So OAPs pay taxes all of their working life and require a bit of help in their twilight years.
The Tax Payers Alliance want benefits to them cut because they won't remember who made the cuts by the next election or will be dead by then (probably from hypothermia)!
What bunch of spivs!
(Spivs - very much ruder word self censored.)
|
I read their comment.
Bunch of self abusers.
|
I thought I was reading the Daily Mash.
Mr Wild, who is research director of the think tank which campaigns for lower taxes and highlights examples of Government waste, said the cuts should be made "as soon as possible after an election for two reasons".
"The first of which will sound a little bit morbid - some of the people... won't be around to vote against you in the next election. So that's just a practical point, and the other point is they might have forgotten by then."
He added: "If you did it now, chances are that in 2020 someone who has had their winter fuel cut might be thinking, 'Oh I can't remember, was it this government or was it the last one? I'm not quite sure.'
"So on a purely practical basis I would say do it immediately. That might be one of those things I regret saying in later life but that would be my practical advice to the government."
|
|
Means test the lot. Pensioners shouldn't get something just because they are pensioners. Only those in need should receive.
Last edited by: The Melting Snowman on Mon 5 Oct 15 at 16:46
|
|
How do you define "those in need" ? Do you put us in the same needy category as those on tax credits or the people with the latest phones, big smart TVs, etc. but use foodbanks?
|
>> Means test the lot.
>>
Really?
1. There is good evidence that when things are means tested a good number of people who need them do not claim them
2. In many cases means testing costs more that giving the "benefit" everyone who qualifies anyway.
I do wonder sometimes whether some people on here say things just to cause an argument.
|
|
Tax Payers Alliance guy kind of proves the left does not have a monopoly on stupidity doesn't he?
Last edited by: commerdriver on Mon 5 Oct 15 at 17:14
|
>> Kind of proves the left does not have a monopoly on stupidity doesn't it?
Damn right.
Words fail.
|
There's an argument that only those on pension credits should receive the Winter fuel allowance and bus pass.
I'd object strongly to that. I spent forty four years having deductions from salary to pay for my occupational pension. It was optional. Many I worked with declined to opt in, on the basis benefits would support them when they retired. Why should they have these perks and me denied them?
|
Should be in the basic pension, and whether a pensioner wants to spend extra on bus tickets or heating or beer or a Lamborghini should be up to the individual.
Same for TV licences.
Nothing but politicians trying to buy votes.
|
|
Bunch of T*****g F*****g c**s
|
Good Lord Reverend. Well said.
Of course I expect to get away with this next time.
Respect, but of course you are on the Firm.
|
>> Did I really say that ?
My screen shots say so, but for a spin on the Striple 'R' I'll keep 'Mum' 0:-)
|
I've long regarded the TPA as a 'wack job' outfit and wondered why the media gave them house room, eg approaching them for 'balance' over reports on changes to government spending. It was also made very clear to me by a boss in my CS career that they were not an organisation we should engage as 'stakeholder' representatives.
The irony though is that although spending on pensioner benefits is well over half of 'welfare' spending pretty much all the cuts have fallen on (a) out of work benefits (coalition era) and (b) in work benefits (now). The biggest group of over occupiers of social housing is probably OAPs yet they're exempt from the 'bedroom tax'.
|
|
Don't start me on that Bromp !
|
>> Bunch of T*****g F*****g c**s
>>
I couldn't put it better my self!
|
>> >> Bunch of T*****g F*****g c**s
>>
I can't quite make out the last word have you typed the correct number of '*' ?
|
>> I can't quite make out the last word have you typed the correct number of '*' ?
I had the same thought, if thought it can be called...
The first word is a bit of a mystery too.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Tue 6 Oct 15 at 02:05
|
|
We have choices there AC. I think Rob has done a sterling job of expressing not only his thoughts, but some of us too. Well done that Man.
|
It's crudely expressed but it's the obvious corollary to the reasoning the political parties use. Affluent pensioners are (a) numerous and (b) diligent voters. Recognizing that they will vote next time, governments will cut services for younger families and the low-paid before they dare take anything away from pensioners - who, as Bromp points out, already take by far the largest slice of the cake.
So, if it's OK for governments to favour those likely to vote them back in, why - in principle, leaving aside the crude language - is it wrong to remind them who might not be there to vote next time round?
|
There is surely a distinction between the state pension, which people have paid for through national insurance, and other perks such as bus passes, winter fuel, etc?
It's a pity that the state pension is called a "benefit", because it clouds the issue and immediately gives ammunition to those who want to cut benefits.
|
"There is surely a distinction between the state pension, which people have paid for through national insurance, and other perks such as bus passes, winter fuel, etc?"
There is only a distinction between the 'pension' and the 'perks' because vote-seeking politicians have chosen to present it like that; it may as well have been simply lumped into the pension.
I use my bus-pass about once a year when I use Cambridge's P&R service; I guess there are many more like me who choose largely to forgo that element of our pension. And, let's face it, for every pensioner who does use their bus-pass, there's one less mimsing old git out there in their car to annoy AC.
The Tax Payers Alliance was formed in 2004 at a time when council taxes were rocketing and councils were building palaces resembling those of Saddam Hussein. At the time, I thought they represented a worthwhile cause though, after hearing their utterings about plastic bags, they're not as bright as I thought they were.
|
|
I thought I'd read that it doesn't matter whether you use the bus pass at all, the bus companies get paid for each one issued, not dependent on usage. So if I'm right then your one trip a year is extraordinarily expensive and probably not something to be proud of!!
|
"I thought I'd read that it doesn't matter whether you use the bus pass at all, the bus companies get paid for each one issued, not dependent on usage."
