|
|
Post by superjw on Sept 10, 2024 18:16:20 GMT
As things stand the threshold for this payment will be a hard limit at about £13k per year. The average energy bill is about £1100/1200 a year, getting on for close to 10% of the income for a pensioner who sits just over that threshold after all the energy price rises .
Would you settle for your energy bill being near 10% of your annual salary? Would it break you? It would break me I can tell you
That’s what Labour have just done for people on £13001 and above. They could have at least have had the decency to raise the limit to match the living wage for crying out loud
|
|
|
|
Post by emretezzy on Sept 10, 2024 18:23:05 GMT
Can't believe Oggy's wanking off over the possibility of up to 4000 fuel poor pensioners dying as a result of the impact of excess cold this winter. Shocking. It would help if you would read my posts. I don’t think any of the wealthy pensioners (the majority) who have rightly had this free money taken away will suffer at all. As I have said repeatedly, the threshold for receiving the benefit should be higher than it is. Perhaps those above £20k income should miss out on it. That would be my preference. It's not about the wealthy ones though is it Oggy clearly! You're not that thick so stop acting like it. You make a good suggestion but they haven't done that have they, as it would be logistically and financially a waste of time. You are placing some of the most needy in a form of poverty. The exact thing Labour are supposed to be about not doing. I'd have been as unhappy about this if it was Conservstive, Lib Dem or anyone, it fucking stinks. |
|
|
|
Post by Gawa on Sept 10, 2024 18:41:39 GMT
I absolutely support removing the winter allowance for some pensioners but I do not support the cap which Labour has chosen.
I also think it should be based on household income over individual income (maybe already is?). And I'd argue raising it too for the lowest earning single occupancy pensioners.
Edit: Pleased to see this is already the case:
"The amount paid is greater for those aged 80 years and older and is set so that a person living alone (or with people ineligible for the payment) is paid twice as much as a person in a household where more than one person receives the payment."
|
|
|
|
Post by crouchpotato1 on Sept 10, 2024 18:49:37 GMT
Read somewhere today that they should have done it so that pensioners living in houses in Council Tax Bands A to C should still receive the Winter fuel allowance🤔
Not sure how that would have gone down compared to what they’ve done?
|
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Sept 10, 2024 18:56:03 GMT
Can't believe Oggy's wanking off over the possibility of up to 4000 fuel poor pensioners dying as a result of the impact of excess cold this winter. Shocking. It would help if you would read my posts. I don’t think any of the wealthy pensioners (the majority) who have rightly had this free money taken away will suffer at all. As I have said repeatedly, the threshold for receiving the benefit should be higher than it is. Perhaps those above £20k income should miss out on it. That would be my preference. I think you are coming round slowly. The point today is the fuel allowance has been cancelled for the vast majority, without any increase in threshold and the increase in pensions isn't till April 2025 - the wind is blowing from the North today and winter is a few weeks away. You say the majority are wealthy but as I pointed out at length above, individual circumstances differ in terms of need and expenditure to keep warm. I'm not impressed with the argument that pensioners are wealthy living in high value properties, which they have spent most of their adult life working and paying for, and in which they may have raised a family and be a home they love, should now in their 80s have to sell off to keep warm. It is clear the Labour Party like the Tories has become totally detached from the people. |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 10, 2024 19:32:27 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 10, 2024 19:35:22 GMT
