Equality and Diversity Laws, should these be scrapped??

It’s interesting that domestic abusers appear to be overly represented in those arrested in public order / riots like in Southport and other areas

David49

There is a perception amongst men, some women too that benefits are too easy to claim and to generous to non working people groups which they are paying for.

Badenoch is going to get a lot of support if this policy is promote, she is not a polititian that I favour but many will.

When you say non-working people, do you mean people who are unemployed, or does that include disabled people, carers, and pensioners? These are all people getting benefits.

David49

There is a perception amongst men, some women too that benefits are too easy to claim and to generous to non working people groups which they are paying for.

Badenoch is going to get a lot of support if this policy is promote, she is not a polititian that I favour but many will.

There is a perception amongst men, some women that benefits are too easy to claim
Not amongst people who've family or friends needing support. Why politicians are allowed to lie about benefit-related subjects - it's quite beyond me

Iam64

It’s interesting that domestic abusers appear to be overly represented in those arrested in public order / riots like in Southport and other areas

Oh David - you really don't have a clue what it has been like for so many women in our lifetimes, do you? And we manage at last to get to a situation where women have more power an equality, get decent education and often achieve more than men:
and at last listened to, to a degree, as regards abuse of different kinds, and come along and say how you understand these poor entitled white males because of the changes.

I did reflect on that, Iam. I think it's maybe that those are the more obvious, as in but it's actually across the board when you consider coercive abuse too? You've worked in the field far more than my limited personal and voluntary organisation contacts however.

If women ‘take’ jobs, who is losing them, and why did they (the losers) have them in the first place? Also, what can the colour of someone’s skin have to do with their ability to do a job?

EDI laws don’t privilege anyone- they just ensure that attitudes such as David’s don’t affect opportunities for anyone other than white men. Or at least that is the intention. If recruiters have to show that they have not discriminated against the disabled (who may be white men) people of colour (who may be men) gay people (who may be white men) and so on, then jobs can be ‘taken’ by the most suitable candidates. If a white male gets the job, then he will know that he is the best candidate, not that he got it yo keep out pesky women or upstart people of colour.

But I remember David backing out of a similar argument some time ago by saying he had enjoyed winding us all up, so I am a bit reluctant to give this part if the discussion any more candle.

I will say that I very much disagree with KB, however.

If only there was a way to know that it never works out the way they think it will.

www.msn.com/en-us/news/insight/trump-faces-steep-drop-in-young-male-support-amid-record-low-polls/gm-GM5B2451BC

"But I remember David backing out of a similar argument some time ago by saying he had enjoyed winding us all up, so I am a bit reluctant to give this part if the discussion any more candle."

That I have never said you have a very poor memory.

I have no objection to women or any other group taking jobs on merit my issue is positive discrimination where jobs are deliberately given to women or others regardless of ability to do the job.

One really important fact that anyone following David's thinking seems happy to ignore is that more than half of UK welfare spending goes to pensioners, and the State Pension is the single largest welfare programme by a wide margin. Fairy obviously, the majority of these people are "non-working". Attack the benefits system in the way David has and the most likely return argument will be that we should abandon the triple-lock. Well done David!

DaisyAnneReturns

One really important fact that anyone following David's thinking seems happy to ignore is that more than half of UK welfare spending goes to pensioners, and the State Pension is the single largest welfare programme by a wide margin. Fairy obviously, the majority of these people are "non-working". Attack the benefits system in the way David has and the most likely return argument will be that we should abandon the triple-lock. Well done David!

Yes, the triple lock is far too generous to the wealthiest section of the population, in fact I would go further and withdraw state pension above a certain wealth level.

Why on earth are we giving more money to those that have plenty, we are the golden generation never have retired people had so much, yet we are very selfish and don't want to share anything.

"I have no objection to women or any other group taking jobs on merit my issue is positive discrimination where jobs are deliberately given to women or others regardless of ability to do the job."

If someone is appointed regardless of their ability to do the job, that's simply a poor appointment. Do you really think that is how this works or are men just scared of reasoned competition, feeling they are entitled to jobs even if a women can do it better?

Yes, the triple lock is far too generous to the wealthiest section of the population, in fact I would go further and withdraw state pension above a certain wealth level.

Why on earth are we giving more money to those that have plenty, we are the golden generation never have retired people had so much, yet we are very selfish and don't want to share anything.

There are many who would agree with you and many who are horrified at the thought. The biggest problem is that we haven't prepared for a change of any kind.

