Disgusting Politics

[TW]Fox;28644056 said:
The kind of society where people continually post hyperbolic nonsense like 'GOVERNMENT POLICY IS TO MURDER' just because a random think tank has made a madcap suggestion, something random think tanks do all the time?

Pretty much sums it up, bunch of clown heads make ridiculous suggestions, it isn't policy. The older generation are amongst the most likely to vote tory.
 
The 'Taxpayers Alliance' exists purely to make money by providing stupid sound bites to media and the general public who love to hand wring and suck this kind of thing up. A Britain First or Exacta Weather equivalent, don't give them the attention they so crave.
 
The UK is well down the league table when it comes to the state pension. http://conversation.which.co.uk/money/uk-state-pension-comparison-serps/

And we also trail most European countries when it comes to cancer survival rates. http://www.theguardian.com/society/...l-10-years-behind-those-in-european-countries

We are also bottom when it comes to rail services http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...lways-are-worst-in-europe-league-6579631.html

All this from an 'Advanced nation' but hey lets spend a 100 billion on a new nuclear deterrent.
 
I read an interesting article yesterday that's related to this:
http://money.aol.co.uk/2015/10/02/the-real-home-of-benefits-street/
AOL Money said:
The government has revealed the 20 parliamentary constituencies where the most benefits were paid out in the past year. It's not a grimy inner-city stereotype of Benefits Street that tops the list: it's the Isle of Wight

The island came top, with a benefits bill of £449 million, and while it was followed by the mixed London boroughs of Brent and Tottenham, fourth on the list is the seaside resort of Clacton. In fact, these London boroughs and seaside towns jostle for position throughout the top 20 - which also features Folkestone and Hythe, Eastbourne, Hasting and Rye.

The full top 20:
1. Isle of Wight
2. Brent Central
3. Tottenham
4. Clacton
5. Knowsley
6. Hackney North and Stoke Newington
7. West Ham
9. Holborn and St Pancras
10. Edmonton
11. Folkestone and Hythe
12. Eastbourne
13. Torbay
14. Hastings and Rye
15. Louth and Horncastle
16. Liverpool, Walton
17. Westminster North
19. Bootle
20. Bexhill and Battle

All 20 of these areas have a higher benefits bill than the home of TV's Benefits Street (Ladywood in Birmingham). It may come as something of a surprise that so many nice seaside areas make the list, but there's a very good reason for this - the government included pensions.

This makes up most of the benefits bills in some of these areas. In the Isle of Wight, for example, of the total £449 million paid out in benefits, £268.2 million of it was state pension payments. It reflects the fact that the state pension bill dwarfs that for all other benefits combined.

If you strip pensions out of the list, the seaside towns drop out of the top 20, leaving a list of city centre areas of deprivation - 15 of which are in London.

Why should we care?

There will be plenty of people who argue that this list is disingenuous, because state pensions are very different from other kinds of benefits. They will say that while working age benefits may be claimed by people who have put very little into the system, their state pension is awarded after decades of paying taxes and at least 30 years of National Insurance contributions - so it has in effect been earned.

However, there are others who would point out that a state pension is not actually 'built up' from these contributions, and is being paid out by people who're currently in work. They might also add that state pensioners are no more in need of state assistance than someone facing a disability that means they will never be able to work.

If you accept the argument that all benefits are equal, then you have to ask why those receiving working age benefits are seeing enormous cuts to their income, while pensioners have the triple lock guarantee that will ensure their state pension never loses value with inflation.

Cuts to come?

Those on benefits may already be struggling with cuts implemented in the past four years - along with the arbitrary benefits cap. Now tax credit cuts passed last month, which will come into effect in April, will see some families lose around £1,000 in income.

You have to ask how long it is before the government realises that those on working age benefits have been squeezed as hard as humanly possible, and turns its attention to pensioners. While the state pension itself may be protected for now, those universal pensioner benefits are starting to look more and more precarious.

TLDR: We really need to look into the pension pay out, as it is part of the Benefit systems. To constantly targeting "Scroungers" when it makes up a lot less than half of what the pension scheme hands out for the elderly, yet that's triple locked? :eek:

The way I see it is, the generation before me had enjoyed the good life of affordable housing, affordable living (further education included) and now, they are in pension age with good pension by 67. Whilst the generation from the post '80s era are going through the opposite and I can't see my retirement age to be anything less than 72.

I am not saying cut them till they freeze to death, but a fairer system is definitely needed, we are reaching an unaffordable system for the future, despite the Government best effort to make the everyday man save for their own pension, with rent and house prices going up, people getting older and living longer, I fear breaking point is nigh.
 