Can't believe Oggy's wanking off over the possibility of up to 4000 fuel poor pensioners dying as a result of the impact of excess cold this winter. Shocking. It would help if you would read my posts. I don’t think any of the wealthy pensioners (the majority) who have rightly had this free money taken away will suffer at all. As I have said repeatedly, the threshold for receiving the benefit should be higher than it is. Perhaps those above £20k income should miss out on it. That would be my preference. The majority of pensioners are not wealthy |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 10, 2024 19:36:52 GMT
Can't believe Oggy's wanking off over the possibility of up to 4000 fuel poor pensioners dying as a result of the impact of excess cold this winter. Shocking. It would help if you would read my posts. I don’t think any of the wealthy pensioners (the majority) who have rightly had this free money taken away will suffer at all. As I have said repeatedly, the threshold for receiving the benefit should be higher than it is. Perhaps those above £20k income should miss out on it. That would be my preference. Those on over £20000 are also paying income tax. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Sept 10, 2024 20:03:22 GMT
It would help if you would read my posts. I don’t think any of the wealthy pensioners (the majority) who have rightly had this free money taken away will suffer at all. As I have said repeatedly, the threshold for receiving the benefit should be higher than it is. Perhaps those above £20k income should miss out on it. That would be my preference. I agree with Cranny on this one. Your distain for grannies is deplorable They call me granny freezer |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Sept 10, 2024 20:10:46 GMT
It would help if you would read my posts. I don’t think any of the wealthy pensioners (the majority) who have rightly had this free money taken away will suffer at all. As I have said repeatedly, the threshold for receiving the benefit should be higher than it is. Perhaps those above £20k income should miss out on it. That would be my preference. Those on over £20000 are also paying income tax. And |
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Sept 10, 2024 20:12:51 GMT
I agree with Cranny on this one. Your distain for grannies is deplorable They call me granny freezer To be fair if i was old and skint I'd just crank the heating up and stay warm and tell them to fuck off when I couldn't afford my bill. And then crowd fund for human rights lawyers to fund my case when they try and cut me off. Being warm in the depth of winter should be a human right shouldn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Sept 10, 2024 20:20:27 GMT
It would help if you would read my posts. I don’t think any of the wealthy pensioners (the majority) who have rightly had this free money taken away will suffer at all. As I have said repeatedly, the threshold for receiving the benefit should be higher than it is. Perhaps those above £20k income should miss out on it. That would be my preference. The majority of pensioners are not wealthy 27% are millionaires for a start. So they are definitely wealthy. Since 2010, a median pensioner couple has gone from wealth of £400k to over £700k. 53% of over 65s live in households with over £500k of wealth. These figures are based on the 2018-2020 government data, “so it is certain that older people’s wealth will now be significantly greater than the numbers above”. Read the executive summary of this: www.if.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/pensioner_millionaires_FINAL.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Sept 10, 2024 20:20:59 GMT
They call me granny freezer To be fair if i was old and skint I'd just crank the heating up and stay warm and tell them to fuck off when I couldn't afford my bill. And then crowd fund for human rights lawyers to fund my case when they try and cut me off. Being warm in the depth of winter should be a human right shouldn't it? Only for the old apparently. |
|
|
|
Post by sticky on Sept 10, 2024 20:21:40 GMT
Hungry school kids, freezing pensioners.. wtf is going on with this country. These energy companies are just ripping us off, same as the supermarkets.
|
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Sept 10, 2024 20:23:37 GMT
In fact, I'm pretty sure they can't cut water off. So why can they cut off the ability to keep yourself warm and alive. Lack of both kills people. Hmmmmm.....
