The Politics Thread

[BWFC_Insane]

I think the problem is at least partly the government needing ever increasing tax receipts to cover the stupid spending they make. Probably help if the very rich paid meaningful rates of tax too. Oh, and instead of the government .paying for yesterdays folk with today folk money, maybe invest some of it and use the returns off that.

Reform will just cut everything so I guess that’s their theory. For years I’ve worked alongside public sector organisations and the ‘oh they are so wasteful’ is continuous. Yet our health and public sector inflation mirrors pretty much most other comparables. Except we have spent significant periods paying under the rate. Maybe a false economy.

But I just know that like in the US slashing expenditure simply won’t work, won’t address the problems and will cost more in the end. And that whilst there are some obvious inefficiencies the vast bulk is not.

I'm talking about choosing with more wisdom what we spend it on at government level. Worthy will talk about procurement feck* and rightly so. Our, and many other governments are very good at handing large amounts of cash to the likes of G4S, Capita and the ilk. These companies are only good for sucking up money for shareholders and executive pay. They deliver nothing better than a far cheaper competent civil servant.

Instead of pissing money up the wall of migrant removal, hotels and detention centres (how many G4S et al contract are involved here?) (all of which costs a fortune), we could look at either re-joining the schemes and conventions we left during Brexit, or negotiating similar arrangements. I don't think its an accident that the leaving of these conventions and the increase in illegal migration happened at the same time. Instead, we could invest a relatively modest amount in providing safe legal routes for asylum and use the aforementioned arrangements for removal of those that should be removed.

Did we really need to spend £12b plus on aircraft carriers (plus ongoing maintenance) and then stick really expensive F35s on them? How much money was spent on HS2? We all knew it wouldn't get north of Birmingham, yet we spent billions. Should we be subsidising fine dining in Parliament? A more basic canteen cafe set-up would save millions. If MPs want fine dining then they can pay full price for it. How many billions are we spending on the Houses of Parliament to keep it useable despite it not being fit for purpose regardless of what they do or spend. Either sell it, or turn it into a museum and build something fit for purpose for a fraction of the cost.

There are thousands of examples and fixing a few would make a difference and put more money in the pot for things that actually matter.

I think that most of it though is pretty small fry. And it’s complex. Defence spending helps drive some economic activity. Infrastructure is desperately needed - yet all our infrastructure projects are dreadful.

I don’t entirely disagree with lots of what you say I just don’t really think the answers to the problem is stopping what we spend. Though for sure there are things we should.

I’d personally scale back quite a bit of the NHS. It’s sad in a way but it’s also incredibly bloated and I think we need to get real with what can be offered and when. That needs a frank conversation with the public but I can’t see it happening. We are trying to mirror south East Asian prevention schemes but I don’t see those working so well here. And that adds cost of course on top.

There are other obvious but tough things. Like why on earth do we have the pension triple lock? But touching that is politically toxic so nobody will.

[Worthy4England]

The last paragraph, needs the context that state pensions are something that people paid in to. You don't have a full set of stamps, you don't get a full pension. The State's job was to invest that money so it retained value on behalf of its beneficiaries. This is fundamentally different than other payments to people. If they want to pay me out, what I paid in, at the amounts + inflation adjustments, they can send me details of the pot value...

[BWFC_Insane]

The last paragraph, needs the context that state pensions are something that people paid in to. You don't have a full set of stamps, you don't get a full pension. The State's job was to invest that money so it retained value on behalf of its beneficiaries. This is fundamentally different than other payments to people. If they want to pay me out, what I paid in, at the amounts + inflation adjustments, they can send me details of the pot value...

The problem is that isn’t true. Not entirely. It’s a benefit. That can be reduced or changed at any time. See for example the changes to pension age and pension amount. It’s not and never has been a guarantee of a return. Indeed if a government wants to say ‘sorry there will be no more state pension from X’ they can do - theoretically at least.

