Interesting trouble ahead

[ditchman]

Labour party conferance.................

conference and Unions vote against the govts' plan to scrap the WFP.....

Govt' says it wont make any difference  they will still do it..........

[old man]

Of course they will, trying to appear statesman like and in control? 

Sadly  harsh winter and the wheels may come off? Strange rhetoric, come in off a boat with no contributions..OK?

Be a long-term contributior...treated with contempt?

 

[JohnfromUK]

28 minutes ago, old man said:

Strange rhetoric, come in off a boat and a likely future Labour voter with no contributions..OK?

Be a long-term contributor...but probably never a Labour voter, treated with contempt?

All explained above

[ditchman]

labour havt thought this through ....ok they say it willm effect 10 million pensioners

wrong.....it will effect a lot more people ....as the families will be chipping in to cover the short fall....for the pensioners that just miss the mark....

[oowee]

5 minutes ago, ditchman said:

labour havt thought this through ....ok they say it willm effect 10 million pensioners

wrong.....it will effect a lot more people ....as the families will be chipping in to cover the short fall....for the pensioners that just miss the mark....

Its not the government that pays for the WFP it's tax payers. 

Why should tax payers pay to heat the homes of those that have incomes above the threshold for pension credit? The poorest pensioners will rightly get support. You can argue that the threshold is too low but benefits have to be capped somewhere. 

 

[JohnfromUK]

5 minutes ago, oowee said:

You can argue that the threshold is too low but benefits have to be capped somewhere. 

The current UK "minimum wage" is £11.44, which is £457.60 a week or roughly is £22.8K per year.  Pension credit threshold is £218.15 a week, so you are considered sufficiently well off to loose your heating allowance at less than half the minimum wage. 

That is simply ridiculous.  I could understand the full 'minimum wage' perhaps being a suitable level for a means test for someone who can afford heating, but HALF the minimum wage is criminal.

[old man]

1 hour ago, JohnfromUK said:

All explained above

For a bit more balance John, surely it's true that the contempt does not emanate from just one party? We are seen as sheep to be herded and exploited at will for fun?

[TIGHTCHOKE]

7 minutes ago, old man said:

For a bit more balance John, surely it's true that the contempt does not emanate from just one party? We are seen as sheep to be herded and exploited at will for fun?

That's a VERY good point, they all treat the electorate with disdain.

[Gordon R]

Quote

Why should tax payers pay to heat the homes of those that have incomes above the threshold for pension credit? The poorest pensioners will rightly get support. You can argue that the threshold is too low but benefits have to be capped somewhere. 

It would be nice if the poorest pensioners rightly got support, but we both know that Labour are relying on the fact that most pensioners do not apply for pension credit. If they did, any savings from the removal of heating allowance would disappear and another black hole would appear.

I haven't seen a genuine campaign to get pensioners to claim what they are entitled to do. I wonder why. Too busy with their noses in the trough.

[JohnfromUK]

18 minutes ago, old man said:

For a bit more balance John, surely it's true that the contempt does not emanate from just one party? We are seen as sheep to be herded and exploited at will for fun?

Well, in fact, pensioners have had a slightly better time in recent years (until very recently and admittedly starting from a low base) with the Triple Lock.

My real gripe is that stopping the WFA at a level that is less than half of the minimum wage  - and for people at a time of life when heating is needed more is just plain WRONG.

If it must be stopped, why not at a figure such as the minimum wage?

 

[oowee]

4 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

Well, in fact, pensioners have had a slightly better time in recent years (until very recently and admittedly starting from a low base) with the Triple Lock.

My real gripe is that stopping the WFA at a level that is less than half of the minimum wage  - and for people at a time of life when heating is needed more is just plain WRONG.

If it must be stopped, why not at a figure such as the minimum wage?

 

So you would propose to double the pension? What would you cut to pay for it? What tax rises do you think would be required?

Minimum wage and pension is a false analogy. Pensioners will likely have paid for their accommodation. Its all about choice and fairness. There is no way that high earning pensioners should get this allowance. 

Edited September 25 by oowee

[JohnfromUK]

Just now, oowee said:

So you would propose to double the pension?

Where did I say that?  (Clue - I didn't).

I would propose to pay the WFA not just to those on below the Pension Credit threshold, but those on below the minimum wage.

5 minutes ago, oowee said:

Pensioners will likely have paid for their accommodation.

A great many will be paying rent

 

[oowee]

1 minute ago, JohnfromUK said:

Where did I say that?  (Clue - I didn't).

I would propose to pay the WFA not just to those on below the Pension Credit threshold, but those on below the minimum wage.

And where will the money come from?  Why should tax payers fork out for increasing benefits? Many on here feel the UK is a soft touch on benefits. Increasing them is not going to improve the situation. 

[JohnfromUK]

Just now, oowee said:

Why should tax payers fork out for increasing benefits?