|
|
|
|
Post by Gawa on Sept 10, 2024 20:24:44 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Sept 10, 2024 20:25:41 GMT
It would help if you would read my posts. I don’t think any of the wealthy pensioners (the majority) who have rightly had this free money taken away will suffer at all. As I have said repeatedly, the threshold for receiving the benefit should be higher than it is. Perhaps those above £20k income should miss out on it. That would be my preference. I think you are coming round slowly. The point today is the fuel allowance has been cancelled for the vast majority, without any increase in threshold and the increase in pensions isn't till April 2025 - the wind is blowing from the North today and winter is a few weeks away. You say the majority are wealthy but as I pointed out at length above, individual circumstances differ in terms of need and expenditure to keep warm. I'm not impressed with the argument that pensioners are wealthy living in high value properties, which they have spent most of their adult life working and paying for, and in which they may have raised a family and be a home they love, should now in their 80s have to sell off to keep warm. It is clear the Labour Party like the Tories has become totally detached from the people. Coming round to what I have said from the beginning? Why should someone who never had to pay tuition fees, had final salary pensions, and have benefited from unprecedented wealth accumulation by simply owning a property (which they could save for at the outset as rents were so low) get state benefits just because they are old, whereas more vulnerable people should not!? Absurd argument to suggest they should. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Sept 10, 2024 20:28:58 GMT
It would help if you would read my posts. I don’t think any of the wealthy pensioners (the majority) who have rightly had this free money taken away will suffer at all. As I have said repeatedly, the threshold for receiving the benefit should be higher than it is. Perhaps those above £20k income should miss out on it. That would be my preference. It's not about the wealthy ones though is it Oggy clearly! You're not that thick so stop acting like it. You make a good suggestion but they haven't done that have they, as it would be logistically and financially a waste of time. You are placing some of the most needy in a form of poverty. The exact thing Labour are supposed to be about not doing. I'd have been as unhappy about this if it was Conservstive, Lib Dem or anyone, it fucking stinks. The most needy pensioners will still get it. The most needy people are vulnerable children, and none of them will get it. If it isn’t about the wealthy ones, why is everyone not saying what I am saying: it is right to means test it but the threshold should be higher as to when you can claim it? |
|
|
|
Post by knype on Sept 10, 2024 20:30:00 GMT
It's not about the wealthy ones though is it Oggy clearly! You're not that thick so stop acting like it. You make a good suggestion but they haven't done that have they, as it would be logistically and financially a waste of time. You are placing some of the most needy in a form of poverty. The exact thing Labour are supposed to be about not doing. I'd have been as unhappy about this if it was Conservstive, Lib Dem or anyone, it fucking stinks. The most needy pensioners will still get it. The most needy people are vulnerable children, and none of them will get it. This is about pensioners, not children. |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Sept 10, 2024 20:31:19 GMT
The most needy pensioners will still get it. The most needy people are vulnerable children, and none of them will get it. This is about pensioners, not children. Why should millionaire pensioners be prioritised for benefits over vulnerable children? |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 10, 2024 20:32:45 GMT
It's not about the wealthy ones though is it Oggy clearly! You're not that thick so stop acting like it. You make a good suggestion but they haven't done that have they, as it would be logistically and financially a waste of time. You are placing some of the most needy in a form of poverty. The exact thing Labour are supposed to be about not doing. I'd have been as unhappy about this if it was Conservstive, Lib Dem or anyone, it fucking stinks. The most needy pensioners will still get it. The most needy people are vulnerable children, and none of them will get it. If it isn’t about the wealthy ones, why is everyone not saying what I am saying: it is right to means test it but the threshold should be higher as to when you can claim it? You claim a pensioner with a take home pay of around £18.5k doesn’t need it These people are above the threshold for pension credit |
|
|
|
Post by mickeythemaestro on Sept 10, 2024 20:34:58 GMT
