Blue Labour 2

Rinoa

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22835027

Labour has said spending on state pensions is likely to be included in its proposed cap on welfare budgets.
Shadow chancellor Ed Balls told the BBC "at the moment" Labour intended to factor pensions into its calculations for a three-year cap from 2015-16.
The opposition said it was committed to maintaining the value of the state pension but welfare expenditure needed to be looked at "across the piece".
The Conservatives said the plans would hit hard-working people.
Labour has said an "iron discipline" on spending will be needed if it is returned to power and, as part of a new approach to welfare, it would seek to cap the amount spent on so-called structural benefits spending.
This would see a limit on welfare that does not directly depend on the ups and downs of the economic cycle, including housing benefit and incapacity benefit.
The idea mirrors one first put forward by Chancellor George Osborne, although neither the government nor the opposition have yet to say at what level the cap would be set.

Mr Balls told the BBC's Sunday Politics: "George Osborne is going to announce his cap in two weeks time. I don't know whether he will exclude or include pensioners spending. At the moment our plan is to include it."
The shadow chancellor said it was not the case that a future Labour government would have to cut the value of the state pension in order to ensure any welfare cap was not breached.
But he said including pensions, which forms the largest part of the multi-billion pound structural benefits bill, made sense.
"Look across the whole welfare state and ask what are the drivers of expenditure," he explained.
"I think many people watching your programme will not realise that actually today the clear large bulk, most welfare spending is in fact going to people over 60. That is the truth. We should look across the piece."
Labour insisted it supported the so-called "triple lock" on pensions introduced by the coalition, which guarantees the state pension will rise by whichever is highest out of inflation, average earnings, or 2.5%.
Treasury Minister Sajid Javid said: "Now we know when Labour say they want to cut welfare, what they actually mean is cut the basic state pension."
And Conservative MP James Wharton tweeted: "Labour plan to cap pensions spending, really? Hitting those who've worked hard all their lives."

Can't see Labour winning many votes for capping pensions, especially as a higher proportion of pensioners make their vote count. But at least Labour are now acknowledging the welfare state needs a drastic overhaul.

michaels

Means tested state pension is coming We have already seen the end of the state second pension. Makes me wonder why I am paying in to a pension at all as any provision I make for myself is likely to be clawed back when I have retired

lemonjelly

Rinoa wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22835027

Can't see Labour winning many votes for capping pensions, especially as a higher proportion of pensioners make their vote count. But at least Labour are now acknowledging the welfare state needs a drastic overhaul.

I'm not sure the point you're trying to make aside from alittle political point scoring?
The political hot potato is whether to address welfare forthe over 60's or not. If anyone is serious about addressing the cost of thewelfare system, then the only way forward is to address benefits for the over60's.
I posted why a while ago, but including the same informationis hugely relevant to the whole point behind the proposal:

lemonjelly wrote: »

Thing is, our perceptions of the welfare bill are way off reality.

Osborn & co say we shouldn't have the philpotts et al getting £100k a year in benefits. In total, that is 5 families in the UK. Only FIVE.

Almost 50% of the welfare bill in the UK goes to pensioners. These benefits are being protected, probably because these people are more likely to vote, & if we take away their winter fuel allowance then they'll vote for a change of government...

Almost a third of the welfare bill is paid to those in work, but in low paid jobs (or even zero hours contract jobs) to bring them up to subsistence levels. The almost £30 billion spent on tax credits pretty much dwarves the £4bn spent on JSA.

Only 3% of the welfare bill is spent on the actual unemployed. Not much in the grand scheme of things eh?

A recent survey showed that we believe that over 40% of benefits is paid to the unemployed, not the 3% that is reality. It also showed we assume fraud to be almost 30% (when in reality it is 1% of the welfare bill). However this doesn't serve the tory agenda, & instead we have osborn, the daily mail & others lambasting anyone who is a benefit claimant as being the scourge of the country.

In 2010 the total cost to the taxpayer of JSA was £5bn. The governments own figures show that only 10% of JSA claimants have been out of work for more than 4 years. Although 4 years is hardly a lifetime lets agree that all these people are idle scroungers content to live off the state for all eternity. If we were to kill all those claimants today the saving would be £500m or 0.33% of GDP. These people are not the ones bankrupting the nation.

The current government have tinkered round the edges, used media propoganda, and manipulated public perception to push through ideological change using the "we want to cut the defecit" arguement.

If anyone really wants to address welfare spending, this really has to be the way to go to make savings of any impact.

Graham_Devon

michaels wrote: »

Means tested state pension is coming We have already seen the end of the state second pension. Makes me wonder why I am paying in to a pension at all as any provision I make for myself is likely to be clawed back when I have retired

The most fascinating thing here for me is the tories attacking labour for trying to cut the welfare system!

The world has gone mad!

Labour could have picked up on something here. They may well lose some of the votes they would usually get. however, those could be replaced quite easily by others who would normally vote conservative, as the tories have shown they are not tough on anything at all.

grizzly1911

It will make any cuts to things like WFA, travel etc. palatable instead.

antrobus

Rinoa wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22835027

Can't see Labour winning many votes for capping pensions, especially as a higher proportion of pensioners make their vote count. But at least Labour are now acknowledging the welfare state needs a drastic overhaul.

But remains "committed" to the 'triple lock' on pensions. Not going to be much of a cap then.:)

Jennifer_Jane

michaels wrote: »

Means tested state pension is coming We have already seen the end of the state second pension. Makes me wonder why I am paying in to a pension at all as any provision I make for myself is likely to be clawed back when I have retired

Well, exactly.

Pensions should not be part of the welfare budget. People have categorically and specifically paid into the system and their contributions are calculated for the amount of State Pension they receive.

I sent thousands of pounds from overseas to pay for my National Insurance contributions. I could have used this money elsewhere to pay for a private UK pension. It's just that the NI system was cheap to contribute to and set up for overseas people to buy in to, and, more importantly, it was an "allowed" overseas transfer from the country in which I was living which retains exchange controls.

This is extremely distressing. If it changes as Balls is saying (and I must have missed the bit on The Sunday Politics about the Triple Lock, and this would require a change in the Pensions Act) they will consider, then will they then return a portion of the NI contributions so that people can put the money into private schemes for those currently prior to retirement age?

antrobus

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

... If it changes as Balls is saying (and I must have missed the bit on The Sunday Politics about the Triple Lock, ...

That's because Balls didn't mention it. That was a later 'clarification' issued after the reaction to his original statement emerged.

Rinoa

lemonjelly wrote: »

I'm not sure the point you're trying to make aside from alittle political point scoring?
The political hot potato is whether to address welfare forthe over 60's or not. If anyone is serious about addressing the cost of thewelfare system, then the only way forward is to address benefits for the over60's.

Yeah, as long as they give us 30/40 years notice. Telling us when we're in our 30's is fair enough, telling us the rules are changing when you're already 60+ isn't acceptable.

Generali

michaels wrote: »

Means tested state pension is coming We have already seen the end of the state second pension. Makes me wonder why I am paying in to a pension at all as any provision I make for myself is likely to be clawed back when I have retired

We have a great pension system which now means that there is over $1,000,000,000,000 held in Super (private pension schemes) the vast majority of which has been put in by a compulsory Super Guarantee (tax) of 9% on employers. I think that little Australia has the 2nd or 3rd biggest private pension fund pot in the world.

As employees haven't really put the money in they don't really look at it or bother about it despite it being their pension fund. As a result, every few years the Government dips into that great big pot of money, changing the rules for all retirees so they can push through their pet schemes that they can't afford to pay for but which poor Aussies can afford to have their pensions appropriated in order to pay for.

In the end Socialists want to make us all equally poor because that's better than a few being unequally poor.

grizzly1911

Generali wrote: »

We have a great pension system which now means that there is over $1,000,000,000,000 held in Super (private pension schemes) the vast majority of which has been put in by a compulsory Super Guarantee (tax) of 9% on employers. I think that little Australia has the 2nd or 3rd biggest private pension fund pot in the world.

As employees haven't really put the money in they don't really look at it or bother about it despite it being their pension fund. As a result, every few years the Government dips into that great big pot of money, changing the rules for all retirees so they can push through their pet schemes that they can't afford to pay for but which poor Aussies can afford to have their pensions appropriated in order to pay for.

In the end Socialists want to make us all equally poor because that's better than a few being unequally poor.

Just as long as they don't invest in the likes of Greek debt chasing a return.

Without committing us all to saving for a pension, however it is done, the politicians of to day would be stuffed without the pension contributions of today.

A lot could happen to that pot of money between now and when you come to collect private, ring fenced or not.

They will stop at nothing it appears.;)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/10060466/Treasury-destroys-disc-containing-350000-Equitable-Life-victims-details.html