Forum menu
take away the winter fuel allowance from people who need it
Have they? As far as I can tell there's a pretty sizable cohort of the over 65's in the Super Rich category that don't need a winter fuel allowance. The better off 'Boomers' - especially those with assets who still voted in numbers for the Tories in the summer are the obvious target for Reeve's tax increases given that she's promised not to increase taxes on VAT, wages, or profit. They're clearly as a population, under-taxed and asset rich.
Then there's the change to the Non-Dom rules. Which effects 74,000 of the Super Rich. Stupidly one was even in the paper trying to persuade the public that they'd all leave, to which the general response was a loud "Don't let the door hit you on the arse on your way out, mate"
As far as I can tell there’s a pretty sizable cohort of the over 65’s in the Super Rich category that don’t need a winter fuel allowance.
Totally agree. I would means-test every state benefit including the state pension to ensure those who don't need it don't get anything. We all know though the the way they're implementing the WFA cut is going to affect many people who do need it.
They’re clearly as a population, under-taxed and asset rich
Agree again. Like I said when they start talking about wealth taxes and increases in GGT I'll give them credit where its due. It has to also impact those at the very top though, because if it doesn't those in the middle will never accept the increases asked of them. Start at the top and work downwards. It's really quite simple.
Oh, the top 1% are much harder to "catch" than the 4% below them, for sure. HRMC staffing and skills need fixing to even begin on that task.
Again though... when you say "the middle" who do you mean? And which new tax "increases" are coming their way from this government?
Start at the top and work downwards. It’s really quite simple.
Maybe, take the change in the non-dom rules, they currently contribute something like 1% to the treasury (about 9 billion) so changes to their status isn't going to raise a huge amount in comparison with raising taxes on folks who're not in the 1% but are still wealthy by comparison - the upper middle. Taxes on the Super Wealthy are undeniably popular (populist?) but difficult to deny charges of singling them out becasue you just don't like them. Which is a daft way to run a govt, and is the same as accusing the Tories of hating the poor.
but difficult to deny charges of singling them out becasue you just don’t like them.
Too right I don't like them, but that's not the issue. It's a simple question of fairness. If you're going to ask people 'in the middle' to pay more, it stands to reason that those at the very top should pay at least the same as a proportion of their wealth/income as those in the middle. As I said, the view that the top 1% are untouchable is massively destructive. If we taxed people at the very top fairly, everyone below would be more willing to pay more themselves. Some of course will never accept it, but the majority would and we would be closer to achieving the high tax Scandinavian model that those on the left always go on about.
So far the three major economic things they’ve done is refuse to abolish the 2-child cap, take away the winter fuel allowance from people who need it, and declared a crackdown on benefit fraud.
The first one isn't anything they've done, otherwise you could list 1000 policies they've not 'abolished', the second is as much taking away the WFA from people who don't need it, and i think every government i've seen has declared a crackdown on benefit fraud, are you expecting governments to declare they're going to ease up on it?
I would means-test every state benefit including the state pension to ensure those who don’t need it don’t get anything.
And then reducing the department budget by having more staff carrying out those checks and balances for every payment?
If you’re going to ask people ‘in the middle’ to pay more
Who is asking them to pay more?
Who do you mean by the middle?
As I said, the view that the top 1% are untouchable is massively destructive.
I don't think I've ever heard any politician claim that they're untouchable, have they? The torie often claim that they pay their way. But the top 1% (ish) have had a consistent increase in taxes placed on them by successive govts including the coalition and onwards (from about 20% to nearly 28% now) At the same time, tax burden of the 50% of lowest earners has gone from 12.6% to less than 10%
take away the winter fuel allowance from people who need it,
As far as I can tell there’s a pretty sizable cohort of the over 65’s in the Super Rich category that don’t need a winter fuel allowance.
20-25% of pensioners are millionaires. Fact. I can't see any reason why it shouldn't be means tested, at the moment it sort of is because it's now only going to be paid to those claiming pension credit (or other credits but that's the pension one) but there's loads eligible for PC that don't claim it. Instead of helping; the opponents are spreading untruths that it is really difficult to claim; reality is that it can be largely sorted over the phone
https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/savings/pension-credit/
https://fullfact.org/economy/millionaire-pensioners/
20-25% of pensioners are millionaires.
And how many of that 20-25% are millionaires because they bought a house 50 years ago that is now worth loads of money. On that basis I am a millionaire even though I have very little money in savings (due to spending it all on my house!). My main hobby is cycling and I ride a £300 bike - not the sort of thing a proper millionaire would do now is it.
But yes people who could draw down against their million pound house should not be getting additional support for heating so maybe do some proper means testing rather than the rather blunt approach being taken.
On that basis I am a millionaire even though I have very little money in savings (due to spending it all on my house!). My main hobby is cycling and I ride a £300 bike – not the sort of thing a proper millionaire would do now is it.
You could draw down on your house and get a nicer bike, i live in a 250k house and won't have that option in later years.