And as far as I understand it state pensions are reliant to a substantive degree on current NICs - there are no individually managed pots and doesn’t work like a DC or private pension schemes. Yes there is the overall investment pot but that covers broader social security payments and the NHS - not just state pensions.

[Worthy4England]

The last paragraph, needs the context that state pensions are something that people paid in to. You don't have a full set of stamps, you don't get a full pension. The State's job was to invest that money so it retained value on behalf of its beneficiaries. This is fundamentally different than other payments to people. If they want to pay me out, what I paid in, at the amounts + inflation adjustments, they can send me details of the pot value...

The problem is that isn’t true. Not entirely. It’s a benefit. That can be reduced or changed at any time. See for example the changes to pension age and pension amount. It’s not and never has been a guarantee of a return. Indeed if a government wants to say ‘sorry there will be no more state pension from X’ they can do - theoretically at least.

And as far as I understand it state pensions are reliant to a substantive degree on current NICs - there are no individually managed pots and doesn’t work like a DC or private pension schemes. Yes there is the overall investment pot but that covers broader social security payments and the NHS - not just state pensions.

I think you're correct, in typed words and legalese, but I think morally, just about no one sees state pensions as a "benefit," other than those that don't want to honour previous commitments, if they have a 35 year stamp paid. How would people in 1980 have reacted if you told them "you're paying into this fund for your pension (which was the narrative at the time), but in 40 years, we're not going to pay it, but instead use that money for other people? See you in 40 years time."

I think stamp holders are not unreasonable to see it as an entitlement, rather than a benefit. Private/personal pensions "for the masses" wasn't a thing for most until the mid/late 80's. For me it's little different than the government (national or local) direct benefits/final salary pensions, if we're still paying out on them, that was a commitment and should be honoured.

The system was not designed initially to cover people who have very little intention of working, nor the sheer volume of "invalidity," payments. It was never envisaged that we'd have to top up people who are actually working but don't get paid enough and provide family credits and the like.

There's lots of things this system was never envisaged to do. To be clear, if you didn't have stamps, you didn't get benefit when it was first introduced (not directly funded by it anyhow). Government should honour the commitments that have been made, to people who have contributed to the system over the years - not weasel out on them. I mean they're already changing the age at which it applies and have removed various benefits (like widows pensions) down the years. So it's not as if no reform has not occurred. On pensions, they should reform other shit first, IMO.

[BWFC_Insane]

The last paragraph, needs the context that state pensions are something that people paid in to. You don't have a full set of stamps, you don't get a full pension. The State's job was to invest that money so it retained value on behalf of its beneficiaries. This is fundamentally different than other payments to people. If they want to pay me out, what I paid in, at the amounts + inflation adjustments, they can send me details of the pot value...

The problem is that isn’t true. Not entirely. It’s a benefit. That can be reduced or changed at any time. See for example the changes to pension age and pension amount. It’s not and never has been a guarantee of a return. Indeed if a government wants to say ‘sorry there will be no more state pension from X’ they can do - theoretically at least.

And as far as I understand it state pensions are reliant to a substantive degree on current NICs - there are no individually managed pots and doesn’t work like a DC or private pension schemes. Yes there is the overall investment pot but that covers broader social security payments and the NHS - not just state pensions.

I think you're correct, in typed words and legalese, but I think morally, just about no one sees state pensions as a "benefit," other than those that don't want to honour previous commitments, if they have a 35 year stamp paid. How would people in 1980 have reacted if you told them "you're paying into this fund for your pension (which was the narrative at the time), but in 40 years, we're not going to pay it, but instead use that money for other people? See you in 40 years time."

I think stamp holders are not unreasonable to see it as an entitlement, rather than a benefit. Private/personal pensions "for the masses" wasn't a thing for most until the mid/late 80's. For me it's little different than the government (national or local) direct benefits/final salary pensions, if we're still paying out on them, that was a commitment and should be honoured.

