Rishi is PM - coronation, unelected -GE Now

[MrsRobinsonsHandprints]

This is not democracy.

But you said it was about poverty, you quite specifically said the reason it was an issue now when it never was in the past is because pensioners in the past were poorer. The average pension is £15k, the average wage is almost £30k and minimum wage amounts to £19k so how many people’s incomes are below the NI threshold? Very few is the answer.

I'm talking about your objection. Which clearly cannot be about poverty if you support the NI increase being payable by people whose incomes are much lower than the 15k cited in that article while other people with higher incomes are excused from paying it.

You're also wrong that 30k is the average wage. It's the average full time PAYE wage, which is not the same thing. You don't appear to understand that there are workers who are too young to be entitled to adult minimum wage, who are self employed and bringing in less than NMW for a myriad of different reasons, who work part time, who work around their studies, who are on maternity leave.

And none of this affects the reality that the demographics of the UK are very different now than they were a few decades back. Working age people are a smaller percentage of the population than they were. We hamstring our attempts to provide the funding the NHS needs for an increasingly ageing population if we excuse large segments of it from paying the extra required because of their age and/or how they earn their income.

No, my objection isn’t about poverty, you introduced that. Did you read my last paragraph at all or was that too inconvenient?

The increasingly ageing population is increasingly stopping relying on the NHS where it has the means to do so. The length of waiting lists is seeing to that. I know a lot of people who have needed hip, knee or cataract surgery in the last few years, we’ve all paid for it because we’re not prepared to wait for years.

I despair at this hatred of older people having a state pension. It is a completely staged policy to be divisive as this Tory government is so well practiced at.
They have wasted so much money on failures, billions of pounds and yet still try to weasel out of state pension payments by upping the age faster than anyone can realistically make plans for.
Currently once you are aged 22 and upwards, classed as a worker and earn £10k upwards pa , your employer must automatically enrol you into a workplace pension scheme. If you earn £6240 pa you have the right to opt in to a scheme.
If only, if only this had been the case for women starting work in the 70's!!!
We are so far below what other countries with similar standards pay out on their state pensions. The French are mad that their pension age is going up from 62-64. The Uk is 66, very soon going up to 67.

Option three, it wasn't what I was talking about. If you insist on it being acknowledged, yes if we do decide to merge NI and income tax then we'll probably have to calculate state pension eligibility another way. Speaking of inconvenience, you've completely ignored all the points about how the NI increase didn't apply to various unearned income types, whatever the age of the person with the income.

As for your point, you said 'how poor do you want them to be'. They being pensioners. That's about poverty, and you introduced it. But only for some people, obv.

On people going private, yes obviously this is happening. It is not happening at sufficient rate to stop us being an ageing society that needs more expensive healthcare that will have to be paid for. And of course, it's not like the NHS isn't impacted by people using private healthcare either.

You said Because when today's 70 year olds were 20, pensioners as a group were both much poorer. Ergo you introduced the poverty element. I pointed out that the average pensioner income is £15k - an income on which most working people would be entitled to benefits.

And of course, it's not like the NHS isn't impacted by people using private healthcare either.

Of course it’s impacted - positively. Surgeons do their private work in addition to their NHS practice not instead. Nurses do agency work on the same basis because their pay is shit.

As Young Earth Creationists they believe God made the world 6000 years ago.

To us it's just a cartoon , but they think the Flintstones is a documentary.
Sorry if I dragged down the level of debate.

They won't pay it if they are earning under £12.5k so people earning less than the average pension might not be paying anything or paying very little.

And NIC is "per income source", so someone with, say, a £10k state pension and a £10k occupational pension wouldn't pay NIC if the rules were copied over from employments. NIC wouldn't be payable until someone had an income of £20-£25k if split between state and other pensions!

So essentially this is a pointless argument. If the average pensioner income is £15k, of which £9.4k is state pension, the average pensioner would still pay nothing. Only those with an occupational pension in excess of £12.5k would be liable. That’s a household income for a couple of £43k. Not sure how many of those you’d find.

Ergo you introduced the poverty element. I pointed out that the average pensioner income is £15k - an income on which most working people would be entitled to benefits.

You also said how poor do you want them to be, which is about poverty, which means you absolutely did make a poverty argument. There is no other possible interpretation of what you meant.

Also, the bit about most working people being entitled to benefits on this income is a new introduction. That would depend entirely on circumstances, for example assets held.

So essentially this is a pointless argument. If the average pensioner income is £15k, of which £9.4k is state pension, the average pensioner would still pay nothing.

