The Labour Government

Kirkstall Blue said:
It is obvious but did they have to make the pensioners pay for it ? Tell me why they couldn’t have gone after Tax fraud and introduce a staged withdrawal of WFP
Click to expand...
Because it’s left wing ideology and it has blown up in their faces rather spectacularly. It’s easy to criticise and point the finger when you are in opposition, but a tad more difficult when you are in power as this bunch of amateurs are now finding out.
 
Kirkstall Blue said:
It is obvious but did they have to make the pensioners pay for it ? Tell me why they couldn’t have gone after Tax fraud and introduce a staged withdrawal of WFP
Click to expand...
I assume you haven't heard of a Qualifying Week. The reason I suspect they rushed this through, and in some part botched it, is to do with the QW. Otherwise they would have held off until the Budget.
 
PPT said:
Because it’s left wing ideology and it has blown up in their faces rather spectacularly. It’s easy to criticise and point the finger when you are in opposition, but a tad more difficult when you are in power as this bunch of amateurs are now finding out.
Click to expand...
If it was really left wing ideology, they wouldn't be doing it this way. A bit of incompetence maybe, but I'm more convinced that the Qualifying Week has something to do with it being announced early and in isolation.
 
PPT said:
27% contributions to public sector pensions made by tax payers money. Immoral.
Click to expand...

why is that immoral. They are people who are doing a public service - don't give them a decent pension and do you know what? They claim benefits off the system when they retire on a shit pension. You are aware whose money (taxes) fund the benefits system yeah?
 
I'm left wing and I believe in universal benefits balanced by taxes to claw back from the better off. That way, no one who needs the benefit is left out. In addition, you avoid a shit load of bureaucracy where Doris works through your form and judges whether you are eligible or not.

Means testing is a classic Tory Policy, not left-wing at all. We'll be back to the 1920s at this rate, with some woman coming around to see what you can sell before you get anything.

Tories should be made up that their 'argument' on social policy has triumphed to the point that a Labour government goes down this path. On the one hand it's appalling. On the other hand, it demonstrates what philosophy is in the ascendant.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
He epitomises a horrible human trait. Someone who’s worked hard, and done well, who makes themselves unhappy at the thought of losing some of it.

Looked him up - left school at 15, trained to be a plumber, set his own business up, became the leading domestic plumbing services company in the country, floated on the stock exchange.

What an incredible story, and rather than be happy to give a bit back, even though he’ll always be alright, even though he must see homeless people every time he leaves the house, he wants to leave the country because his £20 million net assets might dip by a few percent. What a horrible ****.

Money fucks so many people up.
Click to expand...
This ****’s got me seriously mad. Like, if you took 75% of his wealth off him he’s still be absolutely fine. And still would be better off than over 99% of humans alive.

How can that not be enough?

It’s not him, it’s us. We’re utterly selfish cunts.
 
bluenova said:
I think it was most likely a complete misjudgement.

They probably thought that with the price cap being more than £300 lower than last year, and by retaining it for the poorest pensioners, it would be a relatively painless way to look "tough but fair".

Reeves was probably looking for a benefit to cut for the optics, and they completely underestimated the backlash.
Click to expand...
Sorry I’m behind the thread, Reeves has misjudged the mood, the large majority of pensioners are just above the pension credit limit. So won’t be able to claim extra benefit.
The part that annoys me is treating the state pension as a benefit when it’s been paid for by workers or people who paid their N.I. stamp WFP was because the cost of heating.
If they are serious they would realise that when people get old they need the heat on so more heart attacks, hypothermia ending up in hospital.
 
Kirkstall Blue said:
state pension as a benefit when it’s been paid for by workers or people who paid their N.I
Click to expand...

incorrect - the workforce today pays tax and NI through the front door and their money goes out the back door to pay todays pension. The "stamp" element is your contributions that establish the amount of your pension. If you pay tax today its paying your next door neighbours state pension on Thursday - thats why the ratio to working people paying tax and wealthy people stumping up their tax is important because there is no element of investment in the state pension.
 