The system was not designed initially to cover people who have very little intention of working, nor the sheer volume of "invalidity," payments. It was never envisaged that we'd have to top up people who are actually working but don't get paid enough and provide family credits and the like.

There's lots of things this system was never envisaged to do. To be clear, if you didn't have stamps, you didn't get benefit when it was first introduced (not directly funded by it anyhow). Government should honour the commitments that have been made, to people who have contributed to the system over the years - not weasel out on them. I mean they're already changing the age at which it applies and have removed various benefits (like widows pensions) down the years. So it's not as if no reform has not occurred. On pensions, they should reform other shit first, IMO.

People don’t want to see it like that but then that isn’t relevant to reality. I said it was too politically toxic but future generations aren’t going to get the deal. And will have to cope with it.

Personally I think it is a typical example of how we as a generation have shafted those who come after and I fundamentally don’t like it.

I agree it’s too politically toxic but then so are many things. And that doesn’t mean some brave government won’t one day have to tackle them.

[Worthy4England]

I'm not resistant to changing it. But it needs to be a "40 year plan." People have factored in as part of their personal pension planning, that they'd get a state pension. If they say it'll go away in 40 years from now, they should reduce NICs and allow people to make an informed decision.

We have not shafted anyone (assuming we've followed the rules.) Governments, economics and entitled people have.

[BWFC_Insane]

I'm not resistant to changing it. But it needs to be a "40 year plan." People have factored in as part of their personal pension planning, that they'd get a state pension. If they say it'll go away in 40 years from now, they should reduce NICs and allow people to make an informed decision.

We have not shafted anyone (assuming we've followed the rules.) Governments, economics and entitled people have.

I mean I don’t disagree but nobody was promised the triple lock.

There is a generation of people who have managed to get lucky (not all of them of course but enough) to gain huge amounts of property wealth in many cases through no effort on their part. At the same time want their pensions to be protected against cost of living - yet many seem very resistant to working people getting rises in line with inflation and indeed resistant to the idea that given a young person now through no fault of their own needs a massively disproportionate deposit:salary ratio.

And you say it’s not their fault - and I mean I agree individually. But collectively this generation voted for crushing unions and collective bargaining suppressing wages and indeed seemed to collectively (not all) be very keen on cuts and austerity to protect their property investments.

And they are the landlord and property investment generation.

I am of course generalizing and I realise that this doesn’t apply to all - but I do think that our generations have screwed it for what comes next on a pretty grand scale. I agree that ultimately you look at governments etc but they are ultimately a reflection of the times and peoples views. I find it ironic that many of the people who will scream about recent complaints about rising inflation and interest rates as ‘well you had it so good for so long this is just normal toughen up’ are the very people who benefitted from it being so good for so long at the expense of others and took it to extremes in some cases.

[Worthy4England]

I'm not resistant to changing it. But it needs to be a "40 year plan." People have factored in as part of their personal pension planning, that they'd get a state pension. If they say it'll go away in 40 years from now, they should reduce NICs and allow people to make an informed decision.

We have not shafted anyone (assuming we've followed the rules.) Governments, economics and entitled people have.

I mean I don’t disagree but nobody was promised the triple lock.

There is a generation of people who have managed to get lucky (not all of them of course but enough) to gain huge amounts of property wealth in many cases through no effort on their part. At the same time want their pensions to be protected against cost of living - yet many seem very resistant to working people getting rises in line with inflation and indeed resistant to the idea that given a young person now through no fault of their own needs a massively disproportionate deposit:salary ratio.

And you say it’s not their fault - and I mean I agree individually. But collectively this generation voted for crushing unions and collective bargaining suppressing wages and indeed seemed to collectively (not all) be very keen on cuts and austerity to protect their property investments.

And they are the landlord and property investment generation.

I am of course generalizing and I realise that this doesn’t apply to all - but I do think that our generations have screwed it for what comes next on a pretty grand scale. I agree that ultimately you look at governments etc but they are ultimately a reflection of the times and peoples views. I find it ironic that many of the people who will scream about recent complaints about rising inflation and interest rates as ‘well you had it so good for so long this is just normal toughen up’ are the very people who benefitted from it being so good for so long at the expense of others and took it to extremes in some cases.