That's not what I thought that I'd read.
|
>> "I thought I'd read that it doesn't matter whether you use the bus pass at
>> all, the bus companies get paid for each one issued, not dependent on usage."
>>
>> That's not what I thought that I'd read.
>>
...the funding/payment arrangements have moved around somewhat, but AIUI, they now involve the local authority *in the area of use* of any pass providing a journey-related reimbursement to the operator for any such use.
Note the *in the area of use", not in the area of issue - hence some significant demands fall on some areas with low issue (think holiday destinations, etc.), and the Central Government augmented funding arrangements have proved "interesting" to implement.
|
|
From what I understand most areas restrict bus pass use to those issued in that area, certainly Blackpool trams, for example, will only accept local passes.
|
>> From what I understand most areas restrict bus pass use to those issued in that
>> area, certainly Blackpool trams, for example, will only accept local passes.
>>
....they can't for (most) buses, since it is a national agreement.
Trams are something else, and generally are not included, or are limited only to locally issued passes.
Since arrangements are discretionary, this is not, however, always the case. Manchester and Nottingham (and, it would seem, Blackpool) trams are not available to "foreign" passes, but Sheffield trams are.
|
|
You may well be righter than I am and I retract my previous comment... :-)
|
"You may well be righter than I am and I retract my previous comment... :-)"
So, would it be OK to get it out and use it just once a year now? ;-)
|
>> "You may well be righter than I am and I retract my previous comment... :-)"
>>
>> So, would it be OK to get it out and use it just once a
>> year now? ;-)
>>
As much as once a year? Sigh.
|
>> The Tax Payers Alliance was formed in 2004 at a time when council taxes were
>> rocketing and councils were building palaces resembling those of Saddam Hussein.
It's Wiki entry contains the useful reminder that in 2004 the Conservative Party felt the need to match the Labour Party's spending plans. They continued to do so until after the 2007/8 banking crisis, somewhat undermining their claims about spending in the Blair years.
Dave and George have been very successful in covering their tracks on that one.
I also like the line in Wiki which (dealing with claims of links to the right wing of the Tory party) says:
When Nick Ferrari asked TPA's campaign manager Susie Squire whether she was "secretly Conservative", she rejected the accusation as "outrageous" saying the organisation was "totally independent". In 2010, Squire became a special adviser to the Conservative Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Iain Duncan Smith.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 6 Oct 15 at 09:24
|
"It's Wiki entry contains the useful etc........."
I wasn't taking a party-political stance - I was merely stating that council taxes were rocketing and those in charge were looking after themselves rather well at the tax-payers expense. You probably wouldn't have noticed that.
|
>> You probably wouldn't have noticed that.
>>
While I highlighted a political point I wasn't doing so in a tit/tat sense vis a vis your post. Read in full the Wiki entry suggests that the Tories moving to a spending consensus with Labour was one of the motivators behind the formation of the TPA.
The second bit, about IDS's special adviser, was there for its humour - I read it to myself in the tone of a 'News Quiz' item.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 6 Oct 15 at 10:06
|
>> So, if it's OK for governments to favour those likely to vote them back in,
>> why - in principle, leaving aside the crude language - is it wrong to remind
>> them who might not be there to vote next time round?
>>
Remember we are on the upslope of the baby boomers reaching pension age so the number of pensioner voters is increasing although the pre boomers are decreasing in number.
|
>>
>> Remember we are on the upslope of the baby boomers reaching pension age so the
>> number of pensioner voters is increasing although the pre boomers are decreasing in number.
>>
Which is way the TPA statement was so "Bunch of T*****g F*****g c**s"
The number of OAPs is rising and will continue to do so until 2030.. so although some will die, the deceased will be more than replaced in numbers...(Invest in undertakers)...
|
Those of us now in receipt of State Pensions were working and planning for retirement (many a slip though!) in the "golden years" of employment and took due cognisance of the perfectly reasonable assumption, at that time, that the State Pension would be there for us.
These days, there is hopefully a new reality, that in the future the State cannot afford to pay pensions on the current scale.
Wise virgins are making preparations, in so far as they are able - the not so wise will not.
Come crunch time, the not unreasonable argument from the sensible (or lucky) folk will centre around - why should I , having made provision at a pretty high cost, be at a disadvantage compared with those feckless (or unlucky) people who don't have a pot to urinate in?
This probably a huge hot potato: will any party have the balls to tackle it?
|
|
Well Rogski, you belong to a party which tells us it has the monopoly on "common sense", so perhaps you can ask them and enlighten us?
|
This thing about "why should I lose out just because I have saved up for my old age" is understandable but illogical in relation to benefits whose purpose is to maintain a minimum standard of living for those who cannot provide for themselves.
There are regular posts on MoneySavingExpert such as "I have just inherited £80,000 from my gran, how can I avoid losing my benefit entitlement? Help!"
I do not consider the OAP to be such a benefit BTW - it is an entitlement, being contribution-based and forming an index-linked base to many people's pension planning (including mine).