I think you are coming round slowly. The point today is the fuel allowance has been cancelled for the vast majority, without any increase in threshold and the increase in pensions isn't till April 2025 - the wind is blowing from the North today and winter is a few weeks away. You say the majority are wealthy but as I pointed out at length above, individual circumstances differ in terms of need and expenditure to keep warm. I'm not impressed with the argument that pensioners are wealthy living in high value properties, which they have spent most of their adult life working and paying for, and in which they may have raised a family and be a home they love, should now in their 80s have to sell off to keep warm. It is clear the Labour Party like the Tories has become totally detached from the people. Coming round to what I have said from the beginning? Why should someone who never had to pay tuition fees, had final salary pensions, and have benefited from unprecedented wealth accumulation by simply owning a property (which they could save for at the outset as rents were so low) get state benefits just because they are old, whereas more vulnerable people should not!? Absurd argument to suggest they should. Oggy. You are talking about people who have lived through the most scant and deprived times this country has ever experienced following a world war. Dont fall for the duplicitous Starmer narrative on his distain for the supposed freeloading loaded old people. Starmer is a disgrace. A slimy little man who is full of shit. Just like the last lot |
|
|
|
Post by mrcoke on Sept 10, 2024 22:52:31 GMT
I think you are coming round slowly. The point today is the fuel allowance has been cancelled for the vast majority, without any increase in threshold and the increase in pensions isn't till April 2025 - the wind is blowing from the North today and winter is a few weeks away. You say the majority are wealthy but as I pointed out at length above, individual circumstances differ in terms of need and expenditure to keep warm. I'm not impressed with the argument that pensioners are wealthy living in high value properties, which they have spent most of their adult life working and paying for, and in which they may have raised a family and be a home they love, should now in their 80s have to sell off to keep warm. It is clear the Labour Party like the Tories has become totally detached from the people. Coming round to what I have said from the beginning? Why should someone who never had to pay tuition fees, had final salary pensions, and have benefited from unprecedented wealth accumulation by simply owning a property (which they could save for at the outset as rents were so low) get state benefits just because they are old, whereas more vulnerable people should not!? Absurd argument to suggest they should. I don't know who has fed you such garbage. I had to move out of a flat in 1970 as I couldn't afford it and was on a very good salary at the steel works for the time. The main reason was I couldn't feed the electricity meter with half crowns fast enough. I had to move into digs which most young people had to live in in those days; I'm not talking about renting rooms, I mean lodging with a family. You have obviously never heard of Rachmanism. You could only get a mortgage for 2.5 times your annual salary and that was valued on the lender's valuation of the property, not the selling price. 100% mortgages did occur but based on low lenders valuations. Deposits were mandatory and you were not allowed to borrow a deposit on a house. I saved with Leek and Westbourne for years in the hope of getting a mortgage but to no avail when I asked for one. They were difficult to get even if you could afford one. I knew a couple who got their first house and sat on orange boxes for the first year. The modern generation don't know how to rough it. Of course this was at a time following the 1960s Labour government that gave us nationalisation, stagflation, and devaluation; I can still remember Mr Wilson telling me on the tele the £ in my pocket was still worth the same. In the early 1960s less than 5% of young people went to university. Labour threw money at universities but 1969 it was the first year in history that a graduate could not walk out of university straight into a job, the Labour Party damaged the economy so much. Most workers in the post war decades did not have company pensions let alone final salary ones, it was a perk to get onto the staff grades and get superannuation. Final salary pensions were destroyed by the last Labour government period when Brown raided the pension industry and destroyed 60,000 pension schemes - another cause of low investment in the UK. God knows what the new Chancellor is going to destroy next month. Wealth in a property is not a liquid asset, you cannot burn the bricks to heat the building. Although I do remember one council estate in Longton in the 1960s where residents burnt the doors and door frames instead of buying coal and the council had to replace them all. If the elderly are expected to sell their homes if they can't afford to heat them, where do they go? Despite record investment in build to rent, JLL’s latest Seniors Housing Report has stated " a shortage of up to 46,000 homes in the next five years for UK seniors." |
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Sept 11, 2024 6:17:51 GMT
