Defence Secretary John Healey resigns and calls out Rachel Reeves

[Fillies4DeclanRice]

John Healey has become the latest government minister to resign, basically saying he cannot do the job of keeping the UK safe because Labour's economic model is in such a mess.

His resignation letter effectively says the government needs to spend far less on welfare benefits and net zero, and start taxing less and spending more on defence.

This is total chaos now.

So how much means do you think is sufficient before you withdraw the £12k or so of pension to those who are already in receipt?

Re the triple lock, that was created because pensions were so low, to bring them up over time. Do you think 12k is sufficient? % rises on 12 k can’t be compared to wage rises as wages are much higher - the pension is nowhere near, say, minimuM wage. Perhaps yes scrap the triple lock but replace pension level at living wage then?

I can get on board with simplifying tax eg getting rid of NI.

The nature of their income means that they get an extra annual £5k tax free allowance for interest earned. OK that rule isn't just for pensioners, but it's pensioners who are the prime beneficiaries by the nature/breakdown of their incomes.

You need more people working than not working.
Ignore old people on pensions until you've got the workshy sorted out and gainfully employed.

Means testing is usually very expensive and easy to get round.

Stop funding any payments to those migrants who are supposed to be a net benefit. If they can't survive they need to leave.
Migrants can be paid less than a UK person (still subject to minimum wage etc) but that means UK people are not taken on.

Let's employ the people we can't report first.
Jobs for our trainee doctors nurses and midwives.

More apprenticeships for young people. Many more. Less university too.

We, as a country, can't afford to leave them alone. There is no justification at all that many pay less tax on the same income level as workers. No justification at all that pensioners with high incomes continue to get state pension and other benefits. By all means, protect the lower income pensioners, but the wealthier ones need to pay their fair share of tax, which has to be at least similar to workers on comparable incomes.

@MsGreying

Means testing is usually very expensive and easy to get round.

Funny how that wasn't a problem for means testing child benefit for those workers earning over £50k (now increased to £60k), or means testing free childcare for those workers earning over £100k.

When linked to tax records, it's actually very cheap and easy to identify who is caught by means testing against income levels.

All of those suggestions are well and good. But they won't touch the sides of the money needed for increased defence spending.

From the DM: It appears Reeves was indeed the trigger for Healey's resignation.

https://www.dailymail.com/news/article-15892761/Healeys-stand-row-Reeves-Starmers-decision-Chancellor-forced-defence-secretary-quit.html

So it’s the same for everyone. When you are younger, you are saving for the future so of course the older you get, the more you might have. It’s obvious. And then the switch comes when you most likely stop saving because you don’t have a salary - and live on what you’ve saved and planned for as you get nearer to dying. To be blunt about it.

Loads of very high earners avoid tax by paying into their pensions. Tax breaks. They could afford the tax but don’t think it’s fair. They pay into things like salary sacrifice so they keep within a lower tax band. And then can keep claiming certain benefits. People earning 60k a year qualify for benefits.

There are loads of places where we could examine who “deserves” what but I wish the ageist pensioner bashing and blame would stop.

I would increase inheritance tax actually. I mean, the recipients receive it by the luck of birth and have not in any shape or form earned it.

@Badbadbunny again, which taxes are less for pensioners than workers paying income tax? Apart from NI?

Not read full thread but people still seem to think that you ‘pay into’ your state pension. That’s not true. Current taxpayers pay state pensions. It is a state benefit. There is no ‘pot’ that people pay into all their lives like a private pension. We simply cannot afford the triple lock, and additional benefits like winter fuel allowance. As the number of state pensioners continues to grow against the number of active tax payers, this problem has to be tackled soon. Or we will be bankrupt.

What would you replace the triple lock with and presumably you think around £12k a year is fine?

And quite, today’s pensioners were - believe it or not - young and working and paying tax which contributed to the pensions of the pensioners of the day.

the environmental wins are a no-brainer.

No, spending carbon abatement money in the UK is vanity-driven environmental vandalism.

The UK govt’s Green Book carbon price is £252/t. Essentially, how much the govt will pay to remove or avoid a tonne of CO2 in a UK project.

The best high-quality large-scale projects overseas do this for £12–£60/t.

Pursuing net zero is a goal I support. Doing it by choosing UK projects is inexcusable. Choosing to remove/abate 4 to 21 times less carbon than you could do for the same cost, for political or ideological reasons, is shameful.

There is the industrial-policy goal. But any benefit to UK industry from growing green industry is dwarfed by the economic cost of having the highest industrial energy costs in the developed world.

I would look at what would work best, and I would means test so that poorer pensioners get more whilst those with very comfortable private pension income get less. We can’t afford the current system. So it has to be changed. Or we go bankrupt.

Well there's sticking together to try to sell a difficult situation to the public while being honest and in the countries long term best interest.

And there's sticking together to try to sell the public a lie, whilst not actually delivering on spending on the critical infrastructure that was previously promised.

I wonder which one of these situations this is.

Labour has tanked the jobs market, where are these jobs coming from?

Just posted on other thread too, Carns has resigned

I would seize the budget from ed millband that carbon capture scheme is not proven and it's maddnes. The maverick boss of octopus energy said it's madness he's a friend but would stop it immediately.

Miliband is on a get rich quick scam. It's working too.

Britain’s top four energy quangos have seen costs balloon and staff numbers surge by up to 380pc amid Ed Milliband's Net zero push, new figures reveal.
Ofgem, the Climate Change Committee, the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA) and Low Carbon Contracts Company (LCCC) have all exploded in size over the past decade as Britain races to cut climate emissions, a study from the Taxpayers Alliance (TA) found.

Among the biggest beneficiaries is the little-known LCCC, which administers the UK’s multibillion-pound annual net zero subsidies to generators.
LCCC is a private limited company, wholly owned by Ed Miliband, in his role as the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.
“It has grown to administer more than 560 contracts for difference [the UK system for subsidising renewables], with nearly 50 GW of low carbon electricity generation capacity linked to the contracts.”

Britain’s top four energy quangos have seen costs balloon and staff numbers surge by up to 380pc amid Ed Miliband’s net zero push, new figures reveal.
Last year, Ed Miliband went to Beijing to strike an energy deal with China on behalf of the British taxpayer. The Government say the deal will ‘enhance cooperation on renewables and grid modernisation’.

The details of this China deal remain hidden from the public. Why?

In response to a Freedom of Information request, Miliband’s Department used the exact same line that Keir Starmer tried to use to keep the Mandelson documents under lock and key. After months of questions, they retreated behind an opaque plea for diplomacy, arguing that publishing the deal would ‘prejudice relations’ with Beijing.

So Ed Miliband’s own department thinks that if the British public sees his secret energy deal with the Chinese Communist Party, then it might damage his relationship with China. Why?

But pensioners do pay tax, they pay exactly the same tax and have the same tax allowances as everyone else. The state pension is taxable. Many benefits aren’t.

Awaiting invasion. We’ve now told the rest of the world that we can’t defend ourselves. Great fucking move.

I usually agree with you, but how many and what % of pensioners have incomes over £100k? Probably a few thousand at most, so this is only ever going to produce a derisory sum in tax.

Asset wealth of 2.5 million in cash, at an interest rate of 4%, would be equal to 100k interest income alone.
There are a fair few sitting in expensive houses with large pensions worth over 2.5 million but nobody expects them to liquidate the assets.
As long as we have a tax system that punishes income hard over wealth we are going to have some generational conflicts. At the same time, I do not think people should have to leave their own homes just because of house price inflation. But reality is, plenty of pensioners are sitting on asset equivalent values of over 2 million (if you include their main home, all savings and pensions).

What you are saying is true, but the problem is that all pensioners are being tarred with the same brush, but in reality many are really struggling. Those that are 'managing' are only doing so because of savings. Only a few are really wealthy.

@Northermcharn it just gets worse and worse

I can't fathom that they think it's acceptable to keep going with this unproven mad cap scheme.

Of course ! He's hitting the big time with it
Lining his own pockets using our money.

@Araminta1003 is not totally wrong. We could muster just about £2m cash between our home and everything put by in 50 years of work (not employment). Because we haven't been employed in 35 years, we have what we have put by.