What welfare cuts do you think Sunak is about to announce in budget?

[caringcarer]

It's been reported that Richi Sunak said there will be tax cuts in the budget before the election and then more after the election so people who work hard will gain more and the government will curb spending on welfare. So, what welfare cuts do you think he is planning? I wonder whether he will reduce the triple lock on pensions to a double lock. Will he make single parents with DC over 7 work more hours to get UC top up. So maybe make them work 20 or even 25 hours. Do you think the £300 CoL payments will stop, as inflation is now much lower? I'm not advocating for these cuts just curious to what they could be. Can anyone think of others they might implement? Also which tax cuts could he be thinking of introducing? Threshold going up from £12,500 to £13k or inheritance tax go up a bit?

But as I said I found a stakeholder to pay into which the government tops up what you pay in.

Stakeholder pensions were introduced by Gordon Brown so nowhere near 40 years ago. They are now largely obsolete as they are no longer cheap.

As far as I can remember there never were any matched contributions from the government, only tax relief. That in itself is a huge cost to the taxpayer and if you so will, also a benefit.

Furthermore, until only a few years ago if you were a married couple you would get a joint state pension which was much less than an individual’s pension. That’s why married woman may have opted to pay less NI. This is now no longer an option so irrelevant.

Maybe @caringcarer means she has a SIPP pension which the government tops up with tax relief.

so fed up with the disabled and sick being hit with a stick yet again

I do get 25 percent tax relief.

I wish it was as easy as just saying what meds I am on. I am lack the executive function to apply, along with strength to do so.

Could you ask an organization like CAB or Age Uk ( if you are over 50) or a mental health charity to support you with a claim?

Have they not copped on that the reason for ...claims for mental ill health being out of control is due to Tory policies?

My friend died last year. She had a known and treatable condition. She, her family and her GP realised she was critical. They all begged and busted their arses to get her the bed she needed in hospital.

But there were no beds, so she died. Her mother and sister found her. A wonderful, funny, clever, experienced teacher died. Two children lost their mother. A family is angry, traumatised and bereaved. Her pupils and school suffered. The GP has recently returned from long term sick leave.

Her Cause of Death is listed as Suicide, but she died from a known, treatable condition because there was no bed for her.

Our nation is sick because of this stinking Tory government. And clearly their "plan" is to kill more people by cutting resources to sick people.

Gaslighting, corrupt, incompetent bastards.

The bad choices we are all paying for are the bad choices of this Tory government. Austerity, Brexit, Trussterfuck economics, corruption and failure to plan.

Any tax cuts are nothing more than a short lived, short sighted bribe from a failed, fucked up government.

Sorry what?
So decisions taken by an individual decades ago are the fault of this Tory Government? How exactly?

Easier to blame individuals. No, it's down to lack of planning, investment and and systemic failure of this government.

@TooBigForMyBoots that's really sad and I am sorry for the loss of your friend.
My teenage was unwell from very young (I wrote about it at length on here about ten years ago) but it took a psychotic breakdown and a knife attack on me before he spent three years in a forensic psych unit. It was so traumatising.
Anyway big hug.

Yes I'm benefitting and I was pointing out that the people saying women of my age had it harder time with work/wages/pensions than younger women were generalising as some of us had a better time with support at work and good pensions than lots of women now. Don't really understand why that is controversial as it is a fact.

The first pension I was in was when I was working as a shop assistant at the local co-op supermarket. It was a good scheme and I started working there at 21, part time as I had a toddler and young baby and child care was hard to find. I didn't work there for long as I needed a fulltime job so my pension got transferred to my next employer's scheme where I was working as a typist before I did day release for 4 years and ended up in management.

So I was by no means middleclass, child of immigrants doing low paid work.

That's just silly. Surely people have to take some personal responsibility for their future (and everything else for that matter)?
For whatever reason there are lots of people (not just women) who chose not to pay into a workplace pension scheme until it became compulsory if you didn't opt out, and even then some opted out of paying a couple of quid a week for a basic small extra income when they retired.
That's the decision they made at the time and one they knew they were doing. I do not want to continue to subsidise the people who did not take the option that was available to them and are now pleading poverty.