It's not actually widespread for people to be living in million pound houses, a quick check on rightmove says 2 of them area nearby (3 miles away on a 1 mile search!), they are 5 or 7 bedroom, 4 or 5 bathroom houses with over 2 acres of land each!
If you are not on a defined contribution pension then a lot of pensioners will have to be millionaires just because of the assets they need to accrue in their pension to support paying out into old age, plus their house value.
How will means testing affect them (not just for winter fuel, but also for insulation grants, etc), as they may look rich now but in fact their accrued assets can't support anywhere near the level of pension someone from the public sector will get.
On that basis I am a millionaire even though I have very little money in savings (due to spending it all on my house!).
Should you receive extra money to heat your million pound home? Should pensioners with million pound homes, full state pension, and either a private pension or savings (ie no pension credits)?
I keep saying this, but i don’t think any of us are ‘Starmer supporters’, we support the government at this moment in time, of which, Starmer is the PM.
Quoting this as it's pretty much where I am at.
I voted for Corbyn twice but in reality my vote was for Labour as they were and are, overall, the best fit for my political views and pragmatism, with the Libdems/ Greens a close second.
Starmer is the figurehead, I believe him to fundamentally be a decent individual, ditto Corbyn, though I'll freely say I wish he (Starmer) were further to the left than he is but if that were so.... We might still be enduring a Tory government. :/
Right or wrong (spoiler: It's wrong imo) the UK doesn't seem to want to elect a government further to the left. Yet.
I hope that changes and I hope Labour are there for that change.
Personally ill vote for the furthest left party that have an actual chance of gaining power, at the moment that is Labour. I know some of us on here don't like that reality (I understand and sympathise) but it is the reality we have to work with none the less.
The millionaire pensioner households (the stat is calculated for a household where there is one pensioner, so many will be couples, and one may also be working) will usually have substantial savings as well as a house (perhaps two of those). Of course there are a few cash paupers who are struggling to live in mansions they can't afford to heat let along maintain and haven't the wit to downsize and release some of the capital they are sitting on, but they are few and far between and anyway encouraging them to downsize is a social, political and economic good for multiple reasons.
God there’s some shite spouted on here sometimes.
On a spectrum of hard left to hard right, you can be in the centre without supporting any right wing policies.
In theory yes but in practice to put it bluntly thats utter shite. Parties seen as centrist tend one way on social and the other on economic.
For example new labours fondness for thatcherite ideals which are hard right.
dissonance
For example new labours fondness for thatcherite ideals which are hard right.
Not nit picking, just honestly clarifying, which policies do you mean?
Presumably not privately owned and run rail, or easy no fault evictions.
Plenty of legacy of Thatcherism still with us though, and very embedded. Some of it needs reversing asap, some is just too costly to reverse, some will become irrelevant over time, and there are even a few things that actively should be kept now even though it was handled horrifically at the time (sunset of UK coal for example).
Not nit picking, just honestly clarifying, which policies do you mean?
Continuing deregulation, privatisation, continuation of marginalisation of trade unions and increase in "labour flexibility" and a strong liking for centralised power for starters.
And you think the (short) record of this Labour government can be described like that?
I would agree that the Labour government at the turn of the century could be.
Should you receive extra money to heat your million pound home? Should pensioners with million pound homes, full state pension, and either a private pension or savings (ie no pension credits)?
Nope, pity you didn't make it to my second paragraph - especially as although I talk crap I do at least keep it short.
Ah, I missed your point. Sorry. I thought you were arguing that property wealth doesn't make you wealthy.
And you think the (short) record of this Labour government can be described like that?
Sorry, is that directed at me? Since I used "new labour" in the previous comment doesnt that answer your question?
It describes Blair&Brown's time in government, in my opinion. Do you think that it also applies to what the current UK Government are doing? I don't (so far).
https://twitter.com/NicholasTyrone/status/1838567016275284022?t=vr8NrlnmVKnMYmQ4yAQeDg&s=19
This is the reality. This is the choice you have to make.
Continuing deregulation, privatisation, continuation of marginalisation of trade unions and increase in “labour flexibility” and a strong liking for centralised power for starters.
I don't recognise that this govt is pursuing any of those policies. Only a couple of days ago Rayner was speaking at conference about repealing laws of strike vote turnout, and min service levels during strikes, and a Worker's rights bill, all of which are Union proposals. Unions have just today led a vote at conference to reject the means testing of Winter Fuel Allowance, that doesn't shout "marginalised" If I'm honest
It makes for a snappy response in a thread, but it really doesn't stand any scrutiny.
Who do you mean by the middle?
I suppose a good example is people who are just over the 40p tax threshold who have seen their marginal tax rates increase over the past 10 years due to the threshold not rising with inflation. They are paying a lot more tax than they used to, but are not rich enough to not have to worry about it. In fact I'd class anyone who earns significantly above the average salary who still has to work as being 'in the middle'. That will vary depending on people's circumstances but people who work generally pay far more in tax than those who don't have to, and that needs to be corrected.
