Keir Starmer

[Chippy_boy]

I didn’t say it wasn’t. All I said was I think it will end up being a good policy and I meant in terms of linking it to pension credit. I don’t want them to change that, I think it’s the right thing to do.

I don't. Pension credit is inherently too difficult to claim and therefore necessarily leaves hundreds of thousands of very deserving people not getting it, and by your logic, not getting WFA either.

My issue generally with means-tested benefits is the difficulty in means testing them and the cost of doing so. Arguably no-one thinks it ideal that rich people previously got WFA, but the strong desire to means test it is I think idealogical rather than logical or even economical. If someone pays £100K in tax, for example, how big a deal is it really if they get £200 back, and net, only paid £99,800.

Is it ideal that they get the benefit too? No. Would it be good to change it? Yes. Would it be a good idea if removing it, further impoverishes poor people? Absolutely NOT.

And does keeping a univeral WFA make the world stop spinning? Does it "unstabilize the economy"? No, it's actually no big deal. The drive to remove WFA from such people, when doing so makes many, many times more people miserable, and in danger, must be out of resentment and bitterness, not logic.

 

[metalblue]

Such sentiment might explain why we have a falling birth rate.

Young families and children are the future, with fewer babies born, there will be fewer people to pay into the system or wipe arses.

We seem to have a societal assumption that old people are more important than the young. That's not normal.

What happens when we're too old to be 'useful'?

Can we afford to pay pensions, given the huge demographic challenge of our ageing population?

www.google.com

Yes, birth rate is at historical low levels. I’m not sure we can change that by simply chucking money at the problem either. Miss MB doesn’t want kids, none of it is down to financial reasons but rather a desire to have a career etc, in her words I didn’t spend all them years getting GCSE’s, A levels, a degree and next doing a masters to have kids. I’m sure she is not unique in that. She may change her mind of course.

That said money might be a factor for some so increasing the statutory maternity pay is a good way to help them.

 

[Gray]

And they have to row there themselves in inflatable dingies.

They would deserve to be admitted to the UK if they managed that, don't know how they would charge their mobile phone batteries though.

 

[hammocity]

With Rayner, Reeves and Cooper in three of the top five jobs, it sounds like bollocks from a bitter backbencher who lost her job on the opposition front bench a couple of years ago.

Rayner wasn't appointed Deputy Leader by Starmer, the Labour Party including the Unions voted for her.

 

[KS55]

Rayner wasn't appointed Deputy Leader by Starmer, the Labour Party including the Unions voted for her.

And it shows!

 

[meltonblue]

I don't. Pension credit is inherently too difficult to claim and therefore necessarily leaves hundreds of thousands of very deserving people not getting it, and by your logic, not getting WFA either.

My issue generally with means-tested benefits is the difficulty in means testing them and the cost of doing so. Arguably no-one thinks it ideal that rich people previously got WFA, but the strong desire to means test it is I think idealogical rather than logical or even economical. If someone pays £100K in tax, for example, how big a deal is it really if they get £200 back, and net, only paid £99,800.

Is it ideal that they get the benefit too? No. Would it be good to change it? Yes. Would it be a good idea if removing it, further impoverishes poor people? Absolutely NOT.

And does keeping a univeral WDA make the world stop spinning? Does it "unstabilize the economy"? No, it's actually no big deal. The drive to remove WFA from such people, when doing so makes many, many times more people miserable, and in danger, must be out of resentment and bitterness, not logic.

I see that more as an argument for improving the process for access to benefits (which I’d completely agree with) - increasing the uptake of pension credit will have a much bigger benefit for those people eligible than WFA alone, that’s what I linked to in a previous post.

It’s in part ideological, there’s nothing wrong with that, the same is true for the non doms taxation situation too.

I’m not going to agree with the notion of “keep it inefficient” though. I’d argue that’s a profoundly unconservative position to take.

 

[Chippy_boy]

I’m not going to agree with the notion of “keep it inefficient” though. I’d argue that’s a profoundly unconservative position to take.

Not sure I understand you there, but if you mean we should not have an inefficient means-testing process, then I agree with you. Personally, I would say let's not bother with means testing it at all. Rich people get bugger all back from the government and lobbying the few rich people £200 is not something I lose any sleep over. With energy prices as they are, I imagine anyone on less than about £50k a year is very grateful for it.

 

[bluenova]

Not sure I understand you there, but if you mean we should not have an inefficient means-testing process, then I agree with you. Personally, I would say let's not bother with means testing it at all. Rich people get bugger all back from the government and lobbying the few rich people £200 is not something I lose any sleep over. With energy prices as they are, I imagine anyone on less than about £50k a year is very grateful for it.

The WFA means testing wouldn't be inefficient. The pension credit is where the means testing takes place. Adding the WFA to people who qualify is probably the cheapest way to target it at the poorest pensioners.

 

[Chippy_boy]

The WFA means testing wouldn't be inefficient. The pension credit is where the means testing takes place. Adding the WFA to people who qualify is probably the cheapest way to target it at the poorest pensioners.

You misunderstand. Pension credit means testing is INCREDIBLY difficult and inefficient. It is not fit for purpose when it leaves 800,000 of the very poorest people. eligible to receive it, not getting it.

Tying WFA to it, just makes the situation even worse.

 

[mancityvstoke]

You misunderstand. Pension credit means testing is INCREDIBLY difficult and inefficient. It is not fit for purpose when it leaves 800,000 of the very poorest people. eligible to receive it, not getting it.

Tying WFA to it, just makes the situation even worse.

Also, some are just above pension credit thresholds (by £4) meaning that those on pension credit could well be better off than those on new state pension or those with meagre savings/private pension.

Don't bother saving or having small private pensions.......you could be worse off.