Scared of what labour will do

If you can’t afford to live in an area without claiming lots in housing benefit you have to move. Plenty of parts of the UK are cheap to live in.

But expensive parts of the country eg London need plenty of people with jobs that don't pay enough to enable them to pay rent without help?

@Goldfishgreen even if you do those things - and not sure how you change appeal situation as how do you overrule a legal right to that?

Not saying I don't think the same as you on that, but how do you change it

Anyway grant rate is high here, even by removing those who get a no which is very costly, it's all massively costly, people will increasingly try and Labour will struggle with that. Their initial pledge isn't working

Housing benefit needs to be looked at again. There are plenty of places in the UK I couldn’t afford to live in as I can’t afford it. Why should my taxes pay for others to do so? If you can’t afford to live in an area without claiming lots in housing benefit you have to move. Plenty of parts of the UK are cheap to live in.

people from all over the world have a right to claim asylum in the UK, have their cases assessed and stay if asylum is grants. The UK prevents people from getting these rights by preventing them from getting here in the first place. If people manage to arrive in the UK - by whatever means - they have EVERY RIGHT to apply for asylum. The government just calls them ‘illegal’ because they hope voters like you are thick enough not to understand the above.

Our country is full - I agree.

We need to assess asylum seekers quickly and promptly remove those with no right to asylum.

We need to stop people taking the piss with endless appeals on crap ground.

We need to deport overseas criminals.

BUT small boat asylum seekers are not illegal in any way.

They might get away with a clamp down more than other parties.

It all comes back to personal responsibility though, doesn't it?
No. I would not want people to 'freeze in a tent' but it is fundamentally unfair that people who did the sensible thing and made arrangements by paying a few pounds a week into a workplace pension should have to bail out those who didn't.
I'm not talking about vulnerable people with no pension, I am talking about people who made a decision not to pay into their pension and had the same opportunities to do so.
I'm not interested in whataboutery either or the many reasons people may have chosen to opt out. The fact is they could have paid in and they didn't.
I worked with a woman who, when aito-enrollment cane in, went to the bother of opting out of paying £2 a week ffs!

I would rather have much less state provision in general, much less NHS, state schooling etc and much lower taxes eg a 20% capped flat tax./NI for all, no IHT, no stamp duty etc.

So you want a less educated society? private healthcare & lower taxes. No state pension?

Hunt cut employee NI, Labour, in order to get elected, said they wouldn't increase taxes etc on working people... therefore that NI cut had to be paid for, either spending cuts or tax rises on people not classed, by them, as working...

So we got employer tax rises, the only alternative would be to reverse these cuts... that would have led to howls of protest, employees demanding higher pay rises and less consumer spending... ie consequences!!

Labour wouldn't have cut employee NI if they had won in 2019.... so your argument wouldn't arise.

Job vacances are down, true but employment is holding up, consumer spend is also up, as is tax receipts..... trouble is, so is borrowing :(

Of course I am not. I was a darn sight more scared when the Tories were in power and busy undermining democracy.

@Katypp agree with your posts, pretty much all points and this one

I think so far Labour's biggest problem seems to be they have no grasp of unintended consequences.

We'll see how it goes with spending, Labour could do cuts to welfare as pp said and perhaps the same pp will accept that more too.

One change I would be looking at if I were RR is changing rules around pensioner benefits for people becoming pensioners now and in the future , who have had ample notice and opportunities to pay into workplace pensions to top up their retirement income. If they have chosen not to do so, the state should not be bailing them our with housing benefit etc

So what happens to the "feckless" worker? freeze to death living in a tent?

If you take away HB for people who have chosen not to pay into a pension, perhaps they couldn't afford it, due to low wages and high bills?
.... these people will suffer or worse.

I agree about giving them more than seven months absolutely.
But the early optics are not good.
To be honest. It's the acceptance of policies that pps would be shouting from the rooftops about if Tories had implemented them that riles me most. Surely we can agree that if a Tory chancellor had delivered RR's budget, Labour supporters would not be nodding sagely and saying job losses because of the NI increase were being greatly exaggerated?
I think so far Labour's biggest problem seems to be they have no grasp of unintended consequences.

The state pension is about the same as the personal tax allowance so if someone does not work they do not pay tax on the pension. Whereas if I reach age 67 (pension age for me) which is not that far off as I will still be working I will give back in effect at least 40% of the pension to the state in income tax (but people are right above there would be no NI on that pension nor on my earnings when I turn 67). I have paid NI without a break full time since 1983 and when I started my state pension age was going to be 60 and now it is 67. I only have state pension, no other pension.

NI starts for employees once they earn about £12,500 a week so as with income tax someone whose only income is about £12k from state mention will not earn enough to pay either NI or tax. So if your only income is state pension there is no tax on it and if that level were your only income whatever your age you would not pay NI on it anyway).