Winter fuel allowance and bus passes are a greyer area, having been introduced as universal benefits. I think it should be possible to retain bus passes, as usage must be mostly linked to need, but WFA is harder to justify.
|
>> This thing about "why should I lose out just because I have saved up for
>> my old age" is understandable but illogical in relation to benefits whose purpose is to
>> maintain a minimum standard of living for those who cannot provide for themselves.
I can't agree with that.
All over the country, there are people in old people's homes.
Now if 'Mabel' and her now deceased husband were fairly frugal all their lives, saved a bit, bought their own house, did their best for their kids and had to go without... a lot... to make that happen....then when they get to old age, have to sell their bungalow and pay out in excess of £20K a year for the privilege of living in that home...
Whilst next door is 'Agnes'. She indulged in beer and fags all her life, never moved out of the council rented property she had, always had a holiday, never saved a dicky bird.
Agnes gets everything Mabel gets, only Mabel's paying £20K a year for hers.
So, should we all do an Agnes?
|
>> Now if 'Mabel' and her now deceased husband were fairly frugal all their lives, saved
>> a bit, bought their own house, did their best for their kids and had to
>> go without...
Looking at it the other way though, why should the taxpayer cover Mabel's fees when the effect is that the state is back filling her kid's inheritance? What was she saving for if not her old age?
>> Whilst next door is 'Agnes'.
So how do we deal with Agnes and her like? No practical means test can judge what people are doing with their money now never mind what Agnes and her deceased husband did in the seventies.
In reality of course you've rightly illustrated your example by taking two extremes. The reality is much less sharply defined.
And of course Mabel's position is worse. The home says it cannot make money at the rate the Council will pay so Mabel's actually paying £30k a year as a sort of cross subsidy. Actually, a lot of places won't take Council funded people at all.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 6 Oct 15 at 16:49
|
>> Looking at it the other way though, why should the taxpayer cover Mabel's fees when
>> the effect is that the state is back filling her kid's inheritance? What was she
>> saving for if not her old age?
>>
There are no magic answers B. For many people what you are saving for is not just your old age it's partly to leave something for your children, and it is very hard for someone to find, when the needs are substantial, because of old age or sudden illness, that nothing is provided because you have savings where someone in the same need who has spent rather than saved gets all the same needs supplied.
I think the closest thing to an answer is a proportional approach both in how much is provided and in how much of your savings is used. There seems to be an all or nothing approach in both situations, whichever colour of politicians are in power.
What is proportional is the decision that needs the magic answer
|
>> I can't agree with that.
>>
>> Agnes gets everything Mabel gets, only Mabel's paying £20K a year for hers.
Because Mabel has the money?
Your view on this one reflects the widespread attitude of "entitlement" that begets questions such as the one I referred to above - "I've had a windfall - why should I lose my benefits?"
The starting point for this is that Agness needs care, but is too poor to pay for it. Rather than let her die/suffer, the state says that it will pay for support.
Does that automatically mean that it must pay the same amount of money to everybody else, whether they need it or not? So the two options become universal free care, which is utterly unaffordable, or just let the feckless (and the unfortunates?) rot?
>>
>> So, should we all do an Agnes?
Of course not.
Maybe the solution that would satisfy the point of view you outline is in the same kind of logic that produced the workhouse. State funded care is provided in dormitories, with limited privacy and other comforts. If you want a choice, pay for your own.
To some extent, that applies now. If you have to rely on the state, that will severely limit your options. Mabel can go where she wants, until the money runs out.
Do you have a solution WP?
|
>> Do you have a solution WP?
>>
Let me turn it around, do you think it fair that the selfish can 'p' their income up the wall all their lives, then expect the rest of us to look after them?
I actually think the state benefit system should be a basic catch net and the population encouraged to look after themselves.
|
>> >> Do you have a solution WP?
>> >>
>> Let me turn it around, do you think it fair that the selfish can 'p'
>> their income up the wall all their lives, then expect the rest of us to
>> look after them?
I doubt if the majority of people who have little or no personal/occupational pension provision come into that category - equally likely that they just didn't have the resources to do more for themselves?
>>
>> I actually think the state benefit system should be a basic catch net and the
>> population encouraged to look after themselves.
So do I. Isn't that what it is supposed to be? But it doesn't seem to be viewed that way. Why not?
Do you think the solution would be very basic by design, on the workhouse theory, that provides proper care but comes with disadvantages that stop it being a lifestyle choice?
|
>> I doubt if the majority of people who have little or no personal/occupational pension provision
>> come into that category - equally likely that they just didn't have the resources to
>> do more for themselves?
I don't.
The pubs in this country are rammed full of people who live for today and couldn't give two hoots for the future. Plenty of builders (I mean worker, not owner) would fit the criteria.
Saving or providing for tomorrow was our grandparents generation stuff (i'm 52... so adjust that to parents if your are 70+).
Look at the figures for people saving in pension funds, the govt even had to legislate to make firms enroll employees into pension funds.
>> Do you think the solution would be very basic by design, on the workhouse theory,
>> that provides proper care but comes with disadvantages that stop it being a lifestyle choice?
>>
The workhouse was exceptionally tough, I'd want better than that. If you want people to look after themselves, you'll need to get them away from the current culture. Somewhere in between then.
|
UK govt spends £150bn on pensions.
There are about 12m people at retirement age.
That's £240 per week per pensioner.
