www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57762787
So should it be a possible 8% increase for pensioners on the old age pension?
|
|
8% is very much an abnormal distortion, so it shouldn't really be paid. Be nice if it was tho.
|
>> 8% is very much an abnormal distortion, so it shouldn't really be paid. Be nice
>> if it was tho.
Can you imagine the fuss if an accident of statistics led to working age benefits being increased by 8%?
|
The thinking behind the triple lock was gradually to raise pensions (presumably, because "best of 3" and the ratchet effect - it never goes down - can only have that effect).
However it clearly is an anomaly, which arose because wages went down so much last year.
On the basis that our pensions are still among the lowest, it should be paid. Against that, there is the anomalous nature of the calculation this year and the parlous state of public finances.
It's a poser for the Conservatives because pensioners vote, and usually Conservative. Fewer than 20% of over 65's vote Labour, and over 60% Conservative (YouGov, following the last GE).
Apart from suggesting that people do not get wiser as they get older, this is astonishing because they benefit far more than any other age group from socialist ideas, such as the state pension, the NHS, free prescriptions and so on.
|
At a guess they more worried about inheritance tax and having to sell their home to pay for care under a labour government than a Conservative one.
There must be some research about what the top issues are for pensioners?
|
As a pensioner, albeit only partly reliant on the state contribution, I think it wrong that pensioners should benefit from an anomaly.
It covers a period where most of the financial burden has and will continue to fall on the young who largely complied with restrictions to protect the elderly and vulnerable.
I would favour a (say) 4% increase this year with any balance made up in the following year when the economy will have settled back to a status quo.
Given the comment re Labour/Tory support, would the Labour party support a proposal to smooth the anomaly or see it as an opportunity to play politics and vote against.
|
|
If an adverse temporary blip in statistics pointed to a lower than expected increase in pensions, but they should really be higher, do you think the State would be so generous as to acknowledge that and pay the underlying correct increase or would they stick with the lower increase?
|
>> If an adverse temporary blip in statistics pointed to a lower than expected increase in
>> pensions, but they should really be higher, do you think the State would be so
>> generous as to acknowledge that and pay the underlying correct increase or would they stick
>> with the lower increase?
If wages had been artificially high last year, then I would expect a 2.5% increase unless RPI were higher than that. Also, it would imply that we had already had a large rise last year?
I know what you're driving at but it doesn't arise because of the triple lock. Last year, wages were anomalously down because of furlough etc, but we didn't suffer a cut because of the RPI link and the 2.5% collar.
|
>> I know what you're driving at but it doesn't arise because of the triple lock.
>> Last year, wages were anomalously down because of furlough etc, but we didn't suffer a
>> cut because of the RPI link and the 2.5% collar.
Not sure I follow that.
The triple lock ties pensions to best of 3 from RPI, 2.5% or pay. This year the pay stat is anomalous because wages actually fell last year and have now recovered.
|
It would be politically very hard to justify removing the £20/week Universal Credit uplift and failing to allow the benefit's Housing Cost Element track market rents while giving pensioners a windfall.
Bashing claimants was politically popular when George Osborne was in his pomp but the public have now seen the reality. Polls suggest that retaining the £20, which puts the Standard Allowance (the money the rules say you need for bills, food etc) back at the value it had 30+ years ago, is supported by the public.
Governments of both stripes allowed its value to be eaten away while Statutory Sick Pay was consistently uprated according to RPI/CPI.
|
Polls suggest that retaining the £20, which puts the Standard
>> Allowance (the money the rules say you need for bills, food etc) back at the
>> value it had 30+ years ago, is supported by the public.
>>
I'd say most members of the public have no idea what the standard allowance is. So I doubt it's some sort of no-go for the government.
>> It would be politically very hard to justify removing the £20/week Universal Credit uplift and
>> failing to allow the benefit's Housing Cost Element track market rents while giving pensioners a
>> windfall.
I wouldn't be too sure about, but we'll see soon enough.
|
>> I'd say most members of the public have no idea what the standard allowance is.
>> So I doubt it's some sort of no-go for the government.
I chose to describe the mechanism but I think the public have a pretty good idea what £20/week of benefit paid to the poorest means.
|
Other polls, including one by me amongst almost both of my mates, say that the public are always happy for allowances and expenditure to be increased, until they realise that it will cost them more in tax.
On a more serious note, I know we are all virtuous here and would be happy to forgo the rise but I don't believe we are particularly representative of the vast majority of pensioners in terms of wealth. There are many living in near-poverty whose voice should be heard too, even though the rise is a windfall.
|
>> >> I'd say most members of the public have no idea what the standard allowance
>> is.
>> >> So I doubt it's some sort of no-go for the government.
>>
>> I chose to describe the mechanism but I think the public have a pretty good
>> idea what £20/week of benefit paid to the poorest means.
Polls may well show that, doesn't mean people are bothered enough to make it an issue. I wouldn't say there's a big ground swell that supports an increase in benefits, the statement is next week(?) so not long to wait.
|
Problem may not be that benefits are too low or need increasing - apparently ~£16bn is unclaimed. Main elements unclaimed are housing benefit, job seekers allowance, council tax support, pension credit.
Thus it may be true to say both that "some people are living in real poverty and benefits need to be increased" and "benefits are high enough to provide a basic but acceptable standard of living to all that need support".
Rather than perpetually complaining that benefits are too low, charities should provide more active support to ensure that people collect that to which they are entitled, and governments should more actively encourage benefit take up.
Both groups would no doubt assert they are doing their best - but the best is simply not good enough!
|
>> Problem may not be that benefits are too low or need increasing - apparently ~£16bn
>> is unclaimed. Main elements unclaimed are housing benefit, job seekers allowance, council tax support, pension
>> credit.