Where to begin. Maybe at the beginning. You want income (wages) to keep in line with the buying power it had. I agree. Pensions are also income, so they should be treated similarly - not precious about the triple lock - but some mechanism. All good so far. Your solution to the problem of wages not keeping up, doesn't seem to involve any form of policy directed at the people who pay wages. You know corporations that have been making record profits and buying their own shares back to make them look smaller than they are - that's where your wage stagnation is coming from (and I hesitate to use the narrative stagnation, it's gone backwards)

This has nothing to do with house ownership. That's just lazy politics, easy targets and economics. This has everything to do with company profits and the salaries they pay.

[BWFC_Insane]

I'm not resistant to changing it. But it needs to be a "40 year plan." People have factored in as part of their personal pension planning, that they'd get a state pension. If they say it'll go away in 40 years from now, they should reduce NICs and allow people to make an informed decision.

We have not shafted anyone (assuming we've followed the rules.) Governments, economics and entitled people have.

I mean I don’t disagree but nobody was promised the triple lock.

There is a generation of people who have managed to get lucky (not all of them of course but enough) to gain huge amounts of property wealth in many cases through no effort on their part. At the same time want their pensions to be protected against cost of living - yet many seem very resistant to working people getting rises in line with inflation and indeed resistant to the idea that given a young person now through no fault of their own needs a massively disproportionate deposit:salary ratio.

And you say it’s not their fault - and I mean I agree individually. But collectively this generation voted for crushing unions and collective bargaining suppressing wages and indeed seemed to collectively (not all) be very keen on cuts and austerity to protect their property investments.

And they are the landlord and property investment generation.

I am of course generalizing and I realise that this doesn’t apply to all - but I do think that our generations have screwed it for what comes next on a pretty grand scale. I agree that ultimately you look at governments etc but they are ultimately a reflection of the times and peoples views. I find it ironic that many of the people who will scream about recent complaints about rising inflation and interest rates as ‘well you had it so good for so long this is just normal toughen up’ are the very people who benefitted from it being so good for so long at the expense of others and took it to extremes in some cases.

Where to begin. Maybe at the beginning. You want income (wages) to keep in line with the buying power it had. I agree. Pensions are also income, so they should be treated similarly - not precious about the triple lock - but some mechanism. All good so far. Your solution to the problem of wages not keeping up, doesn't seem to involve any form of policy directed at the people who pay wages. You know corporations that have been making record profits and buying their own shares back to make them look smaller than they are - that's where your wage stagnation is coming from (and I hesitate to use the narrative stagnation, it's gone backwards)

This has nothing to do with house ownership. That's just lazy politics, easy targets and economics. This has everything to do with company profits and the salaries they pay.

Hang on though. Wages haven’t kept up. I mean they are now (Labour government…) but weren’t previously. So workers had to lump it. Only pensioners in houses worth sometimes 10x what they paid for them had their incomes protected.

Link them to public sector real terms wage rises. Then when a government says ‘sorry but you get a 1% rise against inflation at 6%’ it’s exactly the same for pensions. And the other way when governments manage to increase wages above inflation pensioners also enjoy that.

Why should they be protected above and beyond anyone else?

[Worthy4England]

Yes wages haven't kept up, I've said that a few times. That is and was bad, but that wasn't caused by state pensioners, that was caused by employers. Your question should be why are employers protected against having to keep wages up with inflation, surely? Why did we allow zero hours contracts? etc. etc. It's sort of like you don't think I'm a worker, long time since I've seen anything above 1% too - including this year. So we're expected to fund 6% for government employees whilst we got 1%. Really? I'd rather give it to uprate an 11k pension tbf.