How do you justify someone on 50k having to pay 40% on everything over that when there are people with 10s of millions in the bank who pay <20% (or much less if they take advantage of various avoidance opportunities)?
It describes Blair&Brown’s time in government, in my opinion.
Ermmm yes, since after all that was who I was talking about aka "new labour". The current bunch dont seem to have acquired a name yet beyond maybe new new labour which isnt overly catchy.
For Starmer, well its hard to tell. Currently he does seem to be buying into the deregulation and market approach (see housing and planning "reform") but beyond that he doesnt seem to have much in play beyond broad statements and an unwillingness to really move away from the failed tory policies in all but a handful of easy cases.
It makes for a snappy response in a thread, but it really doesn’t stand any scrutiny.
Whereas your response wasnt snappy but was answering a wildly different point. Perhaps rather than just reacting actually bother to read the context?
Perhaps rather than just reacting actually bother to read the context?
well, explain how this government is perusing policies that trace their history back to Thatcher then rather than a random laundry list. Given that the very first piece of legislation this govt hopes to pass has trade union proposals all the way through it, the claim that the "continuation of marginalisation of trade unions" is obviously incorrect.
This is the reality. This is the choice you have to make.
So labour get a free pass because the alternative is much worse? It's the other way round, the alternative is so much worse that labour can't afford to f*** this up and let them back in again (or even worse Farage), so they need to start doing the things that will make working people's lives easier and start addressing some of the structural inequalites and injustices in our society and economy. Far from giving them a free pass, they need to feel the pressure and be held to account every step of the way.
So labour get a free pass because the alternative is much worse?
Of course not. But talking as if Starmer is the anti-Christ and his party are the legions of hell really isn't helping. Politics, like economics, is just one big confidence trick, and undermining that confidence is a very dangerous thing to do. By all means indulge in some constructive debate, but this relentless slagging off is not that.
But talking as if Starmer is the anti-Christ and his party are the legions of hell really isn’t helping.
I don't think anyone's doing that. Those of us who are being critical are not doing so because we want Starmer and labour to fail, it's the very opposite. We can see the direction this is all heading and know what the result will be, a tory govt in 5 years or earlier.
well, explain how this government
No I dont need to because I wasnt referring to the current government. I tell you what I will leave an empty line and then you can invent something else new I said so you can come up with a superior argument.
""
Enjoy.
Not nit picking, just honestly clarifying, which policies do you mean?
There you have it. There are none, one completely debunked, the rest is just word salad, so there are no actual policies or ideals that this Govt are perusing that @dissonance can directly trace back to Thatcher or the hard right.
No I dont need to because I wasnt referring to the current government.
Apologies. It was me that was wondering if you were making a point about the current government. In my defence, my reason for asking was because... well... I thought this thread was about the current government.
Damn, that now reads like I'm making a snide comment, rather than apologising for the confusion. It's not meant that way. Sorry.
Continuing deregulation, privatisation, continuation of marginalisation of trade unions and increase in “labour flexibility” and a strong liking for centralised power for starters.
Cheers for clarifying and sorry as I had also assumed it was a comment in regard to the current Labour government hence my self inflicted confuzzlement!
If I’m reading this correctly, the government are in the wrong for not doing things that should be covered in a budget that hasn’t happened yet?
also, this makes them as bad as the Tories. Or possibly worse.
But talking as if Starmer is the anti-Christ and his party are the legions of hell really isn’t helping.
I don’t think anyone’s doing that
You might not think anyone is doing that. That's not always how it comes across to some of the rest of us.
Some of Starmers critics on here do come across as approaching desperation or hysteria for a government that has not had three months yet nor had a chance to deliver a budget. While directing the criticism very much at Starmer as an individual, rather than at the government as a whole. While cherry picking the policies they disagree with and not mentioning those that they presumably do agree with.
While directing the criticism very much at Starmer as an individual, rather than at the government as a whole
Tbf his personal decision making has been questionable at best.
Tbf his personal decision making has been questionable at best.
Yeah don't understand why this is such a sticking point for many.
It's been a rubbish start for Labour and Starmer.
I don't think it's just a few of us on a forum who are frustrated too. Take a look out of the window.
Some of Starmers critics on here do come across as approaching desperation or hysteria for a government that has not had three months yet nor had a chance to deliver a budget.
That's because things keep turning out worse than expected, not better.
I don't think we need to hold back there's too much resting on it all.
I mean with gems like this ...
Liz Kendall this morning: "Let me tell you conference, this Labour govt has done more to help the poorest pensioners in the last 2 months than the Tories did in 14 years"
https://twitter.com/SaulStaniforth/status/1838886518720479560?t=i0N7zIYUnjmCQufG_XW0lQ&s=19
Every party needs a Truss screaming guff down a mic.
(It's a total and flat out lie.)