Tories target the vulnerable, again.

bendix

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And look to scrapping buraecucracy to save money, and boost pensions with saved money, up to £140 a week (up from £97).

In a further attack on those who have looked after children, the plans aim to boost the pensions of those women who have taken years out of work to bring up children.

Bloody useless tories & bloody sell out Lid Dems. Dem'cons are at it again.

Good try Graham

Although it looks like your efforts on veiled sarcasm whooshed over the heads of most people.

StevieJ

Generali wrote: »

How many single mothers earn £44,000 please? Is this a big problem or a small one according to your figures? I suspect the latter but I don't have numbers to back it up.

Just an example

PasturesNew

StevieJ wrote: »

Is that you specialness striking again?

No, as I read it, Devon started a discussion and had some opinion/axe to grind about something, but wasn't sure which side of any discussion he was on at all.

PasturesNew

lostinrates wrote: »

I think it probably is. For PN's benefit, Graham is trying to be sarcastic I think. Its not a writing style I think works terribly well or clearly for most people on the net.

Ah. He's full of fail then.

ruggedtoast

:mad: Egads Devon what on earth are you on about?

I'm short of time and very crotchety today so stuff like this is all set to rile me.

JP45

This is potentially quite a significant move, as the BBC's report makes clear:

The government is planning a "very radical" overhaul of the state pension, Business Secretary Vince Cable says.

He did not confirm newpaper reports that it could rise from about £97 a week for a single person to £140.

However, he said proposals, due to be published this year, would not happen "overnight" but were long-term plans.

The pensions department said the chancellor wanted to "improve" the state pension to make it "decent... and easy to understand".

Mr Cable, speaking to BBC One's Breakfast, said the government wanted to "get away from what we've had for the past quarter of a century where state pensions have fallen behind the rest of the economy".

"What [Pensions Minister] Steve Webb and his colleagues want to do is to particularly protect the position of women, who because they weren't covered by contributions don't have a proper state pension," he said.

Women frequently fail to qualify for the full basic state pension because they have stopped working to raise children and therefore lack enough National Insurance contributions.

Mr Cable told the BBC: "It's to make sure people can look forward in retirement to a good state pension without means testing. We need something people can rely on.

"What he's proposing is very radical. It will take time to introduce."
The Daily Mail reported that a British residency requirement would replace the means-tested element.

Mr Cable also said the aim of the proposals was to "ensure that fewer and fewer pensioners are dragged into the means-tested system and they have a decent state pension that they continue to rely on. But... this depends on the state of the public finances as to when this is phased in."

The DWP said: "The chancellor has confirmed that the government will improve the quality and accessibility of pensions in the Spending Review period.

"We will be bringing forward proposals for reform in a Green Paper later this year. Our aim will be a simple, decent state pension for future pensioners, which is easy to understand, efficient to deliver and affordable."

This seems fine as a long-term aspiration but the reference to it depending "on the state of the public finances as to when it is phased in" is surely the key point.

No doubt its introduction will also entail a further rise in the state pension age and an increased tax burden on the young / employed.

Graham_Devon

lostinrates wrote: »

I think it probably is. For PN's benefit, Graham is trying to be sarcastic I think. Its not a writing style I think works terribly well or clearly for most people on the net.

LOL, seems not!

Graham_Devon

Right, as this seems to have confused people. Yes, it was sarcasm. Coalition is being attacked all over the place for targetting the poor and vulnerable. Even today, stuff like the pensions being increased by saving on wastage, is somewhat ignored by many and ad homien attacks on targetting the vulnerable are still going on.

The coalition have now put forward, what, in my view, is an excellent proposal, to clear up wastage and bueauracracy, and pass the savings made here directly into the pockets of those taking state pensions, of which, many are often seen as vulnerable.

Lesson to be learnt by myself is don't try and use sarcasm in an opening post. Seems it only confuses loads of people. It was mainly in response to the coalition being blamed for absolutely everything recently, yet the good that they are doing, the stuff we have been crying out for for ages (mainly cutting wastage) is actually being looked into and actively encouraged and, hopefully, being put into practice.

Would be excellent to see pensions rise by £40 per week, especially if that rise is purely on the back of existing wastage.

Move to another thread, or news column and it's just continual bashing of the coalition, trying to clean up labour mistakes and wastage.

This, IMO, is one of the best proposals put forward so far. Doesn't cost the taxpayer any extra to what they are paying currently, but puts extra money in pensioners pockets, of which, they can spend in the wider economy, and will certainly go a long way to helping the real vulnerable pensioners out there.

Pension age may have risen, but if this it what can be done as part of that process, it's all good in my view.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And look to scrapping buraecucracy to save money, and boost pensions with saved money, up to £140 a week (up from £97).

In a further attack on those who have looked after children, the plans aim to boost the pensions of those women who have taken years out of work to bring up children.

Bloody useless tories & bloody sell out Lid Dems. Dem'cons are at it again.

I thought since 1978 if you took time off work to look after children you got credits towards your pension.

Davesnave

I know it's no 'elp at all guvnor, but I got it first time around, and I'm in me dotage! :rotfl:

Three more years to go till I get my hands on all that luvverly pension.....if I make it, that is...(cue amcluescent)