Coming round to what I have said from the beginning? Why should someone who never had to pay tuition fees, had final salary pensions, and have benefited from unprecedented wealth accumulation by simply owning a property (which they could save for at the outset as rents were so low) get state benefits just because they are old, whereas more vulnerable people should not!? Absurd argument to suggest they should. I don't know who has fed you such garbage. I had to move out of a flat in 1970 as I couldn't afford it and was on a very good salary at the steel works for the time. The main reason was I couldn't feed the electricity meter with half crowns fast enough. I had to move into digs which most young people had to live in in those days; I'm not talking about renting rooms, I mean lodging with a family. You have obviously never heard of Rachmanism. You could only get a mortgage for 2.5 times your annual salary and that was valued on the lender's valuation of the property, not the selling price. 100% mortgages did occur but based on low lenders valuations. Deposits were mandatory and you were not allowed to borrow a deposit on a house. I saved with Leek and Westbourne for years in the hope of getting a mortgage but to no avail when I asked for one. They were difficult to get even if you could afford one. I knew a couple who got their first house and sat on orange boxes for the first year. The modern generation don't know how to rough it. Of course this was at a time following the 1960s Labour government that gave us nationalisation, stagflation, and devaluation; I can still remember Mr Wilson telling me on the tele the £ in my pocket was still worth the same. In the early 1960s less than 5% of young people went to university. Labour threw money at universities but 1969 it was the first year in history that a graduate could not walk out of university straight into a job, the Labour Party damaged the economy so much. Most workers in the post war decades did not have company pensions let alone final salary ones, it was a perk to get onto the staff grades and get superannuation. Final salary pensions were destroyed by the last Labour government period when Brown raided the pension industry and destroyed 60,000 pension schemes - another cause of low investment in the UK. God knows what the new Chancellor is going to destroy next month. Wealth in a property is not a liquid asset, you cannot burn the bricks to heat the building. Although I do remember one council estate in Longton in the 1960s where residents burnt the doors and door frames instead of buying coal and the council had to replace them all. If the elderly are expected to sell their homes if they can't afford to heat them, where do they go? Despite record investment in build to rent, JLL’s latest Seniors Housing Report has stated " a shortage of up to 46,000 homes in the next five years for UK seniors." Research carried out by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) suggest that on average, as a nation, we spend around 27% of our income on rent. In 1980, UK private renters spent an average of 10% of their income on rent. The average house in the UK currently costs around nine-times average earnings, based on data as at 30 November 2022. The last time house prices were this expensive relative to average earnings was in the year 1876, nearly 150 years ago. In 1970 it was 4.1 times earnings and in 1980 4.2 times earnings. Almost all final salary pensions are gone and they certainly are bot the norm. Tuition fees came in in 1998. Wealth in property can be sold or borrowed against. It is more liquid than no wealth in property. If you cannot afford to heat a home you own outright, selling and downsizing, or letting out a room, or borrowing against it are all viable options. If you can’t afford to heat your home that you don’t own, you are in trouble. |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 11, 2024 7:00:33 GMT
As things stand the threshold for this payment will be a hard limit at about £13k per year. The average energy bill is about £1100/1200 a year, getting on for close to 10% of the income for a pensioner who sits just over that threshold after all the energy price rises . Would you settle for your energy bill being near 10% of your annual salary? Would it break you? It would break me I can tell you That’s what Labour have just done for people on £13001 and above. They could have at least have had the decency to raise the limit to match the living wage for crying out loud Oggy dislikes this post |
|
|
|
Post by Gawa on Sept 11, 2024 7:41:36 GMT
Stokes shame
|
|
|
|
Post by oggyoggy on Sept 11, 2024 7:47:37 GMT
Ha - that’s awkward. I never know why non-leadership candidates make pledges like that. Always makes them look stupid. Ultimately in party politics, you must do as you are told. That’s one of the reasons I hate party politics. |
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Sept 11, 2024 8:09:07 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by iancransonsknees on Sept 11, 2024 8:16:41 GMT
*Edited to reflect the fact that this statement is accurate and that he did not abstain.
|
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Sept 11, 2024 8:19:13 GMT
he got in through the skin of his teeth with a split tory reform vote. This picture will be on their campaign leaflets next time around. He wont be the only one, Reeves already has past tweets/comments saying similar Starmer has massively fucked up here. He went straight after the pensioners fuel allowance on day 1. The money saved is negible and may end up actually costing more. The optics are terrible. I dont expect labour heavyweights such as brown/blair etc to crawl from the bushes slating him but none of the usual suspects have come out in support. that is telling. People wont forget this. The other parties wont let them |
|
