March Budget 2016

Glaucus said:
Ideologically I'm actually closest to green party. However not only will they not get in, if they did get in they would destroy the economy,
You have to be a bit more practical, remember and think that what you want isn't always possible.
Click to expand...

I disagree. Imagine if every green-leaning voter (for example) voted green, and enough of them were concentrated in enough constituencies to get a decent number of MPs. Apart from the potential hung parliament toys-out-of-pram stuff we saw in the last parliament they could have a moderating effect on whichever were the main party.

I'd love to see a more European-style consensual type of government in Westminster but absolutists seem to keep it from being a reality.
 
joeyjojo said:
I disagree. Imagine if every green-leaning voter (for example) voted green, and enough of them were concentrated in enough constituencies to get a decent number of MPs. Apart from the potential hung parliament toys-out-of-pram stuff we saw in the last parliament they could have a moderating effect on whichever were the main party.

I'd love to see a more European-style consensual type of government in Westminster but absolutists seem to keep it from being a reality.
Click to expand...

Well didn't want to make a massive post. So yes there's a reason for fringe. But you di not want the main opposition unelectable as that means the Tories can be more extreme like they've done. And if Tories were unelectable labour could be more extreme.
You relay wouldn't want green party to have any say though, as it's a lovely idea in a perfect utopia, it isn't even remotely possible.

We had that with Tories and lib-Dems.
Yet even know the vast majority call lib-dems a sell out. Even though they can know see what Tories do on there own.
Probably the best government we've had in many decades, yet people are still blinds idioms and think lib dems were traitors even though they were never in power and so could never implement what they wanted. Uk just shows that the population is to juvenile for coalitions. I actually expected it the other way around, where the two parties would just fight and not work together.
 
Last edited:
Glaucus said:
We had that with Tories and lib-Dems.
Yet even know the vast majority call lib-dems a sell out. Even though they can know see what Tories do on there own.
Probably the best government we've had in many decades, yet people are still blinds idioms and think lib dems were traitors even though they were never in power and so could never implement what they wanted. Uk just shows that the population is to juvenile for coalitions. I actually expected it the other way around, where the two parties would just fight and not work together.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, the Lib Dems get so much unwarranted vitriol when they didn't do a bad job with the hand they had.

And for all the fearmongering pre-result about coalition's, it worked really well and was the best outcome we could have hoped for, as the current Tory only government shows
 
estebanrey said:
Stephen Crabb named as Duncan Smith replacement

booyjHI.jpg
Click to expand...

How Stephen Crabb voted on Welfare and Benefits

Consistently voted for reducing housing benefit for social tenants deemed to have excess bedrooms (which Labour describe as the “bedroom tax”)

Consistently voted against raising welfare benefits at least in line with prices

Consistently voted against paying higher benefits over longer periods for those unable to work due to illness or disability

Consistently voted for making local councils responsible for helping those in financial need afford their council tax and reducing the amount spent on such support

Consistently voted for a reduction in spending on welfare benefits

Almost always voted against spending public money to create guaranteed jobs for young people who have spent a long time unemployed
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:
 
wordy said:
It's not, and shouldn't be a race to the bottom though. The problem isn't that pensions have been protected, it's that earnings for everyone else have dropped.
Click to expand...

I don't believe anyone would suggest that cutting the state pension would be fair, but bringing in a degree of means testing would hardly be unreasonable. The pensions bill is rising far too quickly to be sustainable:

2007 - £93.9bn
2008 - £99.8bn
2009 - £108.5bn
2010 - £117.2bn
2011 - £120.6bn
2012 - £129.6bn
2013 - £139.2bn
2014 - £144.1bn
2015 - £149.6bn
2016 - £154.8bn

Compare that to the 'unaffordable', 'unsustainable' NHS and you'll start to see the extent of the problem. Pensions are larger and growing faster. In that context, how can paying every pensioner the same state pension and the same pensioner benefits be justified? If we were building the system today, it certainly wouldn't work like that.
 
Last edited:
Glaucus said:
Well didn't want to make a massive post. So yes there's a reason for fringe. But you di not want the main opposition unelectable as that means the Tories can be more extreme like they've done. And if Tories were unelectable labour could be more extreme.
You relay wouldn't want green party to have any say though, as it's a lovely idea in a perfect utopia, it isn't even remotely possible.

We had that with Tories and lib-Dems.
Yet even know the vast majority call lib-dems a sell out. Even though they can know see what Tories do on there own.
Probably the best government we've had in many decades, yet people are still blinds idioms and think lib dems were traitors even though they were never in power and so could never implement what they wanted. Uk just shows that the population is to juvenile for coalitions. I actually expected it the other way around, where the two parties would just fight and not work together.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say we are juvenile to coalitions so much as we are generally completely naive of politics. It's rather depressing that people in this day and age have no idea how it works and very little interest in politics bar voting on the path past trod by their fore bearers. Politics should be mandatory at GCSE though that's probably the politicians worst nightmare that people become informed and see the system for the mess it is.
 
Interesting IDS interview on the BBC. TBH I largely agree with him. Dave and George have lost sight of the end-game. 'Balancing the books' while maintaining a fair society appears increasingly impossible, and they are moving very much to the wrong side of that equation (i.e. seeking to balance the books at the expense of fairness). This is slowly giving life to deep divisions in our society and is breeding resentment; rich and poor, old and young, property owners and 'generation rent'.