I'm not sure how many times I can say "I'm not precious about the triple lock," but there should be some uprating of pensions to mitigate inflation. We're a long way from being the most generous in Europe. The standard annual pension is £11k. I mean you'd want to defend someone earning £11k per annum, wouldn't you? You'd be nearly eating yourself. The average earnings in the UK are £37k. Are you suggesting pensioners should get less than £11k? Does it cost less to live as a pensioner, compared to someone earning £37k - I mean if there's two of you that's £74k vs two pensioners at £22k.

So onto house prices, I mean not sure I should need to at this point, but more dull maths. The average house price in 1980 was £23k - the average house price today is £268k. That doesn't equate to 10x, if you move £23k by the inflation over 45 years, you get to something like £140k. It's maybe double. But moving swiftly on, if the pensioner sells their house as £268k (and retains it all) and let's hypothesize that they live for 15 years post sale to average age - they get £9k per annum each (they'll get more because they'll invest the principal), to add to their £11k. So they're up to £20k.

You really need to think things through.

[Worthy4England]

Oh and just for good measure, they'll pay tax on it, to pay for the increasing volume of work-shy. And need to pay rent because they no longer have a house to live in.

Isn't that just a stroke of luck.

[BWFC_Insane]

Yes wages haven't kept up, I've said that a few times. That is and was bad, but that wasn't caused by state pensioners, that was caused by employers. Your question should be why are employers protected against having to keep wages up with inflation, surely? Why did we allow zero hours contracts? etc. etc. It's sort of like you don't think I'm a worker, long time since I've seen anything above 1% too - including this year. So we're expected to fund 6% for government employees whilst we got 1%. Really? I'd rather give it to uprate an 11k pension tbf.

I'm not sure how many times I can say "I'm not precious about the triple lock," but there should be some uprating of pensions to mitigate inflation. We're a long way from being the most generous in Europe. The standard annual pension is £11k. I mean you'd want to defend someone earning £11k per annum, wouldn't you? You'd be nearly eating yourself. The average earnings in the UK are £37k. Are you suggesting pensioners should get less than £11k? Does it cost less to live as a pensioner, compared to someone earning £37k - I mean if there's two of you that's £74k vs two pensioners at £22k.

So onto house prices, I mean not sure I should need to at this point, but more dull maths. The average house price in 1980 was £23k - the average house price today is £268k. That doesn't equate to 10x, if you move £23k by the inflation over 45 years, you get to something like £140k. It's maybe double. But moving swiftly on, if the pensioner sells their house as £268k (and retains it all) and let's hypothesize that they live for 15 years post sale to average age - they get £9k per annum each (they'll get more because they'll invest the principal), to add to their £11k. So they're up to £20k.

You really need to think things through.

What was the average salary in 1980? And relative to the house price?

I am simply suggesting that we stop giving pensioners the gold carpet special treatment and treat affordability of the social state and pensions in the same way we do public services and salaries.

If it were up to me we’d means test pensions and people who needed it would get more than £11K but I also think realistically those who sit on fortunes or have huge private pensions shouldn’t be receiving it. For me our problem is we can only afford to do so much and that should all be targeted where it’s most needed. Same principle for child benefits etc in my view. We need to stop handing money out where it isn’t needed and push more where it is.

[Worthy4England]

Yes wages haven't kept up, I've said that a few times. That is and was bad, but that wasn't caused by state pensioners, that was caused by employers. Your question should be why are employers protected against having to keep wages up with inflation, surely? Why did we allow zero hours contracts? etc. etc. It's sort of like you don't think I'm a worker, long time since I've seen anything above 1% too - including this year. So we're expected to fund 6% for government employees whilst we got 1%. Really? I'd rather give it to uprate an 11k pension tbf.

I'm not sure how many times I can say "I'm not precious about the triple lock," but there should be some uprating of pensions to mitigate inflation. We're a long way from being the most generous in Europe. The standard annual pension is £11k. I mean you'd want to defend someone earning £11k per annum, wouldn't you? You'd be nearly eating yourself. The average earnings in the UK are £37k. Are you suggesting pensioners should get less than £11k? Does it cost less to live as a pensioner, compared to someone earning £37k - I mean if there's two of you that's £74k vs two pensioners at £22k.

