Keir Starmer

meltonblue said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
Mr Kobayashi said:
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.

Redirect Notice

www.google.com
Click to expand...

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.
 
Chippy_boy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
meltonblue said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Chippy_boy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
bluenova said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Chippy_boy said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Chippy_boy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Then why are you talking about an extra £200 for a few rich people? You're not talking about making pension credit universal I assume?

Do you actually know the cost of administering pension credit? Given that it can pay out around £17k for a couple, then it's clearly going to be highly cost effective for it to be means tested.

And do you really know that the 800,000 are the very poorest? It's almost certain the majority either have other sources of income, are being supported in another way (e.g. are living with, or supported by close family), or are close enough to the limit that they don't believe it's worth applying.

No means tested benefit takeup will ever get close to 100%, and 14 years of the Tories has chipped away at a lot of the services that reach people who aren't claiming, but even so, most are still likely to have a reason for not applying.
 
bluenova said:
And do you really know that the 800,000 are the very poorest? It's almost certain the majority either have other sources of income, are being supported in another way (e.g. are living with, or supported by close family), or are close enough to the limit that they don't believe it's worth applying.
Click to expand...
Have you got some actual evidence of this?
 
Last edited:
bluenova said:
Then why are you talking about an extra £200 for a few rich people? You're not talking about making pension credit universal I assume?

Do you actually know the cost of administering pension credit? Given that it can pay out around £17k for a couple, then it's clearly going to be highly cost effective for it to be means tested.

And do you really know that the 800,000 are the very poorest? It's almost certain the majority either have other sources of income, are being supported in another way (e.g. are living with, or supported by close family), or are close enough to the limit that they don't believe it's worth applying.

No means tested benefit takeup will ever get close to 100%, and 14 years of the Tories has chipped away at a lot of the services that reach people who aren't claiming, but even so, most are still likely to have a reason for not applying.
Click to expand...

I know the 800,000 are the poorest, by definition. Because there's 800,000 who are eligible, who don't claim it. That means they have incomes of less than £11k per year and now we're taking £200 or £300 off them.

To be honest the debate should end there. I don't know why I even bother when people on your side are thrashing around trying to justify something that is completely unjustifiable on any basis whatsoever.

But regards the rest, no I am not suggesting that pension credit should not be means tested - don't be ridiculous. Merely that the process is far too onerous and offputting (demonstrably when people on < £11k are not receiving it.)

Can we not just have a consensus on here for once and ALL of us agree that taking £200 or £300 off someone who is on less than £11k per year, is fucking outrageous? Is that so hard for you lot to accept? Do you really have to come out with all sorts of whataboutery to try to deflect from this outrage?
 
meltonblue said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yeah but it's pension credit and something else and at a different time, its basically a different policy. Anyhow let's hope sense overrules ego and it gets changed before the cold weather comes in.
 
mancityvstoke said:
Have you got some actual evidence of this?
Click to expand...
Of course he doesn't because it's utter bollocks. 800,000 aren't claiming because they are too proud, can't understand the forms, have dementia, don't know they are eligible, are on drugs and incapabale and god knows what else.

Honestly I find the behaviour of some of the Labour zealots on here, reprehensible. Trying to duck and weave and justify and skirt around something that is clearly fucking outrageous rather than just being honest and saying, yeah removing WFA from poor people is fucking outrageous.
 
Chippy_boy said:
Of course he doesn't because it's utter bollocks. 800,000 aren't claiming because they are too proud, can't understand the forms, have dementia, don't know they are eligible, are on drugs and incapabale and god knows what else.

Honestly I find the behaviour of some of the Labour zealots on here, reprehensible. Trying to duck and weave and justify and skirt around something that is clearly fucking outrageous rather than just being honest and saying, yeah removing WFA from poor people is fucking outrageous.
Click to expand...
I'm no tory as you know but what labour are doing is incredibly stupid.

Anyone defending this shit is the same.
 
Chippy_boy said:
I know the 800,000 are the poorest, by definition. Because there's 800,000 who are eligible, who don't claim it. That means they have incomes of less than £11k per year and now we're taking £200 or £300 off them.

To be honest the debate should end there. I don't know why I even bother when people on your side are thrashing around trying to justify something that is completely unjustifiable on any basis whatsoever.

But regards the rest, no I am not suggesting that pension credit should not be means tested - don't be ridiculous. Merely that the process is far too onerous and offputting (demonstrably when people on < £11k are not receiving it.)

Can we not just have a consensus on here for once and ALL of us agree that taking £200 or £300 off someone who is on less than £11k per year, is fucking outrageous? Is that so hard for you lot to accept? Do you really have to come out with all sorts of whataboutery to try to deflect from this outrage?
Click to expand...
I think you already now the answer to that.
 
mancityvstoke said:
Have you got some actual evidence of this?
Click to expand...

I've completed 1000s of benefits checks, and completed well over 1000 benefits claims (all from the point of trying to get people to claim, rather than the official side), so I do know a little about it.

I was also replying to a post suggesting they were the 'very poorest', and I'm arguing that amongst those who "may" be eligible, the ones that don't are likely to be the less poor.

The reasons usually given for not claiming are stigma, complexity etc., and these are genuine, but it's also the case that the more you're in need, the less these matter. I know from personal experience, that if you tell someone you may get a few extra pounds they "will think about it". If you tell someone they're entitled to £100s, they will usually apply. The 'very poorest' are much more likely to come into contact with other support services, and almost any service providing help to people in need, will encourage benefit claims, because it helps reduce pressure on their services.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top