To think that with over 1million pensioners in poverty, removing the WFA makes Labour the nasty party, who tell blatant lies?

[TealTraybake]

And hypocritical lies at that. Just a few months ago Labour ‘vowed to be the party for pensioners’

‘Nearly 1 million people aged over 66 in the UK are living in deprivation, according to government statistics, the highest number since comparable records began.
Labour, which analysed figures from Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) records, has vowed to be the party for pensioners, with plans to insulate millions of homes and reduce energy bills. It has also “committed to retaining” the triple lock which guarantees annual rises to the state pension’

I understand the WFA should be means tested - but the current threshold is far too low. Food prices have gone up. Energy prices have gone up. Some pensioners need that WFA 🥺.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/apr/16/nearly-1m-uk-pensioners-deprivation-official-figures

Of course. I’m not suggesting they shouldn’t be criticised. I was responding specifically to a previous post.

And they know that. Starmer said on Sunday that he knows the clean up operation will be unpopular and he’s not in the least fazed by being unpopular. Fair criticism is one thing, many posts here are something else entirely.

Your post was a go at a poster who doesn't see Labour as you do wasn't it? I mean a stream of invective re 'froth' 'bot' etc

That's life, people have opinions that differ. Mn is fairly pro Labour but look off here and there's loads of of people who are commenting similarly

Starmer stated before the election that ‘working people’ were those who didn’t have the savings to cope with an unexpected repair bill.

Asked what he meant by “working people” in a radio interview on LBC on Tuesday, Sir Keir said: “People who earn their living, rely on our [public] services and don’t really have the ability to write a cheque when they get into trouble” he said.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-party-tax-keir-starmer-rachel-reeves-b2565189.html

Reeves backtracked a bit on this at the time and said pensioners with little savings were included in the target group, although she appears to have changed her mind yet again on that one.

So I guess were left with working people being anyone who is employed yet unable to be squeezed for even more taxes.

@PointsSouth ‘In fact you started doing that about 24 hours in’

😂😂 what are you talking about here lovely?

Your great-grandparents who lived through times of utter deprivation would be ashamed to see what you’ve written, to see that you’re happy to impose penury on the vulnerable. With any luck they never had the misfortune to actually meet you.

Because I don’t believe a fuel benefit should be a blank cheque to anyone over 65 and should be means tested? Get a grip!

Oh. I see. Well. I think I see. At least, I see what he sees. Or what he says he sees. 🧐

So Starmer has an issue with language.

People who work, are only ‘working people’ IF they don’t have savings.

And some men, are ‘women’.

Are some pensioners are only ‘old people’ if they fit a certain brief? Because he’s totally fcked over the ones who don’t.

🤮

Absolutely! I don't think the threshold is too low either.

You do realise that regardless of interest rates mortgage repayments and house prices were significantly less relative to income than they are today?

Mortgage rates of 6.43% today are equivalent to a rate of 25.7% in 1980 -
housing is now at its least affordable since records began.

In 1980, the average UK house price was around £21,000 and mortgage costs accounted for 11.3%
of disposable income (see Editors’ notes). Today, with the average 2 year fixed rate mortgage on offer to new customers currently standing at 6.43%, those figures are around £292,000 and 45.1% respectively.

So even with higher interest rates mortgage repayments were just over 11% of today income, to people in 1980 had a repayment akin to 11% of their income while today it’s 45% on average, while still trying to raise a family.

But don’t let facts get in the way of claiming it’s so easy now and so much harder before.

Well that's clear then

Taxes a go go

You do realise that regardless of interest rates mortgage repayments and house prices were significantly less relative to income than they are today?

You do realise taxation was far higher then? It was 33% basic rate when I started work with 9% NI on top.

Probably.

Plus cuts or restrictions to benefits for those out of work, because they’re not earning their living.

🤷‍♀️

Do you think that even comes close to cancelling out mortgages being 11% of the average wage vs 45% of the average wage today?

Housing is more unaffordable than ever, that is a fact, so using mortgage interest rates to claim how hard todays pensioners had it in 1980 is totally irrelevant.