David, of course, each of us can only speak from a position of knowledge, so perhaps your friends and family group " are very selfish and don't want to share anything". However, I think that you might struggle to support this with any viable data.
I am happy to give an alternative view.
In my friendship and family group we have
volunteers ( foodbanks, school governors, National Trust , English Heritage, information kiosk, RNLI shop etc)
donors ( national charities, local charities, foodbanks etc)
child carers ( grandparents and friends)
people who share their home ( children and grandchildren, a sister in law, a charity worker)
I will stop there, but I wanted to challenge your negative assertions about my generation.

Chocolatelovinggran

David, of course, each of us can only speak from a position of knowledge, so perhaps your friends and family group " are very selfish and don't want to share anything". However, I think that you might struggle to support this with any viable data.
I am happy to give an alternative view.
In my friendship and family group we have
volunteers ( foodbanks, school governors, National Trust , English Heritage, information kiosk, RNLI shop etc)
donors ( national charities, local charities, foodbanks etc)
child carers ( grandparents and friends)
people who share their home ( children and grandchildren, a sister in law, a charity worker)
I will stop there, but I wanted to challenge your negative assertions about my generation.

As you are on GN you are probably my generation - retired. In general we are very selfish not willing to give up anything at all. Well done you doing lots of charity work, most dont, they just want to leave everything to the children

The idea that the very rich shouldn't get a state pension is a slippery slope
While we could all agree that Paul McCartney doesn't need his, we know from past experience that successive govts will reduce the line at which people are deemed rich. So is someone with a private pension of £100k too rich? Reduce that to £50k - is that too rich to 'need' the state pension? How about £30k or £20k...
When govts have bankers to support (I believe our NICs were used in 2008) or wars to support, will they drop the threshold? Or just not let it keep up with inflation like the current personal tax allowance or the 1972 Christmas bonus?!
Lastly how many more people will be needed to deal with all this and with those who've been wrongly assessed? How much will that cost?

I agree Chardy who decides what is enough wealth to kick in removal? Also people have been paying contributions on the basis they will receive a state pension in time, the state should not be reneging on that contract. Means testing is a very expensive way to administer anything. The wealthy pay tax on anything over the personal allowance, so presumably paying 40% tax on the state pension. Whether there should be a higher tax band is another question, but on present figures would the recovered net sum enjoyed by the 'wealthy' be outweighed by the cost of administration? I don't know that answer, just musing.

Rosie51

I agree Chardy who decides what is enough wealth to kick in removal? Also people have been paying contributions on the basis they will receive a state pension in time, the state should not be reneging on that contract. Means testing is a very expensive way to administer anything. The wealthy pay tax on anything over the personal allowance, so presumably paying 40% tax on the state pension. Whether there should be a higher tax band is another question, but on present figures would the recovered net sum enjoyed by the 'wealthy' be outweighed by the cost of administration? I don't know that answer, just musing.

This is what I mean coveting what you have got and diverting to the billionaires as an easy target.

The Winter Fuel Payment is an example probably 75% of pensioners can manage quite well without it, they screamed blue murder at the thought of loosing the money, whether they needed it or not.

It's a waste of resources amongst many others, and ensures that the UK will never have any money to invest in infrastructure and growth we really need.

Means testing is a waste of resources, too, David.

Better to make taxation more progressive; raise the personal allowances which have been frozen for a number of years and increase the higher rates of tax on earned and unearned income.

David49

DaisyAnneReturns

One really important fact that anyone following David's thinking seems happy to ignore is that more than half of UK welfare spending goes to pensioners, and the State Pension is the single largest welfare programme by a wide margin. Fairy obviously, the majority of these people are "non-working". Attack the benefits system in the way David has and the most likely return argument will be that we should abandon the triple-lock. Well done David!

Yes, the triple lock is far too generous to the wealthiest section of the population, in fact I would go further and withdraw state pension above a certain wealth level.

Why on earth are we giving more money to those that have plenty, we are the golden generation never have retired people had so much, yet we are very selfish and don't want to share anything.

David49- Where would you place the threshold for the wealthiest section of the population- ie above which you suggest withdrawal of the state pension

You may feel that you as a person of state pension age and others you know personally are "very selfish and don't want to share anything" but what measures/data do you use to be satisfy your self that the majority of UK residents of state pension age are "very selfish and don't want to share anything"/

Wyllow3

(You only need to talk as I do to some young women in sectors of work still dominated by men that not only discrimination but also mocking and bullying still does take place).

