Labour Party politics

[CPFCSaturn]

This one sums up the dilemma quite nicely.

One-legged amputee has benefits cut after being filmed playing cricket

Shaun Rigby, 37, said he was told by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) that officials had covertly tailed him for weeks as part of a probe into his disability claim.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Firstly he is not a benefit scrounger and as far as I can see has done nothing wrong under the current rules. However although he is disabled he has a full time job plus he was getting benefits of £500 per month which he has now lost.

Of course he has our sympathy for losing his leg as a child but does that entitle him to extra money from the government? He is fit enough to play cricket and hold down a job.

Over the decades the breadth and scope of benefits keep increasing and this is the issue that government now faces. I suspect that if you go back 50 years he would not have been entitled to them.

So how do you have a benefits system that is fair and helps those most in need whilst acknowledging that the taxpayer cannot help everyone.

A huge part of that is the fact that wages are too low - a big percentage of benefit claimants are workers who the state is topping up.

50 years ago, those people could have lived off their salary.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

He's correct about the lying, however, perhaps he didn't notice the government attacking the most vulnerable to make cuts. Pensioners and the disabled. Hardly charitable to them. Scummy moves against people that find it hard to fight back.
My honest opinion is that a one percent income tax rise wouldn't have killed anyone: if the money was to be used properly.
But the truth is, if we want a truth bomb, everyone is sick of paying for people who have paid nothing into the system whilst seeing no benefits for their tax money themselves.
For example, when you see a crime do you even ring the police anymore? Will they even answer in a timely fashion? Unlikely they'll respond. Do you want to go to the doctor? When will your appointment be? If they even answer.
If they raised taxes and those type of services worked, people would accept it. But we know it wouldn't sort that.

Pensioners are certainly not vulnerable economically - they are the wealthiest demographic in the country.

They're also one of the most powerful voting blocks in the country and certainly have the political power to 'fight back' as a result.

 

[NEILLO]

Pensioners are certainly not vulnerable economically - they are the wealthiest demographic in the country.

They're also one of the most powerful voting blocks in the country and certainly have the political power to 'fight back' as a result.

I don't agree.

There are huge variances within that demographic. So you can aggregate it and get the result you want, but there are certainly plenty of pensioners that are economically vulnerable.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

The thread should be 'Party politics'. All parties have to eventually deal with reality, as will Reform if they ever get into power. Labour governments often implement policies that would cause uproar from the Left if the 'Wicked Tories' implemented the same policies. Tory governments often implement policies that the Right would decry as 'far-left' from Labour. The Liberals in coalition abandoned practically all of their policies. The Scots and Welsh Nationalists are more interested in staying in power in their regions and using British taxes, not relishing full independence as they know it would be practically impossible to make a success of it.
The problem is over-government and over-taxation. Vote for the party that is likely to do the least damage in those areas and cut state spending - hopefully Reform, but they would probably just be the least of several evils.

Neoliberalism has produced worse outcomes for people and for society in nearly every metric. It exists almost exclusively to extract wealth from the state and the middle class.

To suggest the solution to this is giving even more power to 'the markets' is utter lunacy, in my opinion.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

I don't agree.

There are huge variances within that demographic. So you can aggregate it and get the result you want, but there are certainly plenty of pensioners that are economically vulnerable.

With respect, it's a statistical fact.

Of course within any demographic there are going to be exceptions and outliers, and of course support should be available to those who need it.

 

[NEILLO]

With respect, it's a statistical fact.

Of course within any demographic there are going to be exceptions and outliers, and of course support should be available to those who need it.

I’m not disputing the statistics, just pointing out that not all pensioners are wealthy

 

[ASCPFC]

With respect, it's a statistical fact.

Of course within any demographic there are going to be exceptions and outliers, and of course support should be available to those who need it.

That's including the value of their homes. An income of 200 a week is hardly a top income. I'm sure the government would love them to give up their homes - or just die already. They're a real pain and most will not vote Labour now.

 

[Common Sense Club]

With respect, it's a statistical fact.

Of course within any demographic there are going to be exceptions and outliers, and of course support should be available to those who need it.

