The bias against the under 65's by the English government

That talks about minimum wage. "Stop means-testing" could possibly be the one part that talks about "pensioners who are a few pounds over getting PC", but even that's not obvious. The rest seems definitely about working age benefits.

There is no reason why a poster shouldn't talk about those benefits, I was just surprised to see it was made to look as if it was in reply to my post. I am still bemused by this but it really isn't the end of the world, is it?

PoliticsNerd

Norah

PoliticsNerd

I do wonder Doodledog , why you quote something I posted, and then answer something (whatever it is) entirely different. You really could have made you point without the quote.

You asked -- what would you do?

Asked and answered.

You may not prefer the answer, but one was proffered.

That takes it out of context Norah. I asked "I suppose the only answer to "what about pensioners who are a few pounds over getting PC" is what about them? What would you do? What does each political party or outside organisation suggest?"

Where was the answer about about those getting a few pounds over PC? I appreciate I could have missed it.

I'm not "picking " on anyone Doodledog. Surely no one on GN would do such a thing?

Doodledog: stop means-testing, adjust the minimum full time wage.

She gave an answer.

What I would do is to stop means-testing outside of exceptional circumstances which don't spring to mind just now, but 'the system' should be designed to ensure that people are not worse off for working, producing goods and services contributing financially to society via taxes. The 'what about them' approach to people who lose out when it is possible to opt out of that and be better off is why so many feel marginalised and resentful, and IMO is why fascism is gaining traction.

It would be interesting if research were done into how much someone claiming all means-tested benefits and entitlements would need to earn before tax to break even, and the minimum full-time wage and full pension should not be allowed to fall below this. It should never be the case that people who pay in are worse off than those who opt out. Those who can't work for genuine reasons should also have a decent standard of living, as should those who care for them.

Norah

PoliticsNerd

I do wonder Doodledog , why you quote something I posted, and then answer something (whatever it is) entirely different. You really could have made you point without the quote.

You asked -- what would you do?

Asked and answered.

You may not prefer the answer, but one was proffered.

That takes it out of context Norah. I asked "I suppose the only answer to "what about pensioners who are a few pounds over getting PC" is what about them? What would you do? What does each political party or outside organisation suggest?"

Where was the answer about about those getting a few pounds over PC? I appreciate I could have missed it.

I'm not "picking " on anyone Doodledog. Surely no one on GN would do such a thing?

taxingwealth.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Taxing-Wealth-Report-2024-Shorter.pdf

Perhaps this link will work

Doodledog

Thanks Norah.

PN you do seem to pick on everything I (and a couple of others) say.

You asked 'what about them? What would you do?' wrt people with a few pounds more than the threshold for PC, and I told you what I would do, as well as why I think your dismissive attitude is dangerous.

How you see that as answering something entirely different is beyond me - it was a direct response to your questions.

You're welcome.

I get told I'm wrong every single time I say what could be basis of an approach. Numbers that make no sense are trotted out. Take the numbers -- work with logic and expand to fit.

Recently I read this long piece, many sensible bits. [MaizieD]

taxingwealth.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Taxing-Wealth-Report-2024-Shorter.pdf

Thanks Norah.

PN you do seem to pick on everything I (and a couple of others) say.

You asked 'what about them? What would you do?' wrt people with a few pounds more than the threshold for PC, and I told you what I would do, as well as why I think your dismissive attitude is dangerous.

How you see that as answering something entirely different is beyond me - it was a direct response to your questions.

PoliticsNerd

I do wonder Doodledog , why you quote something I posted, and then answer something (whatever it is) entirely different