Labour Party politics

[cryrst]

Someone much smarter than me can work out a calculation - I've no idea why you think that's relevant to my point.

I've said nothing about reducing it for people who need it. I want to 'pull it' from people who don't.

The specific amount needed to give those pensioners a reasonable standard of living is irrelevant to my argument - it should be calculated the same way all other benefits are calculated.

It’s relevant because who determines who is in need or not. As ted said you can be asset rich but still need cash.
And some welfare payments are not means tested. It’s ability, or any other cause you can find. Alternatively if you can lie better than others. One that is tested is family allowance which is bollox the way they do that. Paye will always get the sharp end of any tests anyway.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

It’s relevant because who determines who is in need or not. As ted said you can be asset rich but still need cash.
And some welfare payments are not means tested. It’s ability, or any other cause you can find. Alternatively if you can lie better than others. One that is tested is family allowance which is bollox the way they do that. Paye will always get the sharp end of any tests anyway.

It's not relevant to my point - yes, someone will need to calculate a reasonable threshold for access to state pension, the same way we need to calculate thresholds for all benefits, tax brackets etc. etc.

It will not be a perfect threshold, because by design they cannot be, but let's not pretend it's an impossibility, or that we should just continue handing out benefits to millionaires instead.

If you're asset rich and need cash, there's a really simple solution available to you.

 

[cryrst]

It's not relevant to my point - yes, someone will need to calculate a reasonable threshold for access to state pension, the same way we need to calculate thresholds for all benefits, tax brackets etc. etc.

It will not be a perfect threshold, because by design they cannot be, but let's not pretend it's an impossibility, or that we should just continue handing out benefits to millionaires instead.

If you're asset rich and need cash, there's a really simple solution available to you.

I knew you would go there. So if they have a good car, sell it, nice furniture sell it etc. socialist view and politics of envy.
People have tried to refuse it. Its impossible. If hmg are adamant your having it then what’s the solution.
Benefits in general is my point, not just millionaires

 

[chris123]

I knew you would go there. So if they have a good car, sell it, nice furniture sell it etc. socialist view and politics of envy.
People have tried to refuse it. Its impossible. If hmg are adamant your having it then what’s the solution.
Benefits in general is my point, not just millionaires

I'd rather the millionaires here paying their tax, than Monte Carlo not.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

The winter fuel payment can be declined - 53,000 pensioners in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland opted out. Anyone on more than £35,000 has it taken back in tax anyway.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

I knew you would go there. So if they have a good car, sell it, nice furniture sell it etc. socialist view and politics of envy.
People have tried to refuse it. Its impossible. If hmg are adamant your having it then what’s the solution.
Benefits in general is my point, not just millionaires

Socialist 🤣🤣🤣 f*** me.

If I lost my job tomorrow, but I had a £300k in gold bars, presumably you think I should be able to go and claim benefits because I like my gold and I want to keep it?

Or does that logic only apply to pensioners?

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Socialist 🤣🤣🤣 f*** me.

If I lost my job tomorrow, but I had a £300k in gold bars, presumably you think I should be able to go and claim benefits because I like my gold and I want to keep it?

Or does that logic only apply to pensioners?

Good plan. Every pensioner should get as much equity release as possible then spew the whole lot along with their savings and leave their family to cough up £1000+ a week for a care home.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Good plan. Every pensioner should get as much equity release as possible then spew the whole lot along with their savings and leave their family to cough up £1000+ a week for a care home.

Why on earth would they need to 'spew' the equity? They could just use it to live, rather than relying on benefits.

I never understand the reaction to what is plainly common sense on this topic.

People who are short on cash but rich in assets should need to sell their assets before being eligible for state welfare.

How can that possibly be controversial?

 

[Teddy Eagle]

Why on earth would they need to 'spew' the equity? They could just use it to live, rather than relying on benefits.

I never understand the reaction to what is plainly common sense on this topic.

People who are short on cash but rich in assets should need to sell their assets before being eligible for state welfare.

How can that possibly be controversial?

Because by this reckoning virtually everyone who owns any property, but especially in London, would have to sell it and still not get a pension because they had too much money in the bank.

 

[cryrst]

Why on earth would they need to 'spew' the equity? They could just use it to live, rather than relying on benefits.

I never understand the reaction to what is plainly common sense on this topic.

People who are short on cash but rich in assets should need to sell their assets before being eligible for state welfare.

How can that possibly be controversial?

Because why should they really.
People who put f*** all in get loads out and people who put loads in get f*** all out.
That’s what you are saying and it is socialism in a nut shell.
Bringing equality to everyone equally poor. The problem is what happens when these rich pensioners get poor. Will you then question why and decide if they merit payments by how they spent their money.

 

[chris123]

Why on earth would they need to 'spew' the equity? They could just use it to live, rather than relying on benefits.

I never understand the reaction to what is plainly common sense on this topic.

