by gawa on Sept 10, 2024 14:48:03 GMT
On the flip side. It's very refreshing to see so many posters suddenly take a U turn into supporting socialist policies on here and state hand outs It's less that and more the fact that means testing is the fairest way of handing out benefits. Unless it's benefits for children in which case the only test is how many you have according to Labour.
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Sept 10, 2024 14:52:27 GMT
To be honest Gawa mate. It's been a shock to see people on the left wanting to stick old people in a freezer. True! I think Oggy to be fair raises some good points and I can see an argument for not giving it to those who don't need it. Problem is we've had over a decade of austerity and Labour were meant to bring "change". This is anything but change. Only one Labour MP (bar those with whip removed) voted against it: It's important to say that labour won't be bringing in "austerity" as we've previously known it. Labour knows it needs to spend more and so the government is looking to tax in some areas (non-working people) and save in others (means testing benefits, cutting the Conservative government's spending commitments because it ostensibly lied to the OBR about them). The reason that both Starmer and Rachel Reeves are so sheepish and squirmy about all of this is precisely because they don't want to do it and didn't know they'd have to until after the election when Labour asked the OBR to confirm the government's spending commitments. Historically, Labour governments don't like cutting services and this government has had it's hands tied behind its back by the previous Tory insidious, lying bunch of bastards.
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Sept 10, 2024 14:54:18 GMT
It's less that and more the fact that means testing is the fairest way of handing out benefits. Unless it's benefits for children in which case the only test is how many you have according to Labour. It was changed to how many children you had under the previous government. It goes without saying that if Labour could afford to change it now, chances are that despite the rhetoric Labour's NEC would make sure they changed it.
|
|
|
Post by emretezzy on Sept 10, 2024 14:56:06 GMT
To be honest Gawa mate. It's been a shock to see people on the left wanting to stick old people in a freezer. True! I think Oggy to be fair raises some good points and I can see an argument for not giving it to those who don't need it. Problem is we've had over a decade of austerity and Labour were meant to bring "change". This is anything but change. Only one Labour MP (bar those with whip removed) voted against it: Well done Jon Trickett.
|
|
|
Post by emretezzy on Sept 10, 2024 14:58:51 GMT
True! I think Oggy to be fair raises some good points and I can see an argument for not giving it to those who don't need it. Problem is we've had over a decade of austerity and Labour were meant to bring "change". This is anything but change. Only one Labour MP (bar those with whip removed) voted against it: It's important to say that labour won't be bringing in "austerity" as we've previously known it. Labour knows it needs to spend more and so the government is looking to tax in some areas (non-working people) and save in others (means testing benefits, cutting the Conservative government's spending commitments because it ostensibly lied to the OBR about them). The reason that both Starmer and Rachel Reeves are so sheepish and squirmy about all of this is precisely because they don't want to do it and didn't know they'd have to until after the election when Labour asked the OBR to confirm the government's spending commitments. Historically, Labour governments don't like cutting services and this government has had it's hands tied behind its back by the previous Tory insidious, lying bunch of bastards. Go ask freezing pensioners this winter what "Austeirty" looks like?
|
|
|
Post by prestwichpotter on Sept 10, 2024 15:01:18 GMT
It's important to say that labour won't be bringing in "austerity" as we've previously known it. Labour knows it needs to spend more and so the government is looking to tax in some areas (non-working people) and save in others (means testing benefits, cutting the Conservative government's spending commitments because it ostensibly lied to the OBR about them). The reason that both Starmer and Rachel Reeves are so sheepish and squirmy about all of this is precisely because they don't want to do it and didn't know they'd have to until after the election when Labour asked the OBR to confirm the government's spending commitments. Historically, Labour governments don't like cutting services and this government has had it's hands tied behind its back by the previous Tory insidious, lying bunch of bastards. Go ask freezing pensioners this winter what "Austeirty" looks like? It’s hilarious how austerity is an issue all of a sudden I have to say…😂
|
|
|
Post by Ariel Manto on Sept 10, 2024 15:02:43 GMT
True! I think Oggy to be fair raises some good points and I can see an argument for not giving it to those who don't need it. Problem is we've had over a decade of austerity and Labour were meant to bring "change". This is anything but change. Only one Labour MP (bar those with whip removed) voted against it: Well done Jon Trickett. Well..technically 1 Labour MP backed the motion to reinstate all winter fuel payments to all pensioners. 53 Labour MPs did not vote - with around 45 Labour MPs abstaining - although details of pairing still need to be confirmed
|
|