And this is the problem with the current Labour government; they have generalised. So, all pensioners are wealthy, all farmers are called Clarkson etc. The WFA could easily have had a decent cut-off point from the start if they had thought about the situation - make it taxable would have been a sensible option. With the agricultural IHT situation, speak to DEFRA about want you want to do; don't tell them the day before it is announced. If they had discussed the situation with DEFRA they may have set the IHT limit at the correct level instead of a 'one size fits all' approach that is going to kill some farms at the lower end. This could be another U-turn in the future when they realise what effect the policy is actually going to have.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

And this is the problem with the current Labour government; they have generalised. So, all pensioners are wealthy, all farmers are called Clarkson etc. The WFA could easily have had a decent cut-off point from the start if they had thought about the situation - make it taxable would have been a sensible option. With the agricultural IHT situation, speak to DEFRA about want you want to do; don't tell them the day before it is announced. If they had discussed the situation with DEFRA they may have set the IHT limit at the correct level instead of a 'one size fits all' approach that is going to kill some farms at the lower end. This could be another U-turn in the future when they realise what effect the policy is actually going to have.

I agree that Labour's implementation has been shoddy on many fronts.

But you have to generalise to some extent in order to make policy - we can't all have bespoke tax bills.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

That's including the value of their homes. An income of 200 a week is hardly a top income. I'm sure the government would love them to give up their homes - or just die already. They're a real pain and most will not vote Labour now.

Yes, it does include the extremely valuable assets they own, which in most cases have exploded in value since they bought them.

Why wouldn't it?

 

[Stirlingsays]

He's correct about the lying, however, perhaps he didn't notice the government attacking the most vulnerable to make cuts. Pensioners and the disabled. Hardly charitable to them. Scummy moves against people that find it hard to fight back.
My honest opinion is that a one percent income tax rise wouldn't have killed anyone: if the money was to be used properly.
But the truth is, if we want a truth bomb, everyone is sick of paying for people who have paid nothing into the system whilst seeing no benefits for their tax money themselves.
For example, when you see a crime do you even ring the police anymore? Will they even answer in a timely fashion? Unlikely they'll respond. Do you want to go to the doctor? When will your appointment be? If they even answer.
If they raised taxes and those type of services worked, people would accept it. But we know it wouldn't sort that.

I've never given it serious thought about what policies would actually save us from the current pathway....it's hardly just a UK problem....but I must admit I think the rejection of Truss signaled the last serious attempt to realistically alter the picture.

I suppose if I were in charge I would be looking to small business and helping them....similar to what Thatcher did.....don't know, but I think it's fecked regardless of who's in charge.

The system just wants to draw it out as long as possible with the rich boys and banks sucking as much blood out of the corpse before it flat-lines. The politicians are not that much more than meat puppets for the treasury and financial markets.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

I've never given it serious thought about what policies would actually save us from the current pathway....it's hardly just a UK problem....but I must admit I think the rejection of Truss signaled the last serious attempt to realistically alter the picture.

The system just wants to draw it out as long as possible with the rich boys and banks sucking as much blood out of the copse before it flat-lines. The politicians are not that much more than meat puppets for the treasury and financial markets.

Truss is the system - her whole IEA/neoliberal theory of less regulation, less government, more 'free markets' is just a juiced up version what we already have, and that's failed by every metric going.

The suggestion that just doing more of it will solve the problem doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[ASCPFC]

Yes, it does include the extremely valuable assets they own, which in most cases have exploded in value since they bought them.

Why wouldn't it?

Because it's not money and why should people be forced out of their homes? My house is worth half a mil - you want yours in your tax return? It's bullshit frankly. Nearly all pensioners have a life of paying tax. Now they're treated like a burden. I'd be f***ing pissed if I were them.

 

[Common Sense Club]

I agree that Labour's implementation has been shoddy on many fronts.

But you have to generalise to some extent in order to make policy - we can't all have bespoke tax bills.

Yes, but if you generalise without thinking about what you want to achieve it doesn't inspire confidence when you are found out. This is why there is the potential backlash defeat for the welfare reforms. It's almost as if Labour have a list of things to achieve and they are ticking them off as quickly as possible in order to go on holiday. Identify a problem, analyse and do a study before making a decision and you have a chance of success. As for bespoke tax bills, don't we all have that?

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Because it's not money and why should people be forced out of their homes? My house is worth half a mil - you want yours in your tax return? It's bullshit frankly. Nearly all pensioners have a life of paying tax. Now they're treated like a burden. I'd be f***ing pissed if I were them.

Who's talking about forcing anyone out of their homes or being a burden? Why can't this topic be discussed without the hyperbolic emotional stuff?

We all have a life of paying tax - I will pay higher taxes, work for longer, have an infinitely worse pension, and never see my house increase 10x in value (those younger than me will probably never even own a home) than any current pensioner.

