The Labour Government

What about the IFS One?
What about being told the full picture from Treasury officials?
Tgen we have the difference between today's statement and tge figures signed of by Senior Civil Servants on 17th July?
Same issue applies, be economical with the truth and influence the data. Honestly though how you or anyone can believe what the Tories say after the last government's constant disinformation beggers belief.
 
Pointless mate. Yes I'm sure eighty year old Ethel wants to spend her final years living with a lodger. Also overlooking the fact if she took one in they'd cut her benefits.
I’m over 80 live alone, pay for everything myself, including essential alterations I needed to be able to stay living alone and looking after myself.
I have a ‘private’ pension which takes me just above the limit apparently for any pension credit. Also I have limited savings which I had earmarked for repairs to my home.
Most pensioners have to have the heating on all day in winter and I rely on the WFA to be able to pay my fuel bill.
I am not pleading poverty I am just asking not to have to go cap in hand after all the years I’ve managed to bring up 4 children alone. I’ve never asked for state or any other help and I sure as hell am not going to start in my mid 80s thank you.
The other lot took the TV licence payment. This government take the fuel allowance. C’est la vie!

My offspring would help me but I didn’t raise them to look after me I raised them to be independent and raise their own. Plus I’ll manage without anyone’s help thank you. Except my own pigheadedness!! *lol*
What’s the alternative? I get up every morning so I’ll manage but this is the last year for my season card! :-)



EDIT: p.s. When I do go on holiday it is usually to visit my Canadian family and they pay half of my fare and would pay it all but no way Jose!!
 
The old quote someone on shitloads of money to justify taking it off someone just above the line, spin spin spin. How Tory of you.
Now don't be silly.

It's £5 a week, still to be paid to the poorest pensioners, after £36 a week increase over the last two years.

If there wasn't the constant demand that chancellors rule out income tax rises, we could maintain universal benefits (and increase pensions generally) and take it back in tax by raising the rates of tax on those with higher incomes (pensioners included). I think a 1% increase on the higher rate would have been an alternative to means-testing the winter fuel payment.
 
Now don't be silly.

It's £5 a week, still to be paid to the poorest pensioners, after £36 a week increase over the last two years.

If there wasn't the constant demand that chancellors rule out income tax rises, we could maintain universal benefits (and increase pensions generally) and take it back in tax by raising the rates of tax on those with higher incomes (pensioners included). I think a 1% increase on the higher rate would have been an alternative to means-testing the winter fuel payment.

So are you in favour of taking the payment off pensioners and killing 4000 of them or not Vic?, come on you can be honest here. I promise not to remove the whip on you:-)

Oh almost missed that, a top indicator when someone picks a side and spends their life defending them.

Your side - they have received x amount extra

Other side - it's not an increase its keeping up with the cost of living. Otherwise it's a pay cut.

So transparent
 
Last edited:
Now don't be silly.

It's £5 a week, still to be paid to the poorest pensioners, after £36 a week increase over the last two years.

If there wasn't the constant demand that chancellors rule out income tax rises, we could maintain universal benefits (and increase pensions generally) and take it back in tax by raising the rates of tax on those with higher incomes (pensioners included). I think a 1% increase on the higher rate would have been an alternative to means-testing the winter fuel payment.
That £36 a week is not enough...............you try living on 200 quid a week pal.


Some of you are in for a shock when you retire and we are gone.
 
Now don't be silly.

It's £5 a week, still to be paid to the poorest pensioners, after £36 a week increase over the last two years.

If there wasn't the constant demand that chancellors rule out income tax rises, we could maintain universal benefits (and increase pensions generally) and take it back in tax by raising the rates of tax on those with higher incomes (pensioners included). I think a 1% increase on the higher rate would have been an alternative to means-testing the winter fuel payment.
When people are asked about paying more tax for better services most say they are happy to, it is a media and government myth most in society are afraid of tax rises, it it those best off who peddle it becasue they want lower tax and to contribute less.

I agre thpugh 1% increase on the hogher eare would have been a more well intentioned option than what reeves has given.
 

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

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.