To be fair, pensioners have been immune to any form of austerity measures put forward so far, and with the pension under a triple lock they are as protected as can be.

So on some of the more peripheral benefits, such as free bus pass, TV licence and winter fuel payments, why shouldn't these be looked at and means tested - I mean, I can't imagine many people advocating winter fuel payments to the ex-pats retired abroad in the med, or pensioners on private pensions getting more than the average working wage, can you?

As for the Tax payers Alliance, it's just a think tank that just looks at tax policy in a practical objective way, I think those comments are quite funny actually, totally designed to be 'click bait' to get the issue into the news and to cause 'faux outrage' to get people talking about it - and it's worked ;)
 
[TW]Fox;28644056 said:
The kind of society where people continually post hyperbolic nonsense like 'GOVERNMENT POLICY IS TO MURDER' just because a random think tank has made a madcap suggestion, something random think tanks do all the time?

It's hardly a random think tank though is it. It has a Conservative MP and former minister sat on it.
 
When it's families' food and housing budget, it's all ok, but touch granny's TV subscription and it's disgusting :rolleyes:

There's big scope for cutting pension benefits - not least removing it as a universal right (we've already done it with child benefit). If you believe in cutting spending, why wouldn't you believe in making such savings?
 
[TW]Fox;28644259 said:
It doesn't make policy. Its a think tank. They get people talking.

I know, they're just making recommendations. But it's not really just a random bunch of people is it.
 
"The first of which will sound a little bit morbid - some of the people... won't be around to vote against you in the next election. So that's just a practical point, and the other point is they might have forgotten by then."

Wow.
 
When it's families' food and housing budget, it's all ok, but touch granny's TV subscription and it's disgusting :rolleyes:

There's big scope for cutting pension benefits - not least removing it as a universal right (we've already done it with child benefit). If you believe in cutting spending, why wouldn't you believe in making such savings?

The difference is child benefit was universal benefit applied to a non-universal issue. People can choose to have kids and therefore have some control over it.

Everyone gets old though, you can't choose not to get to a point where you can no longer support yourself (outside committing suicide on the day of your retirement).
 
It's ruthless pragmatism. It's usually what a think tank is able to provide.

Is what he it is saying true...sure...is it nice...not at all.
 
The difference is child benefit was universal benefit applied to a non-universal issue. People can choose to have kids and therefore have some control over it.

Everyone gets old though, you can't choose not to get to a point where you can no longer support yourself (outside committing suicide on the day of your retirement).

Yes everyone get's old, but being prepared for your monetary needs as you get old is a choice, one that a huge amount of OAPs decided not to budget for, and now the working generation are paying for.
 
Many of those hit by a cut to the winter fuel allowance might "not be around" at the next election, said Alex Wild of the Taxpayers' Alliance.

And others would forget which party had done it, he added.

[...]

And others would forget which party had done it, he added.
"The first of which will sound a little bit morbid - some of the people... won't be around to vote against you in the next election. So that's just a practical point, and the other point is they might have forgotten by then."

He added: "If you did it now, chances are that in 2020 someone who has had their winter fuel cut might be thinking, 'Oh I can't remember, was it this government or was it the last one? I'm not quite sure.'
That's a pretty disgusting way to talk about anybody, let alone pensioners. Talk about lack of respect.

However I do agree that the pensioners have been very nicely cushioned from cuts, I seem to recall that, if anything, they continued to receive cosy increases in their income while others either received cuts or stayed the same. I have always felt that this government has been sucking up to pensioners.

Remember - we're all in this together.
 
It's ruthless pragmatism. It's usually what a think tank is able to provide.

Is what he it is saying true...sure...is it nice...not at all.

Removing all tax loop holes/schemes, scrapping trident, getting rid of Nom-Dom status, halving the military budget etc would also "work" but the 'Tax Payers Alliance' funnily aren't suggesting any of those things and they never do.

One of the most inaccurately named groups around, they should change their name to the "People who earn far more than the average wage who be-grudge every penny of their taxes going to support people less well off than them alliance".
 
That is pretty disgusting to read. Completely disrespectful to the older generation.

The comments aside, some of which are indeed pretty horrible, why shouldn't we be looking at the pensioners?

They are the only people that have been protected from austerity so far, and given everything else that's being taken away that they had for granted, given where the wealth is concentrated in this country they shouldn't be immune.

Or do you favour penalising the younger generations to foot the bill, whilst the privileges we are paying for are removed from them?
 
I don't know what's more saddening, the fact that government policy is now bordering on premeditated mass murder, or that the majority of English people actually voted for this brand of politics.

Whilst the comments are pretty disturbing, let's not be melodramatic, it's not 'bordering on premeditated mass murder'.
 
Back
Top Bottom