Kirkstall Blue said:
It is obvious but did they have to make the pensioners pay for it ? Tell me why they couldn’t have gone after Tax fraud and introduce a staged withdrawal of WFP
Click to expand...
Ah, but we've just heard on the BBC ten o'clock that they rather not do it, so as they voiced their reluctance it's now perfectly alright to go ahead and, er, do it!
 
Kirkstall Blue said:
Sorry I’m behind the thread, Reeves has misjudged the mood, the large majority of pensioners are just above the pension credit limit. So won’t be able to claim extra benefit.
The part that annoys me is treating the state pension as a benefit when it’s been paid for by workers or people who paid their N.I. stamp WFP was because the cost of heating.
If they are serious they would realise that when people get old they need the heat on so more heart attacks, hypothermia ending up in hospital.
Click to expand...
Yeah, and I expect to live to be 104 years plus so that I get my money back!
 
hampshireblue said:
What nonsense you spout. So you're in favour of pensioners paying 40% tax receiving the WFA being subsidised by someone on minimum wage? I've always said the way they've done it is clumsy. They need to change it and stop the cliff edge situation they've created-end of. But I also recognisr that the system needs some reform and changing the universality of this is a start. If you don't agree, tell us that you're happy with someone on £50k + pension should be subsidised by someone on £20k or even "the poor working class". If you're not, tell us the alternative.
Click to expand...

That reply had no bearing at all to what I stated, my position is fairly clear and that position is that a real Labour party should help the poor first.

The new disciples of Kier however are just Tories, everyone should bite the bullet to help those less fortunate but the new Tories haven't mentioned anything other than pensioners just yet.

Let me make it clear, he shouldn't have started with them he should have eventually gotten around to them, slippery fucker that he is.
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
This ****’s got me seriously mad. Like, if you took 75% of his wealth off him he’s still be absolutely fine. And still would be better off than over 99% of humans alive.

How can that not be enough?

It’s not him, it’s us. We’re utterly selfish cunts.
Click to expand...
He’s triggered me since the day I heard him interviewed on the radio.
Struggle to understand why people born without a pot to piss in, then become the absolute greedy fuckers they and their family would have despised, growing up.
Sold his business for £145M! Seems like his boys still own 10% and hold senior positions, so they’ll be ok, whatever the old fucker does with his money..

Donated £70k to the Tory party and became ‘business advisor’ to Cameron and Osborne. I did him one disservice though, he was a full on opponent of Brexit, so he then donated money to the LD party. He’s now a fully paid up member of Reform PLC so he might well now be a Brexit supporter!
 
gordondaviesmoustache said:
This ****’s got me seriously mad. Like, if you took 75% of his wealth off him he’s still be absolutely fine. And still would be better off than over 99% of humans alive.

How can that not be enough?

It’s not him, it’s us. We’re utterly selfish cunts.
Click to expand...

He's probably taking into account the likelihood he'll have another 2 or 3 divorces tbf.
 
bluethrunthru said:
a post devoid of knowledge but big on R/W press rhetoric. Public service pensions aren't the golden ticket you believe they are. Every pension reflects contributions and length or service. My brother-in-law 9 years in the Army qualifies for a small pension. My wife 10 years in the Civil Service with a similar return. I was astonished when speaking to 2 friends a few weeks ago when on holiday one has long service in local govt one central govt - compared to my pensions in the private sector they are looking at no big deal.

My nieces husband retired from the Fire and Rescue Services at 50 a couple of years ago - long service and with contributions that would make the eyes of most of us water have at least left him sitting pretty.

The press will always find someone - probably left leaning or in what they consider a "non-job" like health and safety who get a decent payoff but the one's who get the big bucks are in Parliament - mostly those who tell you to hate other people rather than encourage you to ask your employer "why can't I have that" - example would be Liz Truss is 14 years my junior and is getting 10x my pensions for life for 49 days "service"
Click to expand...
Politicians effectively voted themselves the best pension in the land. I dont think many abstained from that vote, well there's a surprise.
 
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