That Starmer fella...

I'm all for making the wealthy (of all ages) pay more, so increase CGT and inheritance tax, bring in a wealth tax, increase council tax bands or bring in a land value tax. Any of these will raise many billions from the wealthier in society.

Labour's first reaction seems to be to cut spending. Departments have already been warned they face big cuts in the upcoming budget.

The argument people are making early on is let's not have another round of austerity, there are many other ways of 'balancing' the budget, if that's what they want to do.

it’s high time the portion of the retired that can afford it started repaying some of the damage that was done to the economy during the pandemic

and at what point would you decide that portion starts ?

and at what point would you decide that portion starts ?

Luckily there are people who are professionally capable of addressing questions around means testing, and it's not decided arbitrarily by some guy on a bike forum. Phew!

I'm all for making the wealthy (of all ages) pay more, so increase CGT and inheritance tax, bring in a wealth tax, increase council tax bands or bring in a land value tax. Any of these will raise many billions from the wealthier in society.

Same, and I’d guess at least some of those measures, along with a reduction on higher rate tax relief on pension contributions, are on their way in the budget since they aren’t amongst the specific tax raises that were ruled out before the election.

Some spending has been cut, but so far it’s been things like departmental reductions in use of consultants, the social care cap (which protected pensioners’ wealth) and some Tory infrastructure pet projects. Can’t get too worked up about that, tbh.

Labour were elected to restore public services, I don’t think we’re looking at another round of Osborne-style austerity.

Feelings and optics are pretty important in politics.

Brexit was voted for by many people who felt slighted and used it as a way to have a voice.

I've chatted to quite a few old folk who may need the payment through work, all of them were worried about it, some will still get it as they receive pension credits, some won't. These ain't really the loaded pensioners or I likely wouldn't be coming into contact with them. I think it's good to not spaff £300 on rich old folk who don't need it, I think the cut of line is pretty harsh. Pension credit is available to top up your weekly income to just under £220 if you're single, if you get £220 you're not eligible and miss out on money that'll likely keep you warmer through winter. There's also a lot of people who are eligible but too proud to get benefits, especially if it's just a few quid to top it up, but they miss out too. Some sort of sliding scale for people on the edge cases would be good, but then things end up costing more in means testing than you save in not giving it to well off oldies.

off topic regarding the current discussion and a few weeks old but feels relevant to this thread

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/aug/22/centrism-language-israel-gaza

There's also a lot of people who are eligible but too proud to get benefits, especially if it's just a few quid to top it up, but they miss out too

through choice

through choice

Well yeah, but it doesn't mean they're not missing out on something they're entitled to that may well see them through a winter. The whole benefits scum rhetoric of the last however many years probably hasn't helped.

through their own stubbornness/snobbery. literally no sympathy for them tbh. agreed on yr last point though

Read we've spent enough on winter fuel allowance to of insulated 8.5m homes

Over what period? Sounds slightly optimistic to me but if over a long enough spell maybe...

Most of the ones I've spoken to don't take a lot of convincing that it's something they're entitled to after paying tax most of their lives, but there's a stigma they've been brought up with that has been made more of than it is for years. People are stubborn, the snobby ones probably aren't the ones that aren't claiming when they should, a bit of sympathy is probably due, they're entitled to things and don't claim it more through "there are people worse off than me" and what will the neighbours think, more than snobbery.

I think it was based on 65 billion spent since introduction in 1997

nah, boil your "too proud to" comment down and snobbery is what you're left with imo. if it's summat that they need and they refuse to apply, they're cutting off their nose to spite their face.

I mean, they're people I've met and you're being snobbish about, but whatever. They are still elegible and through snobbery, unawareness or the amount going from £12 to £312 a year all of a sudden they're not currently claiming it. There's a push to make sure people will be signed up now which is good. There are definitely people caught at the edge of the means testing who will be hurt by the policy, hopefully something will be done to mitigate that. I'm fine with removing it from those who really don't need it.

labour has had their heart set on this policy for a decade in one fashion or another, so it's no wonder it's one of the ones we get to hear before the budget, as it's really unrelated to any of the current balancing. they tend to love a lil' means testing which usually cuts accross most peoples interests but with old people we tend to get excited by what it feels like to weild the misery axe rather than be under it.

in the current day the policy saves 1.5 billion. even if you want to claim back winter fuel payments from scrooge mcduck pensioners who are scrounging them, you can do it in inheratance taxation and general asset/capital taxes from end of life transactions. netting you way more than money saved here. you could even use the fuel allowance bung as political cover in doing that.

doing this of course would annoy the actually wealthy people, as well as industry who'd have a lot more to lose than a retired woman who maybe won't take the extra trip to the south of france this year. you also miss out on the the greater treat of this policy, as with all means testing policy. that is, creating "winners" and "losers" in state funding to better divide voting blocks into in and out groups. in turn building conesent, or silencing criticism, for wider reductions in state benefits or investment.

The optics of this decision by Starmer/Reeves look bad. Why is this presented as a 'difficult decision'? Difficult for who exactly? A difficult decision would be appropriating the wealth of Britain's rentier economy and distributing it to lessen inequality. The profits made by the energy companies are obscene. The so called regulator has permitted a 10 per cent rise this winter for fuel. Why are we not angry about this?
My understanding of claiming for pension credit to access extra help necessitates the filling in of a 234 page booklet. Who wants to do that?

Labour were elected to restore public services, I don’t think we’re looking at another round of Osborne-style austerity.

You're absolutely right. Austerity was the deliberate shrinking of the state and public services for (right wing, individualist) ideological reasons.

The lie was that this was necessary for reasons of financial prudence.

It's been depressing to see some on the left amplify this lie - that financial prudence and the slashing of public investment are indistinguishable - when in fact they're diametrically opposed.

Genuine financial prudence, for Cameron, at a time of historically low interest rates, would've meant fixing the roof while the sun shined, investing in the NHS, our energy infrastructure and insulation, public services, etc. That way we might've been prepared for Covid, cost of living, and the energy crisis.

This option isn't open to Labour. They're having to fix the roof while the rain is pouring in, and while the markets are still jittery as fuck about borrowing post Truss. I don't necessarily think Reeves has drawn up her response to these constraints perfectly, but imo it's dishonest to to pretend those constraints don't exist, or pretend it's reasonable for a government to simply ignore them (again, especially post Truss).

Genuine economic constraints are not 'austerity', and repeating the lie that they're the same thing just lets the Tories off the hook.

I'm a great supporter of universal payments because it entrenches popular support for the welfare state. If you want to make people better off give them money. The tories know this and don't they know how to make their mates better off!

financial prudence and public investment are indistinguishable

I'm sure I was listening to someone say there is a push from some quarters to start using net deficit(?) as a marker for precisely this reason. Ie where you factor the investment element into the calculation.

Cool that they listen to Origin Story too.

Life is a rollercoaster...

1 Attachment

actually wealthy people don't pay inheritance tax anyway

If you don't allow weathy people to get wealthy then busineses will not start. Eveyone has a dream unless you hanker after true socialism or similar.
As someone who has voted Conservative and Blair (that wasn't Labour tho tbh) they are all shit sharks.
Is Reform the answer, on paper maybe, but you know after a year or two they would become......shit sharks.
I like being in a country where I don't understand their politics, ignorant bliss....with sunshine. Oh to dream.