Sod the crap around the peripheries - ditch the supplements and credits etc (and the cost of administrating it all) - pay a reasonable basic old age pension, say equal to the threshold for starting to pay income tax (~£200/wk) and if people want to save extra then that's up to them.
If you're in a nursing home then cut the pension to £70/wk and give the rest to local authority to subsidise the cost.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Tue 6 Oct 15 at 22:37
|
>> If you're in a nursing home then cut the pension to £70/wk and give the
>> rest to local authority to subsidise the cost.
Doesn't the current means test, at least in England, already do that?
|
>> UK govt spends £150bn on pensions.
Is that just state pensions, or does it include ex employees occupational pensions?
|
>>Is that just state pensions, or does it include ex employees occupational pensions?
I think it includes occupational pensions - the net cost to UK plc is about £8bn (amount paid out minus superannuation from workers) so it's not a giant cost.
IIRC the NHS pension scheme is currently a net earner for the UK with about £2bn more being taken from employees than is being paid out to pensioners.
Obviously these amounts will increase over time as the population ages, but also decrease as contributions have increased and retirement age is going up - it would take a good actuary to guesstimate what the cost will be in 20 years.
|
>> I think it includes occupational pensions - the net cost to UK plc is about £8bn (amount paid out minus superannuation from workers) so it's not a giant cost.
It's strange though because all we tend to hear from the Daily Wail and other irksome papers is how unsustainable these pensions are.
I wonder what David Cameron will do with his MP pension.
|
>>It's strange though because all we tend to hear from the Daily Wail and other irksome papers is how unsustainable these pensions are.
You only need to see the adjectives used to see that they are pushing a divisive/sensationalist agenda.
"Gold-plated" and "Unfunded" etc.
|
>> Saving or providing for tomorrow was our grandparents generation stuff (i'm 52... so adjust that
>> to parents if your are 70+).
>>
>> Look at the figures for people saving in pension funds, the govt even had to
>> legislate to make firms enroll employees into pension funds.
>>
I was reminded of this post earlier today when early morning radio was analysing the PM's promise of 'affordable homes' in new developments. Various interviewees on low to average pay were explaining how even at Sheffield (as opposed to London) prices home ownership was a dream. After paying massive amounts in rent the possibility of saving for a deposit, never minding salting away the sums needed to fund a pension, was non existent.
WP - try putting your current pension into this calculator tinyurl.com/c9xwr97 (Telegraph) which tells you the fund you'd need to finance it. I'll bet the result will be at or north og half a million. And that won't take account of whatever indexation Police pensions have, still less the fact that it's paid at 50 rather than say 65.
Could you/would you have saved that sort of sum over your working life?
I'm in a similar position and I know I couldn't have got half way- not even with investments that stayed ahead of the game throughout.
Bit too easy for we baby boomers to criticise the current generation (IMHO of course).
|
The UK has got its face too far up the idea of buying your own house. I do own a house; but owning it is only important to me as an investment. I probably have lived less than half my adult life in a house I actually own.
I can see no reason why there should be any direct attempt to making buying a house affordable. if it is, great so buy one as an investment. If it isn't then rent one.
What should be affordable is renting a house*.
Various Governments try to increase the supply of housing, complain about house prices, bitch about second home owners, professional landlords etc. etc. There are endless paragraphs about it.
Why don't they simply bring in rent control with a massive increase in tax if the house is unoccupied? How about the poll tax, or whatever its called these days, is 10% higher for an unoccupied house than an occupied one. May not be logical, but it'd have an effect.
Buy to rent market reduced, second home market reduced, holiday home and empty homes reduced
Of course, you;d have to do rent control well. But the landlord having to charge no more than a certain maximum rent which can be subsidised by benefits to the tenant where appropriate seems logical. And I don't mean the New York version of rent control, I mean doing it properly.
[*house = accommodation = flat = whatever, you know what I mean.]
|
I would definitely be in favour of rent controls. Regarding empty homes, this is a disgrace. I would instigate a Mugabe-style (no violence though) house grab if they remain unused for a prolonged period. Use it or lose it.
The rot set in with Thatcher when a property no longer became a home but an investment.
Last edited by: The Melting Snowman on Thu 8 Oct 15 at 17:49
|
>> Regarding empty homes, this is a disgrace. I would instigate a Mugabe-style (no violence though) house grab if they remain unused for a prolonged period. Use it or lose it.
This is a capitalist country with a 60 million population. It's absurd to expect all houses (not 'homes' FFS!) to be occupied at all times.
Mugabe, use it or lose it, with or without violence, can only be called fascism. Yes, there are people who speculate in property, or buy houses to rent. It's inevitable and there's nothing to be done about it without changing the entire social system. That would be a tall order.
|
>>Use it or lose it.
There's no need. Use it or pay increased taxes works just fine.
|
Market prices inflated, as any fule no except the gubbermint, by loose money and housing benefit.
There was a shortage of housing in the 50s but it didn't have the consequences attributed to the present shortage.
|
Rent controls simply mean that people get out of the business of letting making the situation even worse. In the days when rent controls were in place it was almost impossible to find a house to rent
The housing shortage can only be resolved by building more houses and allowing the lawa of supply and demand to stabilise house prices and rents. Unfortunately there are many vested interest, including every house owner who's sees his house as investment , that makes mass house building so difficult in this country.
|
Part of what makes a house attractive as an investment is the high rents achievable. These days you can achieve higher growth rates by buying a house and renting it out than you can by putting the money in a bank, or pretty much any other investment.