It is not 'increasing benefits'.  It was maintaining existing benefits - and I am suggesting only to those on below the minimum wage.

And the idea that continuing to pay pensioners WFA would cause a run on the pound as suggested by Starmer has been completely - and in fact the £ has been doing rather well recently.

[oowee]

3 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

It is not 'increasing benefits'.  It was maintaining existing benefits - and I am suggesting only to those on below the minimum wage.

And the idea that continuing to pay pensioners WFA would cause a run on the pound as suggested by Starmer has been completely - and in fact the £ has been doing rather well recently.

£ is doing well because the Govt is seen as fiscally responsible. 

I am not saying that the proposed payment level is correct. It seems to me that a far better way to deal with these things is consolidate it in pension and then tax appropriately. Unfortunately 'Tax' (changes) has become a thing to be avoided at all costs. 

 

[JohnfromUK]

1 minute ago, oowee said:

I am not saying that the proposed payment level is correct.

And I am very clearly saying it is NOT correct, so we aren't a million miles away.  I don't disagree that paying winter fuel allowance to those adequately wealthy to afford proper suitable heating for old age is not sensible whan trying to save money.  BUT £218.15 a week is NOT wealthy.  In fact it is very low - less than half the 'minimum wage'.

 

4 minutes ago, oowee said:

Unfortunately 'Tax' (changes) has become a thing to be avoided at all costs. 

And who made the statement that precipitated that situation?  I think both Starmer and Reeves probably.  Shows the 'good judgement' these muppets have making promises before they have considered the implications.  Fenced themselves into a corner.

[Gordon R]

Quote

Many on here feel the UK is a soft touch on benefits.

Superbly understated. I felt slightly miffed about 300 Tax Credit claims being made from the same address. I was slightly more put out when the record became 500 from another single address. I have no idea if that has been topped. It wouldn't surprise me, due to the total incompetence / disinterest that is HM Revenue and Customs.

[JohnfromUK]

Perhaps the £ is rising because the markets see UK interest rates staying high to combat the inflation the Gov't is building into our economy?

[oowee]

9 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

Superbly understated. I felt slightly miffed about 300 Tax Credit claims being made from the same address. I was slightly more put out when the record became 500 from another single address. I have no idea if that has been topped. It wouldn't surprise me, due to the total incompetence / disinterest that is HM Revenue and Customs.

Where was this? I missed this one. Do you have a link? A search on google does not list anything. 

[clangerman]

30 minutes ago, oowee said:

And where will the money come from?  Why should tax payers fork out for increasing benefits? Many on here feel the UK is a soft touch on benefits. Increasing them is not going to improve the situation. 

easy enough to take it out of the £12.8 BILLION for your mate Zelensky and why didn’t you pick your ticket to ukraine up don’t you want a free rifle! 

[Jaymo]

1 hour ago, JohnfromUK said:

The current UK "minimum wage" is £11.44, which is £457.60 a week or roughly is £22.8K per year.  Pension credit threshold is £218.15 a week, so you are considered sufficiently well off to loose your heating allowance at less than half the minimum wage. 

That is simply ridiculous.  I could understand the full 'minimum wage' perhaps being a suitable level for a means test for someone who can afford heating, but HALF the minimum wage is criminal.

😡😡😡😡😡

Just now, clangerman said:

easy enough to take it out of the £12.8 BILLION for your mate Zelensky and why didn’t you pick your ticket to ukraine up don’t you want a free rifle! 

You don’t half come out with some **** 

[clangerman]

7 minutes ago, Jaymo said:

😡😡😡😡😡

You don’t half come out with some **** 

be pretty embarrassing if the gov OWN website has the wrong amount! lol 

[Gordon R]

oowee - I thought your sources would have been better. That is just the tip of the iceberg. There is very little interest in uncovering fraud - DWP and HMRC just turn a blind eye.

[old man]

1 hour ago, oowee said:

So you would propose to double the pension? What would you cut to pay for it? What tax rises do you think would be required?

Minimum wage and pension is a false analogy. Pensioners will likely have paid for their accommodation. Its all about choice and fairness. There is no way that high earning pensioners should get this allowance. 

Mm, maybe a dangerous area there oowee?

Following that train,why would/should anyone bother to save for anything if the penalty is for disadvantage?

[oowee]

13 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

oowee - I thought your sources would have been better. That is just the tip of the iceberg. There is very little interest in uncovering fraud - DWP and HMRC just turn a blind eye.

Clearly they are not. So how do you know this? Do you have anything to evidence the claim? 

8 minutes ago, old man said:

Mm, maybe a dangerous area there oowee?

Following that train,why would/should anyone bother to save for anything if the penalty is for disadvantage?

Not quite sure I follow but.. if the pension is set a set at a very minimum payment it will encourage others to either work longer and or save for retirement. This very minimal level of payment could be the basis of all benefits.