Tax systems are progressive - that's how it works... those who are in the best position economically shoulder a bigger burden... pensioners are the richest demographic in the country.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Yes, but if you generalise without thinking about what you want to achieve it doesn't inspire confidence when you are found out. This is why there is the potential backlash defeat for the welfare reforms. It's almost as if Labour have a list of things to achieve and they are ticking them off as quickly as possible in order to go on holiday. Identify a problem, analyse and do a study before making a decision and you have a chance of success. As for bespoke tax bills, don't we all have that?

I don't agree the backlash on welfare reforms is about generalising - it's just a s*** idea, as most of this government's are.

Ok, I thought the point was pretty clear, but sure - we can't all have bespoke economic policies, the state has to generalise people to a degree.

 

[NEILLO]

Who's talking about forcing anyone out of their homes or being a burden? Why can't this topic be discussed without the hyperbolic emotional stuff?

We all have a life of paying tax - I will pay higher taxes, work for longer, have an infinitely worse pension, and never see my house increase 10x in value (those younger than me will probably never even own a home) than any current pensioner.

Tax systems are progressive - that's how it works... those who are in the best position economically shoulder a bigger burden... pensioners are the richest demographic in the country.

Look, I’m a pensioner. So I’m speaking from actual experience unlike yourself.

I’m not ‘ poor ‘. But I’m not wealthy either. If it wasn’t for the fact that my partner works then my standard of living would nosedive comparatively. I consider myself lucky in that respect.

You are once again generalising talking about a 10x increase in house value. I bought my first property in the 70’s - a 2 bed starter home. I’d have to have stayed in it since then to appreciate that kind of increase.

Now I could sell my house and realise some of the equity in it. Which isn’t a vast amount. But I don’t want to move and why the hell should I ?

You keep repeating your “ richest demographic in the country “ mantra. It’s a statistic which conceals the variances in pensioners circumstances but hopefully you’ll find out one day when it’s your turn.

 

[ASCPFC]

Who's talking about forcing anyone out of their homes or being a burden? Why can't this topic be discussed without the hyperbolic emotional stuff?

We all have a life of paying tax - I will pay higher taxes, work for longer, have an infinitely worse pension, and never see my house increase 10x in value (those younger than me will probably never even own a home) than any current pensioner.

Tax systems are progressive - that's how it works... those who are in the best position economically shoulder a bigger burden... pensioners are the richest demographic in the country.

If you want to actually spend the value of your home to live on, you either remortgage, which a pensioner can't afford to do. Or you sell. Why should they sell? It's their house bought and paid for. It's their pension they paid for too. It's hardly emotional or hyperbole. It's the realistic, logical outcome.
My home isn't included within my wealth - until I die. I don't count it as money - does anyone? Only the government and tax man - and clearly the statistics people where it suits them. Nobody's residence is their value. Now, second homes - like nearly every MP has. That's different. Tax that at income tax rates. But it won't happen will it.

 

[CPFCSaturn]

Look, I’m a pensioner. So I’m speaking from actual experience unlike yourself.

I’m not ‘ poor ‘. But I’m not wealthy either. If it wasn’t for the fact that my partner works then my standard of living would nosedive comparatively. I consider myself lucky in that respect.

You are once again generalising talking about a 10x increase in house value. I bought my first property in the 70’s - a 2 bed starter home. I’d have to have stayed in it since then to appreciate that kind of increase.

Now I could sell my house and realise some of the equity in it. Which isn’t a vast amount. But I don’t want to move and why the hell should I ?

You keep repeating your “ richest demographic in the country “ mantra. It’s a statistic which conceals the variances in pensioners circumstances but hopefully you’ll find out one day when it’s your turn.

Yes, obviously you have to generalise in these discussions because we can't do individual analysis of the financial position of millions of pensioners in the country - do we really need a disclaimer that 'not every house has increased 10x in value' and 'not every pensioner is rich'? It's very obvious.

My experience of being a pensioner will be VASTLY different to that of pensioners today, that's for sure.

Again, it's not a mantra - it's a fact. You might not like the fact, but it's still true.

 

[ASCPFC]

Yes, obviously you have to generalise in these discussions because we can't do individual analysis of the financial position of millions of pensioners in the country - do we really need a disclaimer that 'not every house has increased 10x in value' and 'not every pensioner is rich'? It's very obvious.

My experience of being a pensioner will be VASTLY different to that of pensioners today, that's for sure.

Again, it's not a mantra - it's a fact. You might not like the fact, but it's still true.

Probably true that your government pension will be worse in real terms. But that doesn't mean we have to resent the pensioners of today. House ownership models will likely have changed too.
Try to have a good private pension. I've a bit of one but I also want my British and Irish pensions that I have paid for.