The Labour Government

[Kirkstall Blue]

Kompany Car​

Joined19 Sep 2015Messages3,665

Working for two years longer will affect the job prospects of young people and unemployment figures will rise.
That’s why we should protest the extension of our working life men as well as women, I want fit healthy young people working and earning so they can lead independent lives.

We keep getting told we dont have enough workers and its holding us back. There is already a surfeit of unfilled jobs according to the DWP.

Both having too many jobs and not enough can't be true. They are lying regarding the number of roles available or its people not wanting to work, or people not upskilling to match the roles available or not being flexible (hours of work, geographic location/travel time/salary expectations beyond their marketable skill set

===================================================
If we raise pension age to 68yrs earning large salaries but we keep young people in school from 16/18yrs and sending them on to University taking degrees that won’t find them a job, as we are doing, they would ordinarily earn far less in work as start up pay.rising to 21yrs.full pay.

It can only be the jobs are not there anymore because the pension age was raised from 60 for women to 65yrs to match men and men’s pension age should have matched women’s 60yrs instead of 68yrs.
Another thought the school leaving age was changed from 14yr to 15yr now it’s 16yr even worse the strategy doesn’t add up.

 

[hilts]

I think the implementation of the WFA means testing was fairly ham fisted but the reality is that it will probably cost the government more than it will save because those eligible have been encouraged to apply for pension credits which makes them eligible for the WFA. There’s a backlog of applications this year but next year the poorest will likely be better off due to them accessing benefits they didn’t realise they were entitled to.
The WASPI issue also looks bad but the sheer cost of it in the tens of billions has put the government between a rock and a hard place.

You may be cold Beryl, it may seem painful and cruel but next year it may be a bit better. If you're still with us.

Hard not to well up with the inspirational Xmas message.

#nextyearisonelessjumperyear

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

In the context of pensions going up 25% in 3 years.

Not worth quoting or responding to the rest.

Is that not because they are linked to inflation, ie, the rising cost of living? My wages have rocketed in the last few years but bills, groceries, insurance, fuel/energy costs mean I'm no better off.

 

[Vic]

Is that not because they are linked to inflation, ie, the rising cost of living? My wages have rocketed in the last few years but bills, groceries, insurance, fuel/energy costs mean I'm no better off.

The triple lock means that pensions rise by inflation when inflation is highest, and by average wage rise when that's highest (so if average wage rises reflect last year's inflation rate the pension rises by more than inflation). Or if inflation is caused by higher wages, the triple lock still operates to raise pensions by more than inflation.

However, prices of essentials (food, fuel) may have higher rates of inflation which would affect poorer pensioners more.

If longevity depends on wealth (which it obviously does) then it's equally obvious that this generation of UK pensioners is the wealthiest ever (and healthiest thanks to the NHS). As I've said umpteen times, targeting pensioner poverty is important, and the government should have addressed the issue that those just above the WFA threshold end up worse off than those who below it who qualify for Pension Credit.

 

[Kompany Car]

If we raise pension age to 68yrs earning large salaries but we keep young people in school from 16/18yrs and sending them on to University taking degrees that won’t find them a job, as we are doing, they would ordinarily earn far less in work as start up pay.rising to 21yrs.full pay.

It can only be the jobs are not there anymore because the pension age was raised from 60 for women to 65yrs to match men and men’s pension age should have matched women’s 60yrs instead of 68yrs.
Another thought the school leaving age was changed from 14yr to 15yr now it’s 16yr even worse the strategy doesn’t add up.

Maybe I'm being a bit thick, but Im not sure I understand your logic or the text in bold.

If you're saying graduates never make up the pay difference to those who start work at 16, thats maybe true if you do a degree that isnt targeted towards a career and done more on the whim of what the individual finds interesting (or on some cases the couse that the university will let them on). For those that do degrees in subjects with clear career paths the data pretty much says that in the top 10 subject areas they earn hundreds of thousands more than those who didnt go on to FE.

We are told that the jobs are there by government departments and we cant fill them. If you think someone with a few years experience will ever be paid the same as someone with 40yrs experience who are often in senior positions, then I dont know what to say. In the private sector at least, you tend to get paid for the revenue you generate (what you know) and your ability to manage people and clients (who you know and can influence), when you stop doing that it doesn't take long for you to appear on the list in the next round of redundancies, so retirement age is a moot point. If you get rid of the experienced people who are delivering, it doesn't mean that theres more money to go around, it just means more money for shareholders in the short term and in the long term a loss of clients and revenue.

If you want to do something about the retirement age then the only option is for those working to pay more tax (which defeats your objective) or you become more selective on who should get a state pension (I have thoughts on how this should be done, but prefer to keep them private as it would undoubtedly upset some groups).

 

[BlueHammer85]

Pensioners (including I suppose waspi women) and farmers are demographics that tend to vote conservative. We all knew there was no money for labour to do anything without raising taxes and there wasn't much space to do so. What starmer has done is target those who were generally not going to vote labour anyway and raid their estates and pensions. Cynical but clever really I suppose.

More like the country can’t afford to waste 10+ billion for the Waspi Women and inheritance tax on a relatively low amount of millionaire farms is actually fair. Nothing cynical. Just what’s needed to help reduce the 22 billion black hole and the billions needs for the NHS, Schools and Infrastructure.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

More like the country can’t afford to waste 10+ billion for the Waspi Women and inheritance tax on a relatively low amount of millionaire farms is actually fair. Nothing cynical. Just what’s needed to help reduce the 22 billion black hole and the billions needs for the NHS, Schools and Infrastructure.

Tbh I'd take that off pointless arms to Ukraine and the money we've committed to send to the former al Qaeda/Isis dude that's running Syria before our own pensioners and farmers. That's probably just me being a small minded racist though.

 

[BlueHammer85]

Tbh I'd take that off pointless arms to Ukraine and the money we've committed to send to the former al Qaeda/Isis dude that's running Syria before our own pensioners and farmers. That's probably just me being a small minded racist though.

Supporting Ukraine is the best thing Johnson and the Tories did in power - very glad we’re continuing that under Labour. Fuck Russia.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Supporting Ukraine is the best thing Johnson and the Tories did in power - very glad we’re continuing that under Labour. Fuck Russia.

Yes, what a wonderful chap Boris was - prepared to fight to the last Ukrainian and enrich the arms industry also.