The Labour Government

[hilts]

Fair enough. Ish.
Still don't trust you though ;-)

I'm nothing but stupidly honest I'm afraid:-)

 

[BigJoe#1]

So .... it was a political decision then ?

Why with this WFA debate could the Government have said in the first instance, any people of pensionable age that pay the higher rate of tax will have the payment stopped. Would have been a much fairer process to start with.

Unsurprisingly the Labour Government have shafted the poorer and needy again.

 

[west didsblue]

I'm not suggesting binning the Ukraine funding

Sounds exactly like you are.

 

[Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese]

Sounds exactly like you are.

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

 

[metalblue]

Lammy has assured us it’s fine…

He notes that there is "no budget" for clothing for our PM, while in other countries, such as the US, there is a "substantial budget" so that when appearing on the world stage, they represent their countries well.

"So it is the case that successive leaders of the opposition wanting to represent the country on an international stage, and prime ministers have used donors to fund that budget."

PM earns £160K a year. How does anyone expect him to buy his own clothes with that eh?

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Make them pay tax on these “benefits in kind” and see how quickly it clears itself up.

 

[Vic]

Can benefits accessible to only certain demographics, in the truest sense of the word,be described as "universal" ? Course not. I think that is you making a leap tbh.

The argument is that the way the WFA is administered is based on the idea of universal provision. Accessibility to all regardless of need to ensure nobody falls through the cracks. The inevitable trade off being people get stuff they don't necessarily need.

The counter argument, that it is an inefficient allocation of resources is clearly a valid one but is the trade off, people potentially falling through the cracks, worth it?


Totally agree on rates being a fairer system but it is not even remotely part of the political landscape so I guess both a leap and wide of the mark ;-)

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.)

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).

 

[mancityvstoke]

My aunt and uncle are quite capable of financing their grandkids Christmas presents by themselves, without the need for the taxpayer to do it

The WFA is not there to fund Sam or Luke's latest bloody video game. And why should it be??

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?

 

[mancityvstoke]

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.

 

[Chippy_boy]

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.)

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).

My “problem” is I genuinely wonder how much these changes are driven by a strong - and virtuous - desire to make things better for poor people. Or is it really about a bitter resentment of those better off and a drive to take money off those better off? Given the obvious hardship which will ensue as a result of the WFA changes for hundreds of thousands of poor people, and given the myriad of alternative tax and spending changes Reeves *could* have made, it’s really difficult to conclude that her motivations were entirely the former!

I’ve said before, does it *really* matter if someone on £100k per year who’s paying £40,000 in tax every year, only pays £39,800 because they got £200 back? Are we so petty that this is really a big deal?

There is a lot to be said for universal benefits because the admin cost is close to zero, as is the possibility of fraud and abuse.

And if it is such a big problem, why not just increase the pension by £300 whilst taking the £300 away? At least then the higher rate tax payers would pay tax on the benefit and get less.

One thing is clear to me though. I think it was a stupid move to rule out income tax, NI and VAT changes. And fiscal rule changes. Reeves now has a straight jacket within to operate which will necessitate all sorts of stupid policies.

 

[Chippy_boy]

In total, the UK has committed almost £12.7 billion for Ukraine: £7.6 billion in military support and £5 billion in non-military support. Winter fuel payment costs £1.5bn. I'm not suggesting binning the Ukraine funding, but maybe the £1.5bn should come off that rather than our pensioners.

I’d far rather tell Ed Silliband that he only gets £9.5bn for his silly foreign green policy initiatives, and not £11bn.

Wouldn’t you? And the other 67m people in this country agree?

 

[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.