At the same time, I don't believe for a second that IDS isn't playing politics here. His criticism of the government is rather similar to criticisms levelled by Boris Johnson. I'm pretty confident that what we're seeing is just an opening salvo in Boris's bid for party leader. It's a contest that I expect he'll win if this is a sign of things to come. Lay as much blood as possible at the chancellor's feet, point out that the books still aren't balanced and ask "was it worth it?". Discrediting the Chancellor should be child's play.
 
satchef1 said:
I don't believe anyone would suggest that cutting the state pension would be fair, but bringing in a degree of means testing would hardly be unreasonable. The pensions bill is rising far too quickly to be sustainable:

2007 - £93.9bn
2008 - £99.8bn
2009 - £108.5bn
2010 - £117.2bn
2011 - £120.6bn
2012 - £129.6bn
2013 - £139.2bn
2014 - £144.1bn
2015 - £149.6bn
2016 - £154.8bn

Compare that to the 'unaffordable', 'unsustainable' NHS and you'll start to see the extent of the problem. Pensions are larger and growing faster. In that context, how can paying every pensioner the same state pension and the same pensioner benefits be justified? If we were building the system today, it certainly wouldn't work like that.
Click to expand...

Out of interest, are those the full pensions figures to include stat pension and the funded and unfunded schemes for govt employees?
If so, some of it is correctable over time, the nhs scheme has pretty much covered itself in the past, and now will happily cover itself with the 2015 scheme, no final salaries, average pension, and large contributions.
If only they actually invested the money ;)
I am unsure but lots of the higher civil service and people like planners used to be on zero or 1% contributory final salary schemes, has this madness ended? If not, then it eventually will.

The OAP pension is an issue, with this triple lock. If they eventually means test it, I will probably commit murder and execute the minister eventually responsible, quietly, without getting caught, as he'll deserve it.
babyboomers might determine the govt at the moment, won't always be the case, as they'll start dying off. We can't fund them forever.

Anyone know if that pensions pot, is everything, or just the stat pension?
 
I don't think disability benefits can be hit any more. With the amount of Tory rebels against the latest ones and the whole of the labour, Lib Dems and SNP against them, I don't think the Tories will get away with either these latest ones or any new ones. They'll have to find someone else to pick on.
 
satchef1 said:
I don't believe anyone would suggest that cutting the state pension would be fair, but bringing in a degree of means testing would hardly be unreasonable.
Click to expand...

They've been trying to get away from means testing because it reduces the incentives for people to save for their own pension provision.

The pensions bill is rising far too quickly to be sustainable:
Click to expand...

Another terrible legacy from the Liberal Democrats. The triple lock was bad policy when they came up with it and terrible policy in the face of the Tory's austerity government.
 
State pensions are the elephant in the room when it comes to austerity. It's the one thing they need to get a grip on, but never will.

Even without austerity, the triple lock was too generous in my opinion.
 
Jokester said:
State pensions are the elephant in the room when it comes to austerity. It's the one thing they need to get a grip on, but never will.
Click to expand...

Realistically, what can they do?

They can't reduce it/remove it now, as that would be utterly unfair to everyone who has contributed their entire working lives.

They could just stop it from a particular generation onwards with reduced NI contributions to encourage saving for a private pension at the outset of one's working life. The benefit to that would be an ever decreasing burden on the tax payer. I'm no economist though so I am sure someone will be along in a moment to tell me why that won't work :)
 
With the move towards opt in pension, automatic enrolment, and that jazz, with the new savers isa, they will have something in reserve for twenty years time, where they will do some form of top up rather than full pension.

Long term they are even less trustworthy than short term. Last parliament probably cost me a physical drop in take home of 31-32% if one includes pension contribution changes, in real terms probably higher. So far, this parliament will around 2017 with the various tax changes probably work out about neutral. It is down currently, and in actual take home, probably be neutral by then.
So still down significantly overall. Some of the mess wasn't the Tory's fault and was the input from our local Norn Iron bandit scum (sorry MLAs get those terms mixed frequently) who cost me more than the Tory's managed with neat little changes in how we are paid, without advertising or publishing things.

Long term we shall have to see, problem is now, with less reserve it is actually much harder to plan a future than it once was, and that was always my goal.
 
Hikari Kisugi said:
What level of 'means' would you cut off the winter fuel and bus pass at? For example.
Click to expand...

Many pensioners have a large amount of savings and only struggle because they are scared to spend any of their money, my nan for example, always complaining that she can't afford anything, she gets £270 in weekly pensions, no rent to pay and has around 60k in the bank, should she be getting winter fuel allowance and a bus pass?

If you earn above or have saving above 'x' amount then you shouldn't be illegible it's that simple, why should pensioners be excluded from helping balance the books?, we are all in this together are we not? We are now living in a society where many pensioners are better off than the working classes, it's ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
It's not really ridiculous. Why should some people, who have worked all there lives, not be better off than someone who has been working for a few years? Surely that's the entire point of working?

Benefits are normally means tested. The pension that she has could be from someone paying in a private pension pot for a huge amount of time and, again, should be hers to decide how she wants to spend it.

Complaining is the weird thing but at the end of the day that money will go to someone she has nominated so they will then get a leg up to rather than frivolously spending it.

It's stuff like the 'legal' tax avoidance. It shouldn't be up to Amazon, etc. to pay more tax it should be a legal requirement. There should be no question of morality involved.



M.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom