Tories claims single pensioners are £110 worse off after Budget

JP45

I'm becoming increasingly concerned at the stance taken by the Tories on a number of issues over recent weeks.

It wasn't that long ago that they were adopting a very tough line on public expenditure, recognising the need to cut the deficit. If there's one area of expenditure that's well overdue for cuts it's that of age-related benefits.

My parents, my mother-in-law and countless pensioners living in the relatively affluent parts of the country are rolling in money. We're talking about people with six figure savings and several holidays a year. The idea that they 'need' a free bus pass or help with their heating bills is ludicrous.

It really is high time that such benefits were means tested. The next government is going to have to make some very tough choices over public spending cuts. If the Tories can't even face up to this kind of cut then where on earth do they plan to find the savings. Oh wait, I forgot, the massive, unprecedented cuts in public expenditure can largely be achieved through efficiency savings.
.

kennyboy66_2

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

, like that Chavvy Liverpudlian on the BBC reality show after the 10 o'clock news last night, moan that they do not have enough.

You should get out proportionate to what you have put in.

Racist !!!!! - reported

Spartacus_Mills

StevieJ wrote: »

We could start with the income where age allowance is reduced £22,900 I think.

I presume that is single individual rather than couple.

Okay, so what is that net a month. £1,500 ?

I think that is a fair starting point Steve and is unlikely to cause a poverty trap.

I do not suppose at that level it would do much harm to Labour but I think it would be suicidal for the Tories and the Lib Dems, especially in those key marginals in the South and South West.

Spartacus_Mills

kennyboy66 wrote: »

Racist !!!!! - reported

nutrisse, is that you ?

StevieJ

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

This is what I said.

"So where is the incentive to save and provide for yourself if the state is going to dole money out to others. Labour is very happy to reward the !!!!less and punish the thrifty. I daresay he is annoyed he made provision for himself when others did not bother."
.

I have made provision for myself and I don't expect anything apart from the basic state pension (and I am not sure that will be available when it is my turn). I don't begrudge those pensioners in need receiving help but I am not happy with the likes of Richard Branson receiving it :eek:

Spartacus_Mills

JP45 wrote: »

I'm becoming increasingly concerned at the stance taken by the Tories on a number of issues over recent weeks.

It wasn't that long ago that they were adopting a very tough line on public expenditure, recognising the need to cut the deficit. .

It did nothing for their poll lead.

JP45 wrote: »

If there's one area of expenditure that's well overdue for cuts it's that of age-related benefits.
.

Not when they constitute a key demographic in your voter base.

kennyboy66_2

My parent are pensioners - they have never had it so good, although both have their own pensions on top of the state one. Cutting back would mean only 2 foreign holidays per year.

However like many of their generation, they are pretty frugal in some ways. Would not dream of getting a taxi and frequently use (free) public transport when I would jump in the car. Mum rarely throws food away, and Dad can fix most things or "find" useful stuff out of skips.

They would say that they shouldn't get winter fuel allowances or a free TV licence (in a few years). They would however claim it, if it was available.

Spartacus_Mills

StevieJ wrote: »

How can it be smart electioneering when it is so transparent (part of it almost lies), also it ties his hands if he wins the election at least for the foreseeable future.

He is re-stating a party policy and shoring up a core vote in key seats he needs to take from the Lib Dems and Labour.

Of course it is smart. It will do the Tories no harm at all in seats like Torbay on the south coast.

lemonjelly

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

This is what I said. Lets analyze it then...

"So where is the incentive to save and provide for yourself if the state is going to dole money out to others. Labour is very happy to reward the !!!!less and punish the thrifty. I daresay he is annoyed he made provision for himself when others did not bother.".

Statement without any evidence for what provision either had made, or how one can to have £150k, & whether or not the other has any illness, disability or similar...

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

It is quite straightforward. I can understand his annoyance and where is the incentive to save if the government penalise the thrifty and reward the !!!!less..

So all people on benefits are "!!!!less"?

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

He is being punished for making provision for himself that is my point and that is a dangerous thing for a government that wants to encourage people to save for their old age. It is a wider point that some old codger who has to be advised by a clown...

No he is not. He has the means to support himself without relying on state intervention. Surely this is something everyone should aspire to, with state intervention being a recourse of last resort, thus cutting everyones tax burden & preserving resources for when & where they are most needed.

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

Thank God I will never need to ask you for advice then. You know nothing of my ability to manage my finances. Some advisor you are. Jumping to obscure conclusions. Reading what they want to see in a comment and not what is actually there.

I haven't commented anywhere on you managing your personal finances. I pointed out that if everyone who could look after their own affairs still drew out from the state pot we'd have an even bigger deficit than we currently have. My statements aren't about obscure conclusions, I have made statements about factual experiences based on my employment & work I have successfully done. This riposte is clearly pointing out that it is you who have jumped to specific conclusions which fit your narrow minded world view (all benefit claimants are scum copyright the white horse & spartacus mills)

Spartacus_Mills wrote: »

Big deal, he has paid his taxes. Good for him.

Yes. And he has also drawn out of the system at exceptional cost too. This is all in addition to his use of public facilities such as roads, parks, health services, & associated local government & national government schemes. All in all, it has balanced out in his favour I'd argue.

PS, the neighbour, who gets his council tax paid had his leg blown off whilst in the forces. Despite this, he continues to work, though is entitled to an exemption in his council tax.

But let us not allow facts to get in the way...

puddy

i can only say that my parents are ok for money, they have a state pension, my dad's private pension, obviously their mortgage is paid off, they drive one car between them, a small micra. they have free bus passes, my dad makes everything. they shop in waitrose and marks, although my mum is now reveling in her new found fun of shopping in the likes of aldi and lidl and saving more money, they joke about their winter fuel payments, they've been able to help me and my sister with house buying.

i dont see them as struggling but dont really see the need to heat and maintain a 5 bed house with large garden, but theres no discussion with them about buying somewhere smaller, they dont want to move, probably ever. they dont really need things like the winter fuel payments, i dont think it should be automatic