NORTH + MIDLANDS GAMMONS TO HAVE PENSIONS CUT

[Cannydc]

From 2010

Labour may back coalition single benefit plan

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... fit-credit

Party sources point out that Duncan Smith's ideas were originally devised by the then Labour work and pensions secretary, James Purnell, when his 2008 white paper called for a move towards a single benefit system.

A senior Labour source said: "We are in the territory of awaiting with interest and will support them where they help get people back to work or restrict benefits from those who don't need them. We are optimistic that if IDS wins his battle with the Treasury then the reforms will really be an extension of the Purnell plan which we strongly support."

Just a reminder than Purnell, Cooper, Miliband, et al deserve to hang from the same Lampost as Iain Duncan Smith and his like

It was agreed by all parties that sorting out the ridiculously complicated and costly to run benefits system was a good idea.

They still do, including Labour.

The issues are around the half-arsed, unchecked and untested system that has been rushed in by the Tories which failed to recognise that some would miss out badly and, even worse, completely failed to deal with these problems. S instead of people getting what they should in an orderly, acceptable manner, we get sanctions, poverty and food bank queues.

And neither Purnell, Cooper or Miliband can be blamed for that.

[wutang]

Can someone please explain why a person who is below retirement age should get pension credits?

One member of the couple is a pensioner. Cutting it makes life more difficult for the pensioner as well.

Just because one partner retires at the proper age - doesn't mean the other has to if they aren't yet at retirement age
The other partner is supposed to be still working.

Doesnt change the fact that you are punishing both in your ideological zeal to punish one.

[wutang]

It was agreed by all parties that sorting out the ridiculously complicated and costly to run benefits system was a good idea.

The reforms all parties agreed on turned out to be even more costly and did nothing but cause misery and heartache for those it targeted.

Funny how they can't afford the 'costly benefit system' but can afford tax cuts for corporations.

[MungoBrush]

Can someone please explain why a person who is below retirement age should get pension credits?

One member of the couple is a pensioner. Cutting it makes life more difficult for the pensioner as well.

Just because one partner retires at the proper age - doesn't mean the other has to if they aren't yet at retirement age
The other partner is supposed to be still working.

Doesnt change the fact that you are punishing both in your ideological zeal to punish one.

Do you think that stopping benefit handouts to people perfectly capable of working is a punishment?
If they are of working age - they should never have got pension credits in the first place
To me - it's correcting a historic wrong
There are plenty of people properly deserving of their pension and top-ups
Handing out extra money to those who are not deserving should be stopped in my view

It's the same as stopping housing benefit payments to people when you discover that actually they own another property (and for this offence you can actually go to jail I believe)

[wutang]

Do you think that stopping benefit handouts to people perfectly capable of working is a punishment?

Yes

[MungoBrush]

Do you think that stopping benefit handouts to people perfectly capable of working is a punishment?

Yes

What about stopping housing benefit to a person who moves in with another who owns their home
Would that be a punishment?

[McAz]

Do you think that stopping benefit handouts to people perfectly capable of working is a punishment?

Yes

What about stopping housing benefit to a person who moves in with another who owns their home
Would that be a punishment?

Is this hypothetical person not making a financial contribution to the upkeep and running costs of the home they have moved into, Dangle?

[wutang]

Do you think that stopping benefit handouts to people perfectly capable of working is a punishment?

Yes

What about stopping housing benefit to a person who moves in with another who owns their home
Would that be a punishment?

Everyone should have guaranteed access to a council house so that wouldn't apply.

[MungoBrush]

Do you think that stopping benefit handouts to people perfectly capable of working is a punishment?

Yes

What about stopping housing benefit to a person who moves in with another who owns their home
Would that be a punishment?

Everyone should have guaranteed access to a council house so that wouldn't apply.

Housing benefit has nothing to do with whether or not you live on a council house

[Fletch]

It was agreed by all parties that sorting out the ridiculously complicated and costly to run benefits system was a good idea.

The reforms all parties agreed on turned out to be even more costly and did nothing but cause misery and heartache for those it targeted.

Funny how they can't afford the 'costly benefit system' but can afford tax cuts for corporations.

And worth noting it was pre Jeremy Corbyn Labour that it was agreed by all (neoliberal) parties.

[calitom]

I think a massive decrease in pensions for govt lawmakers should always precede cuts for the poorer. This way people know that these often very necessary cuts will be more than shared .
This way people know that the lawmakers are really sincere.

On a kinda related subject---one that i have been stressing out about the for the past week especially but much over the past 20 yrs---Is the Govt a-holes in California..
In care homes for the disabled,elderly etc the state gives barely enough recompense to keep these facilities open.Facilities where people work extreme;y hard for not great pay
and where ownership barely scrapes out a profit while having to deal with all sorts of govt regulation and legal risk.
AT THE SAME TIME massive pensions and massive bureaucracies are paid regularly with huge yearly increases which are certainly leading the state into bankruptcy.
The difference is of course that peon owners of the businesses taking care of the disabled dont have the associations and the money to buy off these scummy politicians.
These govt unions have all the money in the friggin world and the politicians receive a chunk of it for their campaigns.And if the pols dont vote in all the massive increases then they will be out of a job.
We know what decisions the politicians make.

Its a vicious cycle.Take it out on/put the squeeze on the most vulnerable FIRST until they are run dry and then scream like little rodents when any politician even mentions
cutting lavish govt salaries and pensions.--After the little businesses get squeezed then its the taxpayer who gets squeezed.Its always the govt..especially the politicians..who hold onto everything for the longest time.

[Cannydc]

It was agreed by all parties that sorting out the ridiculously complicated and costly to run benefits system was a good idea.

The reforms all parties agreed on turned out to be even more costly and did nothing but cause misery and heartache for those it targeted.

Funny how they can't afford the 'costly benefit system' but can afford tax cuts for corporations.

And worth noting it was pre Jeremy Corbyn Labour that it was agreed by all (neoliberal) parties.

So you would prefer a horribly complicated system, where poor people lose out because they can't manage their way through it ?

What a strange cove you are - one minute you care deeply, the next you don't give a stuff for the poor.

No Labour politician ever suggested cuts - with the possible exception of the pseudo Tory Frank Field.

[MungoBrush]

It was agreed by all parties that sorting out the ridiculously complicated and costly to run benefits system was a good idea.

The reforms all parties agreed on turned out to be even more costly and did nothing but cause misery and heartache for those it targeted.

Funny how they can't afford the 'costly benefit system' but can afford tax cuts for corporations.

And worth noting it was pre Jeremy Corbyn Labour that it was agreed by all (neoliberal) parties.

So you would prefer a horribly complicated system, where poor people lose out because they can't manage their way through it ?

What a strange cove you are - one minute you care deeply, the next you don't give a stuff for the poor.

No Labour politician ever suggested cuts - with the possible exception of the pseudo Tory Frank Field.

People claiming benefits under false pretences should have their benefits cut.
Anyone disagreee with that?

[McAz]

It was agreed by all parties that sorting out the ridiculously complicated and costly to run benefits system was a good idea.

The reforms all parties agreed on turned out to be even more costly and did nothing but cause misery and heartache for those it targeted.

Funny how they can't afford the 'costly benefit system' but can afford tax cuts for corporations.

And worth noting it was pre Jeremy Corbyn Labour that it was agreed by all (neoliberal) parties.

So you would prefer a horribly complicated system, where poor people lose out because they can't manage their way through it ?

What a strange cove you are - one minute you care deeply, the next you don't give a stuff for the poor.

No Labour politician ever suggested cuts - with the possible exception of the pseudo Tory Frank Field.

People claiming benefits under false pretences should have their benefits cut.
Anyone disagreee with that?

Shouldn't that be the subject of a separate thread, Dongle?

[Cannydc]

It was agreed by all parties that sorting out the ridiculously complicated and costly to run benefits system was a good idea.

The reforms all parties agreed on turned out to be even more costly and did nothing but cause misery and heartache for those it targeted.

Funny how they can't afford the 'costly benefit system' but can afford tax cuts for corporations.

And worth noting it was pre Jeremy Corbyn Labour that it was agreed by all (neoliberal) parties.

So you would prefer a horribly complicated system, where poor people lose out because they can't manage their way through it ?

What a strange cove you are - one minute you care deeply, the next you don't give a stuff for the poor.

No Labour politician ever suggested cuts - with the possible exception of the pseudo Tory Frank Field.

People claiming benefits under false pretences should have their benefits cut.
Anyone disagreee with that?

Are you saying they don't have their claims nullified, benefits stopped and face prosecution ?