Or blaming today's Government for their bad personal finance planning. Sorry

@Katypp said: That's the decision they made at the time and one they knew they were doing. I do not want to continue to subsidise the people who did not take the option that was available to them and are now pleading poverty.

The trouble is they may, or may not, have known what they were doing and with any number of permutations in between.

There's no way of going back now and sorting sheep who were savers from goats who spent money on wine and women (or men) and wasted the rest. And even if you did there'd need to be a safety net unless you want old people in tents on the street.

All I have said is that the triple lock should be abolished and pensions should rise in line with all other benefits. I have not said that pensions should be abolished or that old people should live in tents on the streets.
If there's no way of going back now, what do you suggest? No-one should be accountable or responsible for actions they did or didn't take in the past?

@Katypp the bit that got my attention was I do not want to continue to subsidise the people who did not take the option that was available to them and are now pleading poverty.

I read that as an attack on the principle of Pension Credit which is the means tested benefit topping up low pensioner incomes to a 'decency threshold' of a little over £200/week. Similarly Housing Benefit will pay rent if they cannot afford it, hence my comment about living on the street,

I agree with you that the triple lock is not defensible. I'd also pay at least the same as PC to those unable to do any sort of work due to a health condition.

No issue in principle with people being held accountable but having to live on PC is probably as far as you can go.

@Bromptotoo No, I have no beef with pension credit, as by and large, the pensioners who receive this had no mechanism in place to better their pensions. I also said that I think the triple lock should be abolished for people who will be reaching pension age in the next 10-20 years, not today's pensioners. The group I am talking about are those who are around 50 onwards now (including myself). These are the people who had the opportunity to take out a workplace or private pension and chose not to do so.

I hope that you are not seriously suggesting paying £3 a week into a pension will help you in retirement. It will not make any difference.

I have always worked in the private sector and workplace pensions were not widely available to admin staff until about 20 years ago even in the larger companies.

But then I had the foresight to set up my own pension with this marvellous sales guy who worked for Equitable Life. They were doing great at the time. Unfortunately, the company collapsed a couple of years later due to promises they made which they couldn’t keep. And there was zero protection around for consumers at that time and it would have been better for me not to have bothered.

I feel this is a little unfair. Plenty of people are opting out of decent workplace pensions because they cannot afford it. The rent and bills have gone up and they can no longer prioritise their future.

Then there are some of today's pensioners who have done very little to prepare for retirement. We have family members who had cashed in pensions and remortgaged their home to buy a new car and travel. Now they aren't happy that they've had to push back their retirement and are worried that they don't have enough to live on.

There's going to be idiots and victims in both sets. But let's not pretend that everyone under a set age has had lots of choices, house and rent prices have really screwed many people over.

Of course I am not suggesting £3 a week will lead to a rosy retirement. My anecdote was when compulsory workplace pensions first started and the initial contribution from my colleague was around £2.70 a week (she was paid weekly). She actually went to the bother of opting out of this and I was frankly astonished.
I have also only worked in the private sector and I have to say that I am somewhat surprised to hear that workplace pensions were only widely available from 2002, as that's only 10 years before automatic enrollment started in 2012.
I started work in 1986 and workplace pensions were a thing then.

@messybutfun said As far as I can remember there never were any matched contributions from the government, only tax relief.

Back in the eighties the government introduced Personal Pensions. These were intended to do a number of things such as improve labour flexibility, end people who left schemes early being disadvantaged and also to reduce the cost of the 'second state pension' then known as SERPS.

To that end the government would provide some level of contribution to Personal Pensions to those opting out of SERPS. One effect of this was to drive people out of both SERPS and employer's schemes; even those that paid a final salary that would be index linked.

The result was probably the biggest mis selling scandal of all time.

@Katypp its not that they didnt exist. Of course they did, but they werent universal. They were offered by 2/3s of employers and then there were conditions for those that had them. It was very common to not be for part time staff or only to staff over a certain number years service.