Taxpayers' Alliance: Cut pensioner benefits 'immediately'

BlondeHeadOn

From link here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34439965

"Ministers should waste no time to make unpopular cuts to pensioner benefits, a think tank director has said.
Many of those hit by a cut to the winter fuel allowance might "not be around" at the next election, said Alex Wild of the Taxpayers' Alliance.
And others would forget which party had done it, he added."

These Conservatives are such sweeties, aren't they?

michaels

The BBC reported this in an even more biased way than normal.

My relatives spend the winter in sunnier climes but use their winter fuel allowance towards heating their swimming pool in the UK summer.

Anyone who thinks this is a fair use of tax payers money really is living on planet Corbyn.

Fella

Somewhere in Tory HQ a Malcolm Tucker type is exploding. Amazing there are people dumb enough to say things like this. Still, the guy who has to write the Daily Mirror headline tomorrow just got the night off.

Sapphire

michaels wrote: »

The BBC reported this in an even more biased way than normal.

My relatives spend the winter in sunnier climes but use their winter fuel allowance towards heating their swimming pool in the UK summer.

Anyone who thinks this is a fair use of tax payers money really is living on planet Corbyn.

That's nice for your relatives, and I think that pensioners who are receiving, say, more than £30,000 p.a. should not be receiving benefits apart from a basic pension. However, many pensioners are living on the breadline. For instance, I know two who are in this situation. One has early-stage Alzheimer's, the other cannot speak due to a stroke, cannot walk anywhere and hears very little. Despite this, his (small) benefits, to which he is entitled (and was probably several years ago), have been delayed by Lambeth Council since April, when they were first applied for (that's six months). This is terrible treatment of vulnerable people, both of whom have worked honestly throughout their lives, paid taxes in this country without drawing benefits (apart from NHS ones), or expecting to be provided for throughout their lives. They should certainly be put above any economic migrants and aid to other countries – charity begins at home. If this Fox individual is suggesting that people such as this, who receive only a basic pension plus a little bit more, should have their benefits (including medicines, winter fuel allowance and travel) cut, then he's a despicable individual.

Additionally, I think the comments from the individual at the Taxpayers' Alliance are disgusting. Only in this country is there such ageism and lack of respect for the elders (many of whom have contributed greatly, and suffered, for this country).

Cue insults flung at 'boomers'.

michaels

So we are agreed that perhaps universal pensioner benefits should be looked at as they may not be entirely fair?

Can we also agree that pensionners vote in disproportionate numbers?

Therefore questioning pensionner benefits is the 'third rail' of UK politics, do at your own (electoral) risk.

If you are going to do something electorally unpopular for reasons of fairness does it not make sense to do it early in a parliament so memories are less raw come the next election? The closer to an election the less likely it is that any govt would risk making a change for reasons of fairness that is likely to upset a large number of voters (not just electorate but likely voters).

So a callous way of putting things, but in reality the analysis is spot on and what is proposed (I am assming it is means testing of additional benefits for pensionners) hits the wealthy not the poor so I would have thoguht would be favoured by Labour, especially of the old flavour.

Sapphire

So we are agreed that perhaps universal pensioner benefits should be looked at?

Yes: see my last post.

If you are going to do something electorally unpopular for reasons of fairness does it not make sense to do it early in a parliament so memories are less raw come the next election? The closer to an election the less likely it is that any govt would risk making a change for reasons of fairness that is likely to upset a large number of voters (not just electorate but likely voters).

I don't think there's any difference between when such changes are proposed – and there's absolutely no excuse for making 'jokes' about people of the type that stupid punk from the TA made. Many pensioners are vulnerable, unwell and have enough to cope with already. Such an attitude makes me want to vomit.

So a callous way of putting things, but in reality the analysis is spot on and what is proposed (I am assming it is means testing of additional benefits for pensionners) hits the wealthy not the poor

That is your assumption – Fox, who is I believe a discredited politician – made no mention of means testing.

Linton

michaels wrote: »

The BBC reported this in an even more biased way than normal.

........

michaels wrote: »

So we are agreed that perhaps universal pensioner benefits should be looked at as they may not be entirely fair?

Can we also agree that pensionners vote in disproportionate numbers?

.........

So a callous way of putting things, but in reality the analysis is spot on and what is proposed (I am assming it is means testing of additional benefits for pensionners) hits the wealthy not the poor so I would have thoguht would be favoured by Labour, especially of the old flavour.

So you agree completely with what was said, but think the BBC was biased to report it,as they did, straight with no commentary whatsoever? How odd - surely you should be delighted that this viewpoint is being given wide coverage.

PS I think the point being made was the elderly were going to be dead or gaga by the time of the next election so it didnt matter. It wont work - people retiring now can on average expect to live perhaps another 20 years.

princeofpounds

The Taxpayer's Alliance are not the Conservatives.


Whilst there are Conservatives involved in the think tank, and the Conservative party of today is more likely to be sympathetic to their objectives than other parties, they are not remotely the same thing.


It would be like saying Corbyn's Labour is the Stop The War Coalition.


It's a comparison also made more ridiculous by the fact that Conservative and Coalition government policy has been to almost entirely protect pensioners from the reduction in public spending, chiefly through the horrendously expensive triple lock, so if anything arguments of this kind have run counter to government policy.

Linton

princeofpounds wrote: »

The Taxpayer's Alliance are not the Conservatives.


Whilst there are Conservatives involved in the think tank, and the Conservative party of today is more likely to be sympathetic to their objectives than other parties, they are not remotely the same thing.


It would be like saying Corbyn's Labour is the Stop The War Coalition.


It's a comparison also made more ridiculous by the fact that Conservative and Coalition government policy has been to almost entirely protect pensioners from the reduction in public spending, chiefly through the horrendously expensive triple lock, so if anything arguments of this kind have run counter to government policy.

No-one said that it was the Conservatives. The BBC reported it as the Tax Payers Alliance. It was merely a meeting with senior Conservatives present held at the Conservative Party Conference.

As to the Coalition's triple lock policies, perhaps the LDs had a little bit to do with that.

chris_m

Linton wrote: »

No-one said that it was the Conservatives.

The OP did.

Graham_Devon

Well I have to say, i completely agree with Liam Fox.

"We are borrowing from the next generation to spend today. That is otherwise known as a Ponzi scheme," he said.

"It's what we are operating as a national financial policy."

Not sure that his statement about older people accepting the benefit cuts for the greater good would hold quite as true though.

The Taxpayers alliance on the other hand don't seem to do PR too well. The whole "they will be dead anyway" seems to miss the point that the majority are very much likely to be alive.

The forgetting about it bit though is probably true.