If you knocked the high profit rental market, then prices for both rent and buy would decrease, and the number of available to purchase houses would increase.
|
Is the rental market high profit? The local rental market gives a return of around 5% before tax. Granted that' s more than sticking your money in an isa and hopefully your asset will increase in value but there is quiet a lot of work and indeed risk in renting property.
If you were to remove a substantial number of rented properties from the market and those houses were offered for sale that would not really help the very large proportion of the population that can neither afford to buy or wish to rent.
|
>The local rental market gives a return of around 5% before tax
Local to you, I have no idea. Local to me in the UK, nooo, its "bit" more than that.
If you do it properly there is virtually no risk, certainly not "quite a lot" of work, and a very acceptable profit.
>>that would not really help the very large proportion of the population that can neither afford to buy or wish to rent.
No, you'd want the price to fall wouldn't you. Now how might you achieve that? I know, you could reduce rental profit causing more properties to return to the market and thus prices to fall in both the rental and purchase markets as supply increases and demand falls off.
Not to mention that purchase prices woudl perhaps fall to a level where a profit could be made at the capped rents available.
Bear in mind that the number of houses would not have decreased, the number available to purchase would have increased, and prices for both rent and buy would have fallen.
Which was the desired result, no?
Gosh, I should have said that before.
|
The problem surely is that there is a huge demand for rented property. Returniing large proportion of currently rented houses to the market would certainly tend to reduce or more likely slow down the increase in house prices but it certainly does not help those who are unable or do not want to buy.
However you cut it the only solution to housing crisis is to build more houses, both to sell and to rent.
|
"However you cut it the only solution to housing crisis is to build more houses, both to sell and to rent."
True - but that's only one side of the equation.
|
>> Is the rental market high profit? The local rental market gives a return of around
>> 5% before tax.
Similar numbers were being bandied around in the discussion this morning I referenced above. It's probably obvious but 5% for somebody purchasing at today's prices might equal 10-15% or somebody who'd bought in say 2008. The issue is the level of 'market' rents, not the return to individual landlords.
While Housing Benefit (HB) has to be looked at I'd need to understand a lot more before accepting that it was driving rents upwards. The imposition of LHA (ie a max rent payable under HB or a given bedroom count) and some landlord's reluctance to accept low income/HB tenants at all suggests a more complex equation.
I've heard the line 'agents want to see proof of income >£20k' enough times to know it's not just one or two rogue letting companies.
The solution is to increase supply dramatically. This left leaner would advocate gov borrowing while it's cheap to fund a step increase in Social Housing. But the 'right tighties' will have any number of reasons why that would be a disaster.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 8 Oct 15 at 19:40
|
>>the 'right tighties'
Does that make you a "Loose-y Leftie" ?
Any benefit will push up rents. b***** obvious.
If a substantial amount of the customer base can afford £50 then a Landlord will have to rent for that price. Or not be in the market.
If you give every one of them another £20, then the Landlord will now be able to charge £70. Even a loose-y leftie should be able to follow that.
The unwillingness to accept certain tenants is equally obvious - they treat the place like s***e and the council sides with them negating any additional profit.
You truly would not believe what some of these people do. Not all, obviously. Probably not even a majority. But enough to have an impact.
>>The solution is to increase supply dramatically
Is it/ Are there truly insufficient housing or is there insufficient available housing or is there insufficient cheap housing?
|
|
I think I read somewhere that there are about 600,000 unoccupied properties in the UK. Sorting out that issue will be part of the solution. I don't want to see more of the green countryside torn up and laden with ghastly modern boxes.
|
>> Is it/ Are there truly insufficient housing or is there insufficient available housing or is
>> there insufficient cheap housing?
There's no simple answer to that; London is a very different place to Stockton on Tees or Burnley.
Here in Northampton we have something near to full employment - which is not same thing as saying there are no jobless people - and a housing market where 'For Sale' signs are not really needed. The rent HB benefit will pay is limited to a 'Local Housing Allowance' set (AIUI) in the lower quartile of market rents. The effect is that people on subsistence level benefits have to top up rents from the part of their benefits meant to cover food and living expenses. At same time they now have to pay up to 25% of Council Tax - say £250 pa.
And a righty tighty's opposite is a loony lefty.
|
>>And a righty tighty's opposite is a loony lefty.
No, I think I'm going to stick with loose-y lefty, if its all the same.
I think that if all (unlikely I know) housing was occupied, the problem would be a great deal smaller than it is today.
Unoccupied properties here attract 20% higher taxes than occupied. Land in the city not built on attracts taxes 75% higher than land that is built on.
|
>> I think that if all (unlikely I know) housing was occupied, the problem would be
>> a great deal smaller than it is today.
I'm not clear why there would/could be significant private sector 'voids' hereabouts. Even at LHA rates a 2 bed place in Northampton will command a rent of £548.85pcm. Market value say £185k and upwards. Unless you're an expat needing a place at potentially short notice why leave somewhere empty.
>> Unoccupied properties here attract 20% higher taxes than occupied. Land in the city not built
>> on attracts taxes 75% higher than land that is built on.
The left have proposed a development land tax for years - to shouts of disgrace from the right tighties :-)
|
>> This left leaner would advocate gov borrowing while
>> it's cheap to fund a step increase in Social Housing. But the 'right tighties' will
>> have any number of reasons why that would be a disaster.
