The Labour Government

[west didsblue]

No. No it doesnt. I'm suggesting trimming it to look after our pensioners.

As far as I’m concerned support for Ukraine trumps any other spending commitment because if Putin isn’t defeated the world gets more dangerous and that affects us all.

 

[Chippy_boy]

As far as I’m concerned support for Ukraine trumps any other spending commitment because if Putin isn’t defeated the world gets more dangerous and that affects us all.

Let's bin the stupid "splurge billions and wreck the UK economy to reduce global co2 emissions by less than 2%"!

There's tens of billions saved right there.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

As far as I’m concerned support for Ukraine trumps any other spending commitment because if Putin isn’t defeated the world gets more dangerous and that affects us all.

We are already 'doing our bit' in terms of energy prices since we sanctioned Russia. Our pensioners don't need their help removed as well as the ridiculous energy price hikes. Unless we are prepared to start ww3 Ukraine can't 'win' (depending how you define win). The best we can hope for is to economically bleed and cripple Russia with a protracted but ultimately slightly pointless proxy war.

 

[Postman Pep]

I may have missed the point in the article, then. I took the author to be starting from saying that a universal benefit was when anyone who needed it would get it but then leapt to saying that at least some benefits are or should be universal in that everyone gets it regardless of need. (The assumption is that those who don't need it have paid enough in tax to get back their contribution and leave enough to pay for those who do need it but have contributed less.)

The point of the article was asking the question of what were the motivations for binning the WFA. The balancing the books argument doesn't stack up. Full take up of pension credits wipes out any savings which in any case were negligible in relation to the "black hole".

His argument is that it is motivated by ideology. A belief that the concept of universal provision is inherently inefficient. Whether you agree or not it is clearly laid out. Whether his theory holds any water will undoubtedly be tested down the line. In the narrow terms of WFA both the speed of the announcement and the prominence given to it together with Reeves's long held hostility towards it suggests he has a point.

Logically, paying benefits to those who don't need it runs a risk of someone "falling through the cracks" but equally logically you'd pay disability benefit to everyone in case someone's disability didn't quite meet the criteria. (Whether the criteria are appropriate is a separate issue, especially if assessors of ability are incentivised to reject applications.) In this case, the "crack" appears to be the nonsense that someone who qualifies for the WFP gets that benefit, but someone just over the threshold gets nothing, so ends up with much less than someone just below the threshold.

Re the rates, I thought it was instructive that Michael Heseltine - who benefitted massively (four big houses) was the first "big beast" to pull the plug on the poll tax (voted for it in Scotland in 1989 but opposed it in England in 1990).

Absolutely. Wherever you draw the line those hovering just above take a financial hit on top of the price cap rise and before pension increases kick in. Another argument against the kneejerk move to scrap it.... welcome aboard ;-)

Surely the sensible, dare I say grown up, thing to do would be take a long term view and roll some other model out in time for next winter rather than go in two footed and burn political capital they can ill afford given their popularity is built on sand.

 

[mackenzie]

but it IS (was) there to help older people on the really shit state pension to stay warm.

Rich pensioners can afford their heating , single pensioners on £11,500 PA state pension to survive on struggle like fuck. They cannot claim pension credit either.

Why can't people understand this simple fact?

I do understand it.

 

[BridgyDids]

So am I reading the room, that if the government amended it, so those who JUST receive the State Pension still get the WFA (perhaps half) and those better off pensioners who have private pensions etc do not get any WFA, then everyone would be ok with that?

No one going without who truly needs it, and those who use it for holidays/xmas presents go without to help the countries purse out?

Seems like a fair way forward?

 

[urban genie]

So am I reading the room, that if the government amended it, so those who JUST receive the State Pension still get the WFA (perhaps half) and those better off pensioners who have private pensions etc do not get any WFA, then everyone would be ok with that?

No one going without who truly needs it, and those who use it for holidays/xmas presents go without to help the countries purse out?

Seems like a fair way forward?

no

some people were obligated to have a private pension in their work and are still maybe only on very low pensions which the scrapping of WFA will decimate during the cold spell months.

private pensions should not factor into it, but the obviousness someome worth x amount of money doesn't need it.

 

[PPT]

this Govt should sort out all the cunts claiming for cars that they don't need.....druggies in high rise blocks claiming pip etc. Paying fuck all rent . council tax, plus receiving tons of cash they dont need.

Sort that shit out before picking on the vulnerable piss easy targets.

Agreed. That mobility scheme for cars is a piss take with a lot of people.

 

[mosssideblue]

Agreed. That mobility scheme for cars is a piss take with a lot of people.

It’s also a piss take for some that do need it

 

[metalblue]

The point of the article was asking the question of what were the motivations for binning the WFA. The balancing the books argument doesn't stack up. Full take up of pension credits wipes out any savings which in any case were negligible in relation to the "black hole".

His argument is that it is motivated by ideology. A belief that the concept of universal provision is inherently inefficient. Whether you agree or not it is clearly laid out. Whether his theory holds any water will undoubtedly be tested down the line. In the narrow terms of WFA both the speed of the announcement and the prominence given to it together with Reeves's long held hostility towards it suggests he has a point.


Absolutely. Wherever you draw the line those hovering just above take a financial hit on top of the price cap rise and before pension increases kick in. Another argument against the kneejerk move to scrap it.... welcome aboard ;-)

Surely the sensible, dare I say grown up, thing to do would be take a long term view and roll some other model out in time for next winter rather than go in two footed and burn political capital they can ill afford given their popularity is built on sand.

Listening to Cleverly yesterday he was saying successive chancellors have all been offered removing WFA by the treasury pretty much on their first day in post. The treasury, I got the impression, had developed an obsessive hatred of it. Only Reeves was naive enough to take it.