People who are short on cash but rich in assets should need to sell their assets before being eligible for state welfare.

How can that possibly be controversial?

You'd vote for this as a policy?

 

[Spiderman]

The winter fuel payment can be declined - 53,000 pensioners in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland opted out. Anyone on more than £35,000 has it taken back in tax anyway.

Yep just received a letter that says I will receive it but if my income is 35k+ they will take it back in cash. Just to say, I previously gave mine to my elderly mother-in-law. From this year you are given the option to opt out receiving it

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Because by this reckoning virtually everyone who owns any property, but especially in London, would have to sell it and still not get a pension because they had too much money in the bank.

If your wealth is tied up in assets, it's not the state's job to pay your way until you decide you're ready to cash in on those assets.

Again, I'm struggling to understand how that can be controversial?

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Because why should they really.
People who put f*** all in get loads out and people who put loads in get f*** all out.
That’s what you are saying and it is socialism in a nut shell.
Bringing equality to everyone equally poor. The problem is what happens when these rich pensioners get poor. Will you then question why and decide if they merit payments by how they spent their money.

Because they can't afford to pay their way, obviously.

Firstly, please go and look up what socialism is - I can't take any conversation seriously with that sort of lazy bollocks being thrown around. I'm not suggesting the state should start seizing people's wealth, I'm suggesting if they are in financial hardship, they can go and sell things. It's a feckin capitalist argument.

Your argument is for state benefits, regardless of financial situation - that's considerably more socialist than my position.

Why the f*** should the taxpayer be expected to fund the lifestyle of people who are wealthy - in what fantasy land is that a reasonable policy?

Does this logic apply to anyone but pensioners? Should I be entitled to benefits with thousands of gold bars sat in a vault? Or shares valuing millions? Why should I have to give them up right? The taxpayer can just sort me out.

It's got f*** all to do with equality - please have a think before reeling off the soundbites.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

You'd vote for this as a policy?

I'd vote for the state pension to be means tested, absolutely.

And assets would have to be factored into that means testing because obviously it wouldn't make any sense otherwise.

 

[Teddy Eagle]

If your wealth is tied up in assets, it's not the state's job to pay your way until you decide you're ready to cash in on those assets.

Again, I'm struggling to understand how that can be controversial?

That asset will belong to their families in due course. Forcing people to sell their property just seems like a way to ensure younger generations carry on struggling.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

That asset will belong to their families in due course. Forcing people to sell their property just seems like a way to ensure younger generations carry on struggling.

So what? Why would that justify taxpayers keeping them afloat in the meantime?

It's not about 'forcing' anything - it's just basic economic reality; if you need cash, you sell assets. How many people do you think sell cars, jewellery, houses and whatever else every year when they run out of money? But when it's pensioners that becomes beyond the pale? Why?

If I lost my job tomorrow with huge asset wealth, do you think I should be able to claim benefits until I decide I want to sell my assets? The price of gold is a bit s*** at the moment, so I'd rather hang on 5-10 years - the taxpayer can sort me out in the meantime, right?

 

[Teddy Eagle]

So what? Why would that justify taxpayers keeping them afloat in the meantime?

It's not about 'forcing' anything - it's just basic economic reality; if you need cash, you sell assets. How many people do you think sell cars, jewellery, houses and whatever else every year when they run out of money? But when it's pensioners that becomes beyond the pale? Why?

If I lost my job tomorrow with huge asset wealth, do you think I should be able to claim benefits until I decide I want to sell my assets? The price of gold is a bit s*** at the moment, so I'd rather hang on 5-10 years - the taxpayer can sort me out in the meantime, right?

So what? So I'd rather think the next generation have a slightly easier time of it and at least get a start in life.
Due to the rise in house prices this is the first time working class people have had much opportunity to acquire any assets but I guess things aren't meant to be that way.

 

[Hrolf The Ganger]

Someone much smarter than me can work out a calculation - I've no idea why you think that's relevant to my point.

I've said nothing about reducing it for people who need it. I want to 'pull it' from people who don't.

The specific amount needed to give those pensioners a reasonable standard of living is irrelevant to my argument - it should be calculated the same way all other benefits are calculated.

So those who have worked hard all their lives and managed their money properly have to pay for all the layabouts and jobless migrants and illegals, even if it means selling their houses.

'What a total t***'.

That's what I would say about a younger person who held that view.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

So what? So I'd rather think the next generation have a slightly easier time of it and at least get a start in life.
Due to the rise in house prices this is the first time working class people have had much opportunity to acquire any assets but I guess things aren't meant to be that way.

That's not a societal benefit - lots of peoples parents don't own anything.

And more broadly, that doesn't offset the enormous tax expenditure - imagine what we could do for all of the next generation if we weren't paying out enormous welfare bills to the richest demographic in society.

It's quite telling that you keep swerving my questions on this - if you believe this is logical policy, surely you can engage with my questions and challenges to it to prove the point.