Do you think people are taxed based on the average income for their age cohort? The personal allowance is 12.5k, which is less than 15k so the average pensioner would still be taxable even if they were. Everything about this way of framing the issue is wrong, but then that's probably why you've been unable to understand the point.

There are people who have income that wouldn't have been included in the proposed NI increase. The proportion of working age people in relation to the number of pensioners is much lower than it was several decades ago, and even lower when we factor in those working age people whose income also wouldn't have been caught by NI. If we want to fund the NHS properly, we are making it much more difficult if we decide to opt out whole cohorts regardless of their income level. None of this is remotely a matter of opinion, some of you have just decided that the impact of demographics is negotiable.

You missed Badbadbunny’s post then?

And NIC is "per income source", so someone with, say, a £10k state pension and a £10k occupational pension wouldn't pay NIC if the rules were copied over from employments. NIC wouldn't be payable until someone had an income of £20-£25k if split between state and other pensions!

Incidentally, some data if we're having this discussion.

www.gov.uk/government/statistics/pensioners-incomes-series-financial-year-2020-to-2021/pensioners-incomes-series-financial-year-2020-to-2021#main-story

The average income for all pensioners after taxes and housing costs is £361 per week. That's £18,772 per year after tax and housing, which is rather more than the 15k cited earlier particularly given that the latter figure was before housing and taxes.

Rather harder to find data on people with other forms of income that wouldn't have had to pay the NI increase, sadly!

Some more data.

www.unbiased.co.uk/life/pensions-retirement/what-is-the-average-uk-retirement-income

You missed Badbadbunny’s post then?
And NIC is "per income source", so someone with, say, a £10k state pension and a £10k occupational pension wouldn't pay NIC if the rules were copied over from employments. NIC wouldn't be payable until someone had an income of £20-£25k if split between state and other pensions!

No, it just didn't have any impact on the fact that you did make a poverty based argument and what our demographic pyramid currently looks like. Obviously there are lots of different ways that we could try and provide extra funding for the NHS other than the NI increase, nobody thinks there aren't.

Obviously there are lots of different ways that we could try and provide extra funding for the NHS other than the NI increase, nobody thinks there aren't.

Indeed. Which makes it quite odd that some people are so obsessed with non working pensioners not paying NI.

@MrsRobinsonsHandprints OK, then you obviously don't understand the way politics works. None of us voted Sunak or Truss in as prime minister because this isn't America. But, we did vote the party in and they choose the prime minister. If you don't like the system then get voted in yourself and change it.

This time last week : Labour on 53% Tories 19% . Everyone in the universe saying ' I'll never vote Conservative again!!'

Yesterday's polls Q. Who would make the best Prime Minister?
A. Rishi Sunak.

So , either the system is more presidential than we think ...or the Tories ' secret weapon is amnesia. Or monumental stupidity.

Those are totally different questions though. It's not hard to imagine that thinking of the party leaders apart from the party as a whole, preferences might not line up. People answer the question put to them.

I think what's really interesting is that it suggests that Starmer is really not making a connection with people.

There is an awful lot of amnesia out there @Abhannmor. I'm starting to wonder if the water troll has a point.🤣🤣🤣

Indeed. Which makes it quite odd that some people are so obsessed with non working pensioners not paying NI.

Do feel free to take it up with those people then.

Or Starmer got a lot of support due to annoyance at others not that people think he’s great as the answer.

Leaders do count but not they are only thing people decide on.

I agree to @MarshaBradyo .
Labour is favoured because its not Tories.
Most probably labour will screw up even better once they get in.

Yesterday's polls Q. Who would make the best Prime Minister?

A. Rishi Sunak.

on the plus side it shows that we’re not as racist as some predicted on here - many posts re that

But like it or not many people vote based on whether they like/trust the leader of the party - as evidenced by any discussion on what Labour would do if they came to power centring on Starmers’ suitability for office. And we vote on the manifesto. The Tories have ripped up the manifesto on which Boris was elected. Truss used the UK as a giant lab rat in some loony ideological experiment, and we now have a PM and a chancellor about to give us Austerity .2 - which will pick the bare bones of what’s left of public services and welfare after Austerity .1

I didn’t vote for this in 2019 and neither did anyone else. The plain fact is, that the Tories got us into this mess and if they really believe they have the right policies to get us out of it, then they should put their money where their mouth is and seek public endorsement by calling an election. After the debacle of the last few weeks they can no longer call themselves the party of fiscal responsibility and if Labour can demonstrate a decent, costed plan, then it should be up to the public to decide. They work for us, not the other way around and it’s time to remind them of that.

Most probably labour will screw up even better once they get in.

You think that’s possible?