Well it kind of does. Everyone was paying the same rate of tax as today’s higher rate. Imagine seeing almost half your pay deducted before you got it.

Firstly, a crap NHS does not affect the older generation more than any other, particularly when you look at adult social care. It is just that (as with everything else) the focus is always on the older generations.

And yes, the older generations have lived through the same things I have listed. The difference is they had ample opportunities to build wealth prior to all the crises that have taken place in the last 15 years. People in their 20s, 30s and 40s have only ever lived through these financial crises without any opportunity to bounce back before the next crisis hits.

Firstly, a crap NHS does not affect the older generation more than any other

It does.

Thank you @Mooneywoo - I am honestly sick of the interest rate argument. Give me a 20% interest rate on a £30k mortgage versus a 6% rate on a £250k mortgage any day.

Firstly, I have no idea where that graph is from-it would be handy to see your source. Secondly, you're proving my point there: that graph is focusing on healthcare spend, not healthcare need. Do you know how difficult it is for people to access healthcare right now? If you're not elderly, a child or pregnant you can basically whistle.

I dread to think what is going to happen in the next few decades when younger people who have been dealing with niggling health issues they have never been able to resolve end up needing acute care.

Just in my cohort I have friends with joint, stomach, eye and ear problems who cannot even get a GP appointment because they are never deemed to be urgent enough.

Exactly.

@Mooneywoo

Basic rate tax:
1973/4 30% (up to £5,000)
1974/5 33% (up to £4,500)
1975/6 36% (up to £4,500)
1980/82 30% (up to £11,250)
1985/86 30% (up to £16,200)
1989/90 25% (up to £20,700)

Higher rate tax:
1973/4 40% (up to £6,000) to 75% (over £20,000)
1974/5 38% (up to £5,000) to 83% (over £20,000)
1975/6 40% (up to £5,000) to 83% (over £20,000)
1980/82 40% (up to £13,250) to 60% (over £27,750)
1985/86 40% (up to £19,200) to 60% (over £40,200)
1989/90 40% (over £20,700)

So, @Mooneywoo , you think it would be a good idea for today’s younger generation to pay the same rate of income tax as the current pensioners did in the 1970s and 80s?

Think the 20somethings will go for that, do you? 😂
Someone on minimum wage paying 36% tax vs 20% now?? 🤣🤣🤣

@StarrySkiesAtMidnight if it meant I could see a doctor, buy a house and get a free education then yes, bring on the 30% tax rate. As it is, while we may be paying proportionally less in tax now, every other aspect of our lives have been made infinitely more difficult, which costs us more in the long run.

And that underlines my point about the left and the race to the bottom... One bunch of people are in more poverty, so everyone should be in more poverty. No thought as to maybe protecting those that are more disadvantaged; no, lets just drag another 2.5 million people into fuel poverty. Unbelievable 😂

Will they ever learn I wonder? And now I read they are considering bringing back PFI to the NHS...just as it manage to claw itself out of the mess that the Bliar government got it in. After all this time in opposition, why don't they have a coherent plan?

Source of graph.

https://www.investorschronicle.co.uk/content/fc9f8183-ce30-5c3b-a09a-ebffd90ab4ef

It’s well established fact that the greatest healthcare needs are at the beginning and end of life. It seems older people’s healthcare needs aren’t being met either.

https://bmcgeriatr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12877-019-1189-9

I'm more than aware of low income. I worked in poor paid jobs. I was still aware that private pensions existed.

It used to be the case that disability benefits qualified for receipt of warm home benefits and inclusion for schemes but the Tory government removed eligibility and replaced it with receipt of means tested benefits. So means testing was rolled out to the disabled first under a Tory government. Nobody was up in arms about that. Maybe because everyone thought the tories would punish the disabled or just didn't care.

But labour means testing WFA for pensioners! The horror.

Oh yes nobody cares about that-it's so frustrating. Take as much away as possible from every other demographic and nobody bats an eyelid-attempt to bring in means testing for a winter fuel payment for the statistically wealthiest demographic in the country and everyone is up in arms.