Peers wanting to remove pensioners' benefits

https://signal-corridor.live/uploads/talk/201905/medium-38502-20190501-114459.jpg%3C/span%3E https://signal-corridor.live/uploads/talk/201905/medium-871848-20190501-114518.jpg%3C/span%3E https://signal-corridor.live/uploads/talk/201905/medium-904691-20190501-114530.jpg%3C/span%3E

GracesGranMK3
I can't agree with your view regarding my word 'bettered' as being judgemental.
I could, perhaps, have used mire words and written, 'put themselves in a better position' (financially) but the way I wrote it is perfectly correct.
See examples of use.

Well said GG3. I feel the same, we gave up so much to achieve what we have from a standing start with no help from anyone. We were determined to work for a better life for our family than we had. We moved for jobs and again after redundancy, each time costing us not only a lot of money but also having to make new friends and find our place in the new area. Not easy and not lucky.

It is too simplistic to suggest taking from the rich and giving to the poor. I am assuming by 'rich' it is those who don't have to ask for help and by 'poor' those who need help. If you take away all incentive people won't save, won't look for advancement etc. I am all in favour of helping those who need it but not taking away incentives. The difficultly comes when defining 'need'

GGMK3 If you think all people who have managed to put some money in their bank account, pay off their mortgage, keep their business going and thereby employ others are not “good people”. I respectfully think it is you that has a problem!!!!

I am pleased that when we depart this world we shall leave employment for some of our AC and others which in turn keeps a roof over them and their families heads and off benefits also enabling them to pay into an occupational pension scheme so that they will not be a drain on future generations.

No apologies for this “ranty” post!!

"not to make swingeing tax raids on people who have bettered tbemselves ..." (sic) GabriellaG54 Wed 01-May-19 09:38:28

Not judgemental Gabriella? I think the word "bettered" says it all.

"MRC/government or others wanting to take more tax from those who have 'hauled' themselves into a comfortable financial position ..." GabriellaG54 Tue 30-Apr-19 14:47:00

Basically, you see what has happened economically over the last decade as "normal". No economy has operated "normally" during that time. No one got to hold the wealth they do currently by being a "good" person, in whatever way you define that and no one gets to be poor by being a "bad" person. Those who want Britain to continue the current policy do so because they recognise that is what has helped keep their asset value.

Income and wealth inequality make countries unstable and economies become strained and unpredictable. It holds back growth and national development. It also produces a democratic deficit which, it seems, is finally more obvious to everyone.

Those with wealth have a choice. Allow some rebalancing or lose much more in an economic crisis or a dramatic change of policy. Even some in the Conservative government, which has kept this damaging policy in place, have begun to realise this.

My late Mum (owner occupier 3 bed semi) lived solely on her pension and pension credits. She had WFA, BP and Free TV licence.

She still went out to lunch with her friend, had a takeaway every Sunday evening with her friend (unless they were with us), had a foreign holiday each year, and bought new clothes M & S, Debenhams, Wallis and local independent shops.

When she died (2 yrs ago) we were surprised how much she had in savings also.

(Hope this is of some use Nonnie)

MOnica I think you have misread my posts, you are talking about PC and I am talking about those paying income tax. Different subjects and I am still waiting for those who think it is easy to live on a non-taxable income. I have said I don't know and am simply curious, not giving an opinion. I would appreciate it if someone would give me a breakdown of how it can be done.

...and what you 'think' is not necessarily fact, simply the way you decide to interpret my words.

There's a difference/fine line between being judgemental and making decisions.
You make decisions in everyday life, to cross the road, to buy this or that, to send a gift or not, to ring a friend...they are decisions.
My comment was that a decision needs to be made not to make swingeing tax raids on people who have bettered tbemselves by hard work but to concentrate on being more careful with the benefits freely available to people of all sexes who make no effort to find work and those single parents who have child after child and don't get a job.
IMO, that is right and proper.
If you have a different opinion then ok. It doesn't mean my take on it is wrong.
You are not the arbiter of my views.
Have a nice day

"I am not in favour of the government:
1) Helping those who have never helped themselves and who continue to have children they expect the taxpayer to keep." (GabriellaG54 Tue 30-Apr-19 14:47:00)

Who are these people? This comes straight after the declaration that "Eloethan I did not judge". I don't think you know when you are being judgemental.

"Radical measures are needed, and the whole system needs simplifying ASAP." (GabriellaG54 Tue 30-Apr-19 17:50:22)

That is what has been said, and what you have disagreed with, Gabriella.

Silly me I've realised that you were talking about WFA which I already receive. I think half those amounts would be fairer and still be more than WFA.

If only I was getting pension credit

That would be great M0nica
It would cover my gas, electricity and water bills for the year plus leave plenty over for a week on a Greek island.

Nonnie PC levels are based on single people and couple rates - couples do not get individual single allowances. I gave a rate for couples to conform with the way PC works.

Under the scheme I suggested WFA would go and a raise of £10 -£15 a week is £520 - £780 a week, somewhat more than the WFA.

I think WFA is completely anomalous. Nowadays most people pay for fuel by regularly monthly payments spreading the cost over he whole year, very few people get quarterly bills based on quarterly consumption and higher in the winter quarter.

I think government are imagining that a sticking plaster will bridge the Grand Canyon.
Radical measures are needed and the whole system needs simplifying ASAP.

Rosina
I agree. The only times when the single deck buses in my area are full, is between 3 - 4.30 when students leave college. Even then, there is no need for standing.
At most other times the buses I use are 1/4 full.

MOnica not sure you could sell the idea of a different figure for couples, not very PC these days. I think with the WFA they carefully put it as two people in one house.

The figures you use are pretty much the equivalent to the WFA which was only given originally instead of a pension increase and which I have long advocated including in the SP so that those who pay tax would be returning some of it to the state.

Nonnie take all bells and whistles from eveybody but put up the base level of PC by £10 - £15 a week. £15 - £25 for couples. More people would be entitled to PC because the base level would go up and the advantage would taper out as it crept up to better off pensioners. People like me would lose everything and get no compensation through PC. I have always been quite happy with that and so as everyone I know that has the advantage of a good pension income.

It would be simple to administrate - saving money there as well. i really do not understand what stops the government doing it.

GG3 I think I did that earlier on but only got a response which didn't answer the question. I feel this thread has run its course and really cannot be bothered to go back and read 14 pages to single out those who made the suggestion. They know who they are!

I do feel like starting a thread about people who make statements and when asked for more information don't answer though! Also those who blatantly distort what a poster has written but never come back to apologise. Don't think I can do it though or it will become a 'thread about a thread' even though I would say nothing specific.

Buses running out of peak times are never full; does it really make much difference if a fairly hard up elderly person is sitting on one of the seats? If the bus pass is taken away and the pensioner cannot afford to ride so often, the bus runs with one more empty seat. And the benefit of this is....?

To be clear.
I'm all for
1) People paying what HMRC say they must.
2) Helping those who fall between the gaps when it clearly wasn't their fault or in any way deliberate.
I am not in favour of the government:
1) Helping those who have never helped themselves and who continue to have children they expect the taxpayer to keep.
2) HMRC/government or others wanting to take more tax from those who have 'hauled' themselves into a comfortable financial position through hard work and often difficult decisions ie: family life put somewhat on the back burner in order to get their business on a firm footing.

Some who are struggling may not be applying for all the benefits they are entitled to. Many tens of millions remain unclaimed by people who just haven't bothered.

I have neither struggled not have I not had sympathy for those who are honestly in a poor position.
Unfortunately, we hear daily reports of claimants swindling the system to the tune of thousands of pounds.
I would gladly pay for a bus pass and do pay for a tv licence but until government decide what to do, we can only do what is presently allowed.
Very wealthy people (including footballers, singers and celebs) are only able to amass that wealth due to you, the public, paying to see them or go to their shows/films etc so you and your families are perpetuating the lifestyle you rail against.
They are the haves and are very often wealthier than the landed gentry whose wealth who you don't agree with either.

GGMK3, if my husband was to lose the "add-ons" (he qualifies for bus pass, free prescriptions and winter fuel allowance, but only receives wha) it would make absolutely no difference at all.

I am a WASPI so have to wait until I am 67 & 4 months to receive my SP, I do however receive free prescriptions which is beneficial as I have a life long illness requiring 3 and sometimes 4 different drugs daily since I was 6 yrs old, unfortunately not an illness whereby it qualifies for free prescriptions regardless of age. Although there is a growing movement for these drugs to be free of prescription charges (asthma).

"GG I would have thought the answer was obvious. People have suggested taking the add-ons from those paying tax and I would like those people to tell me how someone in that position would cope." (Nonnie Tue 30-Apr-19 12:49:54)

Is that what people have suggested? If so it may be worth directing questions to those who did just that. I want a far greater overhaul than that.

Eloethan interesting post but may I add just one thing?

Many people who own valuable property do so because they started in a very small home and subsequently moved up the housing ladder. Each time it will have cost legal feels and stamp duty (which goes to the state). They will have paid more for each house and, presumably, borrowed for a mortgage so it isn't always simply just down to house price growth. We found it very hard leaving friends and family and moving to a much smaller house in a more expensive area but did so for promotion. Yes, it was our choice, several times, but it is not luck which has given us a reasonably comfortable pension, there are others who could have done the same but made different choices. There are people we know who never got another job after redundancy from the same company but we pushed on and did.