So onto house prices, I mean not sure I should need to at this point, but more dull maths. The average house price in 1980 was £23k - the average house price today is £268k. That doesn't equate to 10x, if you move £23k by the inflation over 45 years, you get to something like £140k. It's maybe double. But moving swiftly on, if the pensioner sells their house as £268k (and retains it all) and let's hypothesize that they live for 15 years post sale to average age - they get £9k per annum each (they'll get more because they'll invest the principal), to add to their £11k. So they're up to £20k.

You really need to think things through.

What was the average salary in 1980? And relative to the house price?

I am simply suggesting that we stop giving pensioners the gold carpet special treatment and treat affordability of the social state and pensions in the same way we do public services and salaries.

If it were up to me we’d means test pensions and people who needed it would get more than £11K but I also think realistically those who sit on fortunes or have huge private pensions shouldn’t be receiving it. For me our problem is we can only afford to do so much and that should all be targeted where it’s most needed. Same principle for child benefits etc in my view. We need to stop handing money out where it isn’t needed and push more where it is.

I think you've nearly hit the nail. We can only do so much. So let's stop trying to do everything.

You use words and phrases like 10x (incorrect) and "huge pensions" (broadly incorrect) and "gold carpet" - like where? to make out that everyone has made off like a bandit in "our generation." they haven't. - give me some evidence of the amount of people who have made 10x on a property investment (accounting for inflation, coz you said that was really important), have a "huge pension," how many of those are they and what's "huge?" and any measure of "gold carpet" you think might hold water. It's as bad as Farage for sound bites.

Quick look at Google, 1980 average house price was call it £20k, average salary £6k. So about 3.5 times. That looks a good deal. Interest rate 1980? 17% - it's looking somewhat weaker now, innit? That's pretty much 17x the last few years whilst they were trying to balance the economy through QE. So, where has all that money gone? No magic money trees, yet we printed over a trillion in QE. Did that go to pensioners? I think not, in general terms.

I think (know) I said before Labour got elected, they'd be little better than the last lot. Muppet shuffling easy targets, is just that, but Rachael says, so you're gonna back it. Dull as dishwater.

You're response - hit the weakest on the possibility they're holding some sort of asset they've paid for.

Move off base, Sir. You ain't getting my vote.

[BWFC_Insane]

Yes wages haven't kept up, I've said that a few times. That is and was bad, but that wasn't caused by state pensioners, that was caused by employers. Your question should be why are employers protected against having to keep wages up with inflation, surely? Why did we allow zero hours contracts? etc. etc. It's sort of like you don't think I'm a worker, long time since I've seen anything above 1% too - including this year. So we're expected to fund 6% for government employees whilst we got 1%. Really? I'd rather give it to uprate an 11k pension tbf.

I'm not sure how many times I can say "I'm not precious about the triple lock," but there should be some uprating of pensions to mitigate inflation. We're a long way from being the most generous in Europe. The standard annual pension is £11k. I mean you'd want to defend someone earning £11k per annum, wouldn't you? You'd be nearly eating yourself. The average earnings in the UK are £37k. Are you suggesting pensioners should get less than £11k? Does it cost less to live as a pensioner, compared to someone earning £37k - I mean if there's two of you that's £74k vs two pensioners at £22k.

So onto house prices, I mean not sure I should need to at this point, but more dull maths. The average house price in 1980 was £23k - the average house price today is £268k. That doesn't equate to 10x, if you move £23k by the inflation over 45 years, you get to something like £140k. It's maybe double. But moving swiftly on, if the pensioner sells their house as £268k (and retains it all) and let's hypothesize that they live for 15 years post sale to average age - they get £9k per annum each (they'll get more because they'll invest the principal), to add to their £11k. So they're up to £20k.