Labout have the same issue the Tories have - too much money wasted on the state. I would rather have much less state provision in general, much less NHS, state schooling etc and much lower taxes eg a 20% capped flat tax./NI for all, no IHT, no stamp duty etc.

I am still catching up on this thread and haven't read beyond your post, but you do realise that no one. NO ONE has ever struggled as much as today's young families, don't you?
Those of us who lived through the mortgage rate hikes of the 1980s 90s imagined how bad they were apparently 😂
To be serious, i do think that there should be a little more support for young families and fewer freebies for pensioners, but the assumption on here that every pensioner is rich is so stupid.
One change I would be looking at if I were RR is changing rules around pensioner benefits for people becoming pensioners now and in the future , who have had ample notice and opportunities to pay into workplace pensions to top up their retirement income. If they have chosen not to do so, the state should not be bailing them our with housing benefit etc

I don't know about the "Grown ups in charge etc" but Boris was a big kid, Truss was a maniac, as her behaviors since show... and Hunt made a childish attempt to win votes by cutting NI by 4%, without any plan on how to pay for it.... thats costing the Govt over £10 billion per year, thats £50 billion over the course of the this Parliament!!

Jury is still out for me on Starmer and Reeves, i didn't agree with the WFA for example but i'll give them more than 7 months.

I worked 2yrs after retirement age and deferred my state (and only) pension and couldn't understand why NI was no longer being deducted each month - madness. I'd have been happy to continue paying it, I was used to paying it! Probably a drop in the ocean but the drops all make a difference. Pensioners still working should pay NI.

Can you clarify what you actually mean by the grown-ups being in charge?
It's been used a lot on MN (mostly after the election when people seemed to think we were heading for some sort of utopia, not so much now).
I wondered how long it would be before that could be ticked off the bingo card. We've had Russian bots, Tory bots, grown-ups in charge, happy to pay extra tax, rich baby boomers and farmers and I voted Labour because I care so far - are there any more i have forgotten?

Although I do find that there is a tendancy on MN for posters to rub their hands with glee at anything that attacks 'the rich' (ie anyone earning a bit more than you)

But some of the rhetoric on those threads were that people weren't rich they just prioritised education & worked harder. 🤔

As I said before-thinking that putting VAT on private education is a good idea and had been a long time coming is NOT gloating.
There are, however unpleasant people on all sides of any debate, so there were probably a few "knock the boaters off the toffs" posts. As there were a few "feral underclass children" and "you can't expect me to throw my child to the wolves" posts. Both equally unpleasant and both best ignored.

Very true. But as pensioners, we aren’t eligible for Maternity or unemployment allowances which are based, like our state pensions, on NI contributions. And as we age, we have far fewer opportunities to increase our income, unlike people of working age.

Because I was a SAHM for a while in the 1970s, and then a low paid worker paying reduced NI contributions, (AKA Married Women’s stamp) my State Pension has been calculated to a little over £100 a week. Later in my working life I built up a small occupational pension which has saved taxpayers from having to fork out means tested benefits to us. We could have just spent the money, we never had much for luxuries, even with two wages.

The system is always going to be unfair to some of us, some of the time.

There was absolutely no gloating. There were however numerous threads posted in AIBU spouting rubbish. MN being a forum and AIBU an area where you ask if you’re being unreasonable and people reply, these tedious threads got replies. If you don’t want replies you don’t like don’t start countless threads.

Now on the subject of gloating cast your mind back to Brexit, Tory wins, any thread on benefits…..there you will find gloating.

I agree with this point. Regardless of my actual opinion, the gloating on here was pretty disgusting tbh.
Although I do find that there is a tendancy on MN for posters to rub their hands with glee at anything that attacks 'the rich' (ie anyone earning a bit more than you)

Most aren't picked up, they land on the shore, so what would do to stop this?

I don't think you've thought this through.

All the issues you are concerned about have been on going and increasing for at least a decade, growth has been dire for many years, in Q4 last year, we were in recession! inflation at 11% in 2023.

If a couple stay together, their joint income is used for any benefit calculation. It seems absurd that the same doesn't apply when maintenance is paid. It penalises married couples.

Really, last time I was in the states it didn’t seem that hard to buy reasonably priced healthy food nowhere near the prices you are quoting.

https://www.walmart.com/ip/Fresh-Whole-Carrots-1-lb-Bag/44391515

https://www.walmart.com/ip/Beef-Choice-Angus-Sirloin-Tender-Steak-0-6-1-62-lb-Tray/930351681?classType=REGULAR&athbdg=L1200

And rising costs in the US aren’t due to farmers not being supported but Covid, natural weather disasters, disease, war in Ukraine, transportation costs( the country’s vast)…Comparing two very different countries is prettty pointless .

Farmers are supported a lot. Plenty of farmers don’t give a shit when it suits as regards selling land. Take a look at all the housing estates popping up across green fields. Farmers should be paying the same inheritance tax as everybody else.