>>
We've got enough debt as it is.
|
>> We've got enough debt as it is.
What would be the cost at current long term interest rate for govt borrowing to repay interest AND capital on a million pounds over 25yrs? My arithmetic says around £50k pa - even if I'm out by factor of 10 it'd still be covered by rents in the long term.
|
>> We've got enough debt as it is.
That's true but the way to stop adding to that is to spend less, not to pay the private sector to do it for us.
We effectively have a lot of off-balance-sheet debt in respect of what are really state capital commitments for which private capital has been substituted.
An easy example is PFI-built hospitals. (split the capital cost and the running cost for a moment and consider just the capital cost). The state doesn't borrow £100 to build the hospital, which debt currently would cost £2 a year to service.
Instead it enters into a deal with a private company to build the hospital, which the government then rents at £10 a year for 30 years (an annual cost which of course increases public borrowing anyway, so that after 10 years the state has borrowed £100, but has saved about £10 in interest.)
However - it still has to find the £10 a year for another 20 years, by which time the debt is considerably higher than it would have been if it had just borrowed the money in the first place. But that will be in 2045, which is of no concern to a Chancellor in 2015.
And after 30 years, it now owes more than twice as much as it would have if it had just paid for the hospital, assuming it just rolls up the debt - £423 vs £181. Not only has it paid out £242 more, it doesn't own the hospital either. (That is partly why government debt is as high as it is - the Conservatives dreamed up PFI, and New Labour raised it to an art form).
The logic of paying private landlords instead of borrowing to build council houses is similar and the higher cost is inevitable because PFI hospital providers and private landlords both need a rental yield that will cover their cost of borrowing (higher than the government's) plus a profit for shareholders or the landlord.
In another stroke of financial genius, Osborne has just offloaded the government's 20% share of the £24bn Hinkley Point nuclear power station project to the Chinese, which will save c. £5bn of public borrowing. Only in this case, it isn't the government that will be buying the electricity, it will be us. The Chinese demanded a guaranteed 10% return (remember the cost of UK government debt was 2%) which has translated into a much higher guaranteed price for the electricity it will produce.
The big 'benefit' of private finance for public services is the almost unlimited capital available; capitalists want to invest, and nothing is safer to invest in than a government project with a payment guarantee.
But, as per the general rule of thumb with outsourcing, (©NoFM2R, 2015), it will cost more to do it properly than for the state to do it. (I should allow the theory that the private sector will be more efficient because of competition which Mrs Thatcher et al argued would make it cheaper overall - but it hasn't generally worked out that way).
Last edited by: Manatee on Thu 8 Oct 15 at 22:02
|
That problem could have been solved if the Government didn't get cold feet about the lifetime care cap, now kicked into the long grass as they will review it in 2020, i.e. after the next election which they probably will lose anyway.
The problem with old age care is that it's been a political football for too long (as indeed the whole NHS), it needs de-politicising by cross-party co-operation.
A nursing home for £20,000 p.a. - more like £60,000!!
|
TBH - I don't think ANY party, including UKIP, has the faintest idea about how ro solve the State Pension problem.
Papering over cracks is about all that has been suggested.
The text below is from UKIP's 2015 G.E.manifesto.
No hard questions answered I'm afraid, so a "fail" I think.
______________________________________________________________________
______
FLEXIBLE STATE PENSION AGE
When you have looked forward to retirement, shortnotice changes to the state pension age can wreck long-term plans. UKIP will give pensioners some choice over the age at which they choose to retire.
We will introduce a flexible state pension window, which will widen over time, so even when the state pension age increases to 69, pensioners will still be able to take a slightly lower weekly state pension from the age of 65.
Pensioners will know how much less they will be paid at the time they make their decision. At the moment, you can delay taking your state pension in return for a slightly higher amount, so UKIP’s proposal merely extends the option in the other direction. This proposal will be cost-neutral to the state over time. A flexible state pension window already works well in other
countries, notably Italy, Norway, Sweden and Finland, so there is no reason why it will not work in the UK.
Raising the retirement age to 66 by 2020 and to 67 by 2028 is hugely unpopular. It has been
especially tough for women, who until 2010 could retire at 60. Also, millions of people who can now withdraw unlimited amounts from their personal pension pot may not be well-informed enough to make the best onward investments, or avoid falling victim to scams.
PERSONAL PENSION ADVICE
With greater freedom over personal pensions comes individual responsibility for retirement finance planning. Historically, people have had limited options of when to draw down funds from their personal plans. Most were forced to take out an annuity, paid out evenly, over the course of their retirement.
Pensioners will now be making complex decisions about when and how much to take from their pension pots and, before doing so, they need expert advice to make sound, well-informed choices.
All pensioners get from the current government is 45 minutes of advice provided by the Pensions Advisory Service or Citizens Advice Bureau. This is completely inadequate when potentially lifechanging decisions are at stake. UKIP will fund a higher standard of independent
advice available to all pensioners. We will double the budget for guidance in 2015/16 from £30 million to £60 million, and treble the 2016/17 budget from £10 million to £30 million. In consultation with bodies such as the Chartered Insurance Institute and the
Personal Finance Society, we will develop a pensions advice and seminar programme that will help protect pensioners’ best interests and savings.