Remember the report on attitudes as regards race and gender in the Fire Service not too long ago? Quite shocking. *There is very much still work to be done*

I agree with this. Where I live we have a strong 'old boys' network' where particular captains of industry, government and law, went to the local public school. They speak, act, and dress in a certain way and if a younger member of the 'tribe' wants to get on in our community they have to dress and act like their 'uncles'. Fascinating stuff once you get the key to unlock this discourse. And it isn't going to change any day now.

David49

Discrimination and equality has gone mad there is only one group that is not vulnerable, white males, assuming they are not gay, disabled or some other disadvantage.
It doesn't affect me Im old and vulnerable now, so enjoying the advantages, that women, migrants, ethnic this or that and all the other groups have been getting.

You should be on your knees David giving thanks to a woman that you are even alive !

LemonJam

David49

DaisyAnneReturns

One really important fact that anyone following David's thinking seems happy to ignore is that more than half of UK welfare spending goes to pensioners, and the State Pension is the single largest welfare programme by a wide margin. Fairy obviously, the majority of these people are "non-working". Attack the benefits system in the way David has and the most likely return argument will be that we should abandon the triple-lock. Well done David!

Yes, the triple lock is far too generous to the wealthiest section of the population, in fact I would go further and withdraw state pension above a certain wealth level.

Why on earth are we giving more money to those that have plenty, we are the golden generation never have retired people had so much, yet we are very selfish and don't want to share anything.

David49- Where would you place the threshold for the wealthiest section of the population- ie above which you suggest withdrawal of the state pension

You may feel that you as a person of state pension age and others you know personally are "very selfish and don't want to share anything" but what measures/data do you use to be satisfy your self that the majority of UK residents of state pension age are "very selfish and don't want to share anything"/

If you have wealth above £500,000 at retirement you have enough to fund your retirement yourself, you would use any private pension and the equity in your house to pay for living expenses, when your wealth fell below the threshold, you would get the state pension again.

If a wealth tax is imposed I don't believe that a tax on the "Ultra Rich" is going to yield enough revenue, a contribution has to come from the wider population, hoarding wealth in domestic property without taxation has been very bad for the economy.

Have I understood correctly that you include the value of a person's main residential home is included in the £500,000 sum?

If so and the person has no other income, personal pension or savings other than the £500,000 equity ( which would need to be independently verified) - they must either sell their home or apply for equity release for a designated period until the equity falls below £500,000- at which stage they then become eligible top receive full state pension?

Then when their equity ( following independent valuation) remaining falls below £500,000 as

David -
Nearly half of all properties in the South East are worth £500,000 or more. Would homeowners in these properties be expected to sell their homes or take out equity release in order to qualify for the State Pension?

Living in the South East does not automatically make someone wealthy. Property values are significantly higher than in many other parts of the country, and an equivalent home elsewhere could be worth considerably less.

Under such a proposal, would people in higher-value regions be forced to downsize simply to receive the pension they have contributed towards throughout their working lives, while those living in lower-value areas could continue to receive the full State Pension without any change to their circumstances? That hardly seems fair or equitable.

Good grief David you are on a mission to upset people!

My parents both worked very hard all their lives, they were both incredibly generous people with both their time and their finances.

We’ve also done our best to help all our children with financial help, but we are far from wealthy. We have modest personal pensions and state pensions and are mortgage free and own a small static caravan, hardly wealth. We are not selfish in any way shape or form, providing free dog care, free child care and free chauffeuring!

Shame on you!

sundowngirl

David -
Nearly half of all properties in the South East are worth £500,000 or more. Would homeowners in these properties be expected to sell their homes or take out equity release in order to qualify for the State Pension?

Living in the South East does not automatically make someone wealthy. Property values are significantly higher than in many other parts of the country, and an equivalent home elsewhere could be worth considerably less.

Under such a proposal, would people in higher-value regions be forced to downsize simply to receive the pension they have contributed towards throughout their working lives, while those living in lower-value areas could continue to receive the full State Pension without any change to their circumstances? That hardly seems fair or equitable.

Agree that many homes in the South East are valued above £500,000. If they move out of the home and wish to stay in their area near family and long standing social networks after moving costs and land tax on new home, in same area there will not be sufficient equity released to fund retirement from age 66/67 till date of death after hey have paid for new home.

It would be unfair and unwise health wise to expect retired adults in South was to move to an area of the country with cheaper houses far away form family and social networks