You really need to think things through.

What was the average salary in 1980? And relative to the house price?

I am simply suggesting that we stop giving pensioners the gold carpet special treatment and treat affordability of the social state and pensions in the same way we do public services and salaries.

If it were up to me we’d means test pensions and people who needed it would get more than £11K but I also think realistically those who sit on fortunes or have huge private pensions shouldn’t be receiving it. For me our problem is we can only afford to do so much and that should all be targeted where it’s most needed. Same principle for child benefits etc in my view. We need to stop handing money out where it isn’t needed and push more where it is.

I think you've nearly hit the nail. We can only do so much. So let's stop trying to do everything.

You use words and phrases like 10x (incorrect) and "huge pensions" (broadly incorrect) and "gold carpet" - like where? to make out that everyone has made off like a bandit in "our generation." they haven't. - give me some evidence of the amount of people who have made 10x on a property investment (accounting for inflation, coz you said that was really important), have a "huge pension," how many of those are they and what's "huge?" and any measure of "gold carpet" you think might hold water. It's as bad as Farage for sound bites.

Quick look at Google, 1980 average house price was call it £20k, average salary £6k. So about 3.5 times. That looks a good deal. Interest rate 1980? 17% - it's looking somewhat weaker now, innit? That's pretty much 17x the last few years whilst they were trying to balance the economy through QE. So, where has all that money gone? No magic money trees, yet we printed over a trillion in QE. Did that go to pensioners? I think not, in general terms.

I think (know) I said before Labour got elected, they'd be little better than the last lot. Muppet shuffling easy targets, is just that, but Rachael says, so you're gonna back it. Dull as dishwater.

You're response - hit the weakest on the possibility they're holding some sort of asset they've paid for.

Move off base, Sir. You ain't getting my vote.

The weakest lol. Pensioners have the lowest poverty rate out of all age groups. The lowest.

Statistically the most privileged group in society.

Labour won’t do any of this because they are too frightened to but someone with some balls might. Not seeing many about though tbh.

[Worthy4England]

So the goal is to create more poverty? Of course there's a lower number of pensioners (think it's 20% for working age with housing costs vs 17% of pensioners)...so given a fair chunk of pensioners would have lower housing costs by reason that they've spent 30 years paying a mortgage off using money that's been taxed, it's hardly surprising.

Two of the larger groups in poverty are households where no one is working and those with 3 or more children. Who could guess? You just carry on dropping sprogs, we're going to drive more pensioners into poverty to pay for them.

[BWFC_Insane]

So the goal is to create more poverty? Of course there's a lower number of pensioners (think it's 20% for working age with housing costs vs 17% of pensioners)...so given a fair chunk of pensioners would have lower housing costs by reason that they've spent 30 years paying a mortgage off using money that's been taxed, it's hardly surprising.

Two of the larger groups in poverty are households where no one is working and those with 3 or more children. Who could guess? You just carry on dropping sprogs, we're going to drive more pensioners into poverty to pay for them.

The goal is to accept that we have an ageing population and a declining birth rate - so will inevitably be unable to afford welfare at current levels or have to accept continued large scale immigration.

What I think will happen is that the baby boomers will keep the triple lock on their pensions whilst future generations especially gen Z will get nothing of the sort - have to work till they are 80 or later and likely be entitled to far less. Even though they started with the same ‘deal’ supposedly. And that feels pretty inevitable. Allied to the fact their salary to house prices are off the scale meaning that their mortgages will never be paid off. Through little fault of their own.

[Worthy4England]

So the goal is to create more poverty? Of course there's a lower number of pensioners (think it's 20% for working age with housing costs vs 17% of pensioners)...so given a fair chunk of pensioners would have lower housing costs by reason that they've spent 30 years paying a mortgage off using money that's been taxed, it's hardly surprising.

Two of the larger groups in poverty are households where no one is working and those with 3 or more children. Who could guess? You just carry on dropping sprogs, we're going to drive more pensioners into poverty to pay for them.