ANTI-SCAMMING RULES
A further concern is that pensioners with limited financial experience may become the victims of
mis-selling when they cash in their pension pots and have access to potentially large sums of money.
To prevent mis-selling, UKIP will make it a criminal offence to cold call someone in respect of their pension arrangements. This will not affect regulated advisors or pension schemes where there is already an existing relationship with a client.
Rogue, unregulated operators must not be allowed to take advantage of pensioners while lining their own pockets.
WAR WIDOWS’ PENSIONS
On 8th November 2014, the Government announced that war widows and widowers would receive a war widows’ pension for life, even after remarriage, with effect from April 2015. However, this change was not retrospective and is therefore manifestly unfair. WE will give all war widows and widowers a war pension, regardless of when they may have remarried.
|
...took due cognisance of the perfectly reasonable assumption, at that time, that the State Pension would be there for us.
Bit like we did with Child Benefit when planning our family. Fat lot of good that did us.
|
Much is made about Pensioners and how much they cost the nation.
The Basic problem is that 50%+ of the population who retire this week will be dependent on the state for everything - they will get the SRP £115+£30 uplift, rent paid, council tax paid.....as they have rented all their life, they have made little or no savings, they have little or no Employer /Personal Pension provision.
Much as saving for the future the UK population in general ignores the fact of life that 65+ years after you are born you stop working. All the new cars, continental holidays are all gone and just memories.
I am in favour of the state helping people, who, through no fault of their own making, need help in retiral.
It is galling when others ignore all warnings, by spending every last penny they earned and then moan that the Government owes them more in retirement!
|
There was a chap where I worked who was coming up to retirement with no pension provision other than the state pension. He had worked there for only a few years and wasn't in the pension scheme. When I asked him why he didn't want free money (pay 5% in, get 15% of salary with the employer's contribution) he said it wasn't worth it as it would make so little difference.
When I looked into it using a benefits calculator, he was right. I used assumptions very similar to FB's above.
If he had an occupational pension of £100 a week, he would have "lost" over £90 in tax and benefits. Considering that £100 a week of RPI linked income would cost probably £200,000 to buy as an annuity, it's easy to see why low paid people don't bother. Unless you can build up a decent amount, you'll be very little better off.
That's the wrong way to look at it of course - we should all be self supporting if we can, even of it means that we are only at par with people who are state supported.
That's the deadweight cost of welfare - for every £1 of gap you fill, you need another £2 for people who will see it as an option.
Last edited by: Manatee on Tue 6 Oct 15 at 14:14
|
The problem is that you have to save for a pension as much of your working life as possible, preferably all of it, saving for the last few years doesn't get you anything worthwhile, and for too many people there is always something more important to spend the money on.
I know for some it is to feed clothe & house their families but for many others it would be possible to put something away for the future.
A large part of the battle for any government to lower the overall "benefits" bill is the acceptance that it's the governments responsibility to provide a basic standard of living in retirement and not the individual who could have done something about it for themselves
The welfare state was created for those who needed help not those who chose / choose not to help themselves.
I am aware all that sounds very right wing and heartless, it's just what I have observed in the last few decades of growing up / growing older.
Tuesday rant over :-)
|
|
May I apologize for a post that is unworthy of this forum....and certainly of a Mod. It was highlighted in an e-mail that I shouldn't have done that. Please accept my humbles etc. It won't happen again. I was slightly "delighted" about something about which I'll post tonight. Sorry...mae'n ddrwg gennyf.
Last edited by: R.P. on Tue 6 Oct 15 at 14:37
|
>> May I apologize a post that is unworthy of this forum....and certainly of the Mod.
>> It was highlighted in an e-mail that I shouldn't have done that. Please accept my
>> humbles etc. It won't happen again. I was slightly "delighted" about something about which I'll
>> post tonight. Sorry...mae'n ddrwg gennyf.
I never saw the actual words complained of but you clearly spoke for quite a few of us.
|
I don't know about unworthy, bit naughty perhaps. I don't know whether or not you would have deleted me if I had done the same, I suspect not.
Still, on balance probably marginally better not written.
But...
According to the Frownie face scale and your post it would appear that two people were offended enough to "frown" it and at least one to go so far as to email you. (I just went and "thumbed" it for balance).
Seems a little OTT.
I worry that people find offence so unacceptable these days. I'm not saying we should like it, just that we should be more willing to put up with it. I do feel that in olden, pre-electronic days we were rather more robust than we are now.
Surely anybody with character will eventually offend someone, simply by virtue of that character. We should be prepared to tolerate more than we do.
IM(NH)O, of course.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 6 Oct 15 at 14:53
|
At least the swear filter here works 99% of the time without asterisking out motoring words.
Over in HJ a mod added the word 'drivel' to the filter; any reference to driveline (OK perhaps should be two words) gets censored.
|
|
Don't get me wrong, I think its good that we have a swear filter. I think we, as a race, are too quick to be *offended*.
|
>> Don't get me wrong, I think its good that we have a swear filter. I
>> think we, as a race, are too quick to be *offended*.
>>
:-)
|
" I think we, as a race, are too quick to be *offended*"
Well I never, you are agreeing with Richard Littlejohn's piece in today's Mail on line ;-)
|
>> you are agreeing with Richard Littlejohn's piece in today's Mail on line
s'bit depressing.
|
For the record: I was the one who emailed. I gave a frowny face.
I wasn't offended by the words or asterisks at all.