The question of whether working age benefits are actually enough to live on can be answered by looking at the figures. £323.70/month for a single adult over 25 isn't a lot. Less so when you have to meet a chunk of Council Tax out of it. Private sector rents are often not met in full and the Benefit Cap can easily catch a couple with two children.
I agree that claim rates can and should be improved but those who fail to claim are not all ignorant of what they might claim. Those who are missing out are difficult (and costly) to reach. The utility companies' Priority Services registers and assessment for Social Tariffs are a powerful tool here.
The £16billion figure is analysed by the charity Entitled To here:
www.entitledto.co.uk/blog/2020/february/16-billion-remains-unclaimed-in-means-tested-benefits-each-year/
Oddly, there are no figures there for Universal Credit. Of the benefits mentioned both forms of Tax Credits and the Income Based/Related versions of Job Seekers Allowance are no longer available to new claimants. Housing Benefit claims can be made by pensioners but for working age people new claims have to be Universal Credit.
Tax Credits are complicated being based on previous year's earnings. Overpayments are common and a disastrous heavy handed compliance exercise carried out by Concentrix further undermined confidence. People were choosing not to claim for those reasons.
Universal Credit actually works very well for claimants in work as it directly tracks pay as reported to HMRC. It's also been shown by the pandemic to be very robust. The five week wait for payments is 'baked in' as the benefit is a single monthly lump sum to replicate salary. First payment is one month plus one week after claim.
Every Council in England has its own scheme for Council Tax Reduction based on low income. Complete nightmare. Another of Osborne's wheeze's; devolve it to the Councils then reduce the funding year on year.
No wonder it's underclaimed.
|
|
People on Benefits dont vote Tory, Pensioners do.
|
|
Ignore, apparently I can't use a commonplace word for a serious telling off.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 10 Jul 21 at 14:10
|
|
You mean even a dumb swear filter knows when you are wrong?
|
>>The question of whether working age benefits are actually enough to live on can be answered by looking at the figures. £323.70/month for a single adult over 25<<
I have just done input details of a hypothetical 30 year old single man living in rented accomodation into a benefits calculator. It comes up with £215 per week (approx £900/month) including £18 means tested benefits and the current £20 uplift Rishi wants back. I assume this includes help with rent.
There is a real danger in headlining figures which sometimes over-dramatise the problem - it can engender a lack of sympathy through exaggeration. Having said that it cannot be easy surviving on £900 per month including rent!!
|
>> >>The question of whether working age benefits are actually enough to live on can be
>> answered by looking at the figures. £323.70/month for a single adult over 25<<
>>
>> I have just done input details of a hypothetical 30 year old single man living
>> in rented accomodation into a benefits calculator. It comes up with £215 per week (approx
>> £900/month) including £18 means tested benefits and the current £20 uplift Rishi wants back.
|
>>£900 including rent.
You can't get a bedsit around here for under £125 a week. Plus council tax, plus light and heat.
It's got to be subsistence living.
|
|
What local authority is that Zippy?
|
>> What local authority is that Zippy?
>>
Lewes.
Last edited by: zippy on Sat 10 Jul 21 at 18:11
|
And here are the max amounts for Shared Accom in Lewes.
tinyurl.com/3ntxcfm9
|
>> And here are the max amounts for Shared Accom in Lewes.
>>
>> tinyurl.com/3ntxcfm9
>>
Thanks.
All well below what the actuals are meaning that those on benefits have to eat in to their food and clothing allowances.
(Nephew has just rented a fairly basic one bedroom flat in Eastbourne and it's about £750pm plus bills!)
Last edited by: zippy on Sat 10 Jul 21 at 20:58
|
>> >>The question of whether working age benefits are actually enough to live on can be
>> answered by looking at the figures. £323.70/month for a single adult over 25<<
>>
>> I have just done input details of a hypothetical 30 year old single man living
>> in rented accomodation into a benefits calculator. It comes up with £215 per week (approx
>> £900/month) including £18 means tested benefits and the current £20 uplift Rishi wants back.
That result is surprisingly high. Which calculator did you use and what assumption about rent?
A single man aged 30, unless he had a serious disability, renting privately would be expected to live in a shared house. Round here that would give a max weekly rent of £89.50 week and monthly UC of £799.34. If they were lucky enough to be in self contained council property they'd get the full rent but be paying 20% of the Council Tax.
Adding the rent in increases the 'headline' figure but has no effect on what the claimant has to keep themselves fed, warm and clothed. The rent element, in a private let, is subsidising the landlord's pension. That's the road that led to the benefit cap.
|
It was a response to your comment about voting.
Some years ago we were being briefed before a volunteer advice session. One update concerned some change which was to the detriment of the homeless. A colleague chipped in from the side-lines to the effect the homeless don't vote Tory.
The session supervisor tore him off a massive strip.
My previous version incuded and allusion to testicles.
|
>> A colleague chipped in from
>> the side-lines to the effect the homeless don't vote Tory.
>>
Unfortunately, I suspect the poor and underprivileged don't vote in great numbers at all, which is why they get treated in the way they are.
Whilst not black and white, I know a family that milk the system for everything they can and have no intention of ever working. I also know a hard working but very poor family who struggle to get the financial help they need due to crap zero hour contracts.
|
Not really rubbish, most pensioners (2/3) vote Con I think it's been that way for a while. Not sure about the bit about people on benefits.
docs.cdn.yougov.com/y7uow6z2dq/TheTimes_VotingIntention_Track_210630_W_BPC.pdf
Loads of stats here.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Sat 10 Jul 21 at 18:07
|
Pension increase - Zero