The goal is to accept that we have an ageing population and a declining birth rate - so will inevitably be unable to afford welfare at current levels or have to accept continued large scale immigration.

What I think will happen is that the baby boomers will keep the triple lock on their pensions whilst future generations especially gen Z will get nothing of the sort - have to work till they are 80 or later and likely be entitled to far less. Even though they started with the same ‘deal’ supposedly. And that feels pretty inevitable. Allied to the fact their salary to house prices are off the scale meaning that their mortgages will never be paid off. Through little fault of their own.

I don't think we disagree that shit is broken. Pretty sure I said before Labour were anywhere near government, they'd be as bad as the last lot, in the sense that their response would be to rearrange deckchairs. You have in your head that the answer is to take money from pensioners - but a bit like the lazy arguments from Labour that the problem was people making £80k (or £100k the number moved) so take more off them, this is just a recant of a similar principle. A has it better than B, go hit A, so they're no better off than B.

You keep coming back to triple lock - I'm less worried about the triple lock, in the sense that any indexation would be ok, in isolation. Like the £141 billion of other benefits we pay out. Statistics show that nearly 1 in 4 people are disabled. All categories over time have been broadly stable (within a few percentage points). Mobility disability has fallen significantly, but mental health has sky rocketed. No one finds that just a bit bizarre? You could accept an increase, but from nearer 1 in 10 to well over 1 in 3

I agree that we can't afford welfare at current levels based on our tax receipt growth. Your focus has been pensioners and only pensioners because "that's where the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow is." You still haven't suggested anything around businesses needing to pay wage rises - which is where the problem actually is - wages. As ever with Labour and Conservatives, easy targets only. You haven't suggested anything - not one thing - about all other benefits claimants, that number can just grow and we'll stump up.

If folks working 37 hours on flexi-time and days off in lieu - there's a lot of civil servants - are struggling are they going to give me a tax rebate for everything earned over the other 40-60 hours a week over 30 years? I'm not hopeful.

We're already seeing the age at which you can get state pension, rising, that's not going to be exclusive to GenZ.

[BWFC_Insane]

^^Im not writing a manifesto - I’m not in politics have no affiliation to any party and certainly couldn’t be bothered with it if it was my job.

Welfare would need looking at across the piece but the point I’m making is simple. There are broadly with an ageing population with declining work force going to be two outcomes - either you cut welfare and that would involve some cuts to pensions given they are iirc the biggest welfare expense still and of course will rise in future years - or your import a larger workforce to generate the tax bill necessary to continue existing welfare support.

If it were me I’d choose the latter personally. But we can’t have it both ways.

I don’t take issue with your thesis on capitalism or employers and wages as I’ve said before. I don’t take issue that the government nor the last lot nor whoever the next lot is don’t have any answers for that. I agree. Though where I differ is I’m not seeing any workable answer from anywhere that aren’t just pie in the sky things.

But the last paragraph for me sums it up. It is generational resentment both ways. Like it or not that is what it is. And I think gen z on are the ones who sadly will pay most. All I’m suggesting is that we spread the pain out rather that concentrate it all on the future. OR avoid it by accepting that our labour market needs to be transient.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

The bits of welfare that need sorting are things like housing. How much are we paying out to house folk in profit driven accommodation? How about we define affordable housing based on affordability rather than an arbitrary amount under market rate. Build the housing needed, even if it takes 20 years to catch up. The long run is pays for itself and provides jobs. Just don't let the big housebuilders anywhere near it.

I'd also like to see pensions taken out of the welfare bucket. It isn't welfare and only makes the number overall number sound worse, allowing the hard of thinking to agree with the right wing about scroungers and immigrants getting gold plated lives at the expense of minimum wage workers.

[Hoboh]

Virtually back in the EU, thank you Starmer, you undemocratic, thinly veiled bar steward. When you fall, I hope it's from a great height.