I WAS offended by the fact the same Mod who wrote them, some years ago deleted a post of mine containing B******s.
I don't believe in double standards, I never will but I do believe in Karma:)
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Tue 6 Oct 15 at 15:38
|
Fair enough.
My 'b*******' was edited to 'rubbish' the other day.
(which will shortly read "My 'rubbish' was edited to 'rubbish' the other day")
I see no need for e***** and worse though, even implied by asterisks.
Offended might be the wrong word, but there was a lot of it going on recently between grown up people, having a more or less normal conversation, in the pub. They were also the sort of people who speak at a volume such that everybody in the pub could hear them. The landlord, an educated ex city financial services type, was part of the conversation. No need for it.
|
|
Somebody is taking the pith.
|
>>e*****
?? Another clue?
|
>> >>e*****
>>
>> ?? Another clue?
ffing
|
|
Much as a swear filter is a good idea, I cannot believe that "effing" is censored. Now that really is getting silly. Even my Mother talks about people "effing and blinding"
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 6 Oct 15 at 17:54
|
>> Thanks.
They weren't my asterisks. The previous one in the same post at 16.05 began with boll and ended in eaux, the concatenated version of which now seems to have been added to the swear filter. I can't remember what was in the post that was entirely erased, but it wouldn't have got me chucked out of a vicarage tea party.
|
b******* is in the swear filter?
Violet Elizabeth probably chucked his teddybear and did that as it was used two or three times after he'd edited yours from "bolleaux" to "rubbish"
Given that the swear filter is soooo easily bypassed, you'd think a little restraint about what was put in it might be appropriate.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 6 Oct 15 at 18:04
|
|
Sorry Pat...:-( I hang my head in shame..I shouldn't have posted. You don't half have long memory though. Hope I've be contrite enough !
|
Apology accepted and it was never needed RP, I wasn't offended!
It just made me remember how mortified I felt when you removed my post all those years ago for what was to me, as a lorry driver, a perfectly normal word:)
I knew if I waited long enough I'd get my own back;)
Pat
|
>> Over in HJ a mod added the word 'drivel' to the filter; any reference to driveline (OK perhaps should be two words) gets censored.
The moderation over in that place was often well over the top at times, almost to the point of being entertaining.
|
If all you schoolchildren have stopped sniggering about who can say the naughtiest word, let's get back to the original post - the olds
I have have just woken up to the fact I am one of them, and now at 61, I have finally started to abuse the system, and claiming senior rates at many locations and venues
Now that's bleeding excelent, so the tax payers alliance can sod off
|
You are old....you're spelling has gone to pot!
Pat
|
>> You are old....you're spelling has gone to pot!
Your, surely? :-)
|
I know I'm old MS, but he thinks he isn't yet;)
Pat
|
>> I know I'm old MS, but he thinks he isn't yet;)
You are both whippersnappers actually. I was at least 15 before either of you popped out.
Not saying you aren't old before your time though.
|
>> Not saying you aren't old before your time though.
Well past it, some might say. This is definitely my last year of work. I retired once a while back and was lured back to work, by popular demand. This time it will be permanent, I've been to more funerals this last year than the last ten combined. Men seem to croak before women.
|
I was surprised to get a letter a few months ago inviting me to claim winter fuel allowance as I'm a mere 62 and 3/4. I phoned up thinking it would be some sort of means test thing but after asking a few details I was told the money would be paid to me in November.
What the hell, I ain't sending it back. As FM once quite rightly said, pay all your dues and claim all your entitlements, that's how the system works. If the system needs to change for the greater benefit, that's what we elect a government to do.
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Tue 6 Oct 15 at 19:38
|
>> I was surprised to get a letter a few months ago inviting me to claim
>> winter fuel allowance as I'm a mere 62 and 3/4.
You'll have to wait until 65 (or whatever age applies for your DoB) to claim the Retirement Pension. However, Pension Credit and benefits like WFP start from the date a woman with your DoB would get them.
www.citizensadvice.org.uk/benefits/older-people/benefits-for-older-people/#h-winter-fuel-payment-1
|
>> Well past it, some might say. This is definitely my last year of work.
I was really referring to Pat and Zero MS. Are you too a youngster in your fifties or early sixties? They're everywhere these days, getting under one's feet and being sprauncy.
Genuine nippers are promised for the weekend. They always cheer one up a bit.
|
I'm really looking forward to December this year, as from the 19th. I shall become entitled to £0.25 per week increase to my State Pension "benefit".
Riches beyond the dreams of avarice.
Last edited by: Roger. on Wed 7 Oct 15 at 13:19
|
>>I shall become entitled to £0.25 per week increase to my State Pension "benefit".
What's that for Dodger, will you have reached a certain age or something?
|
Introduced as a supplement for over 80s in 1971 by Keith Joseph. It has never been increased.
"It has never been uprated, with successive Governments either arguing that greater priority should be given to protecting the level of the basic benefits, or choosing to target additional resources at older pensioners by other means, for example, through means-tested benefits or lump sum payments, such as the Winter Fuel Payment."
Had it increased with RPI, it would be about £3.15 now.
|
>> >>I shall become entitled to £0.25 per week increase to my State Pension "benefit".
>>
>> What's that for Dodger, will you have reached a certain age or something?
>>
Pay attention at the back!
www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=20781&m=459109
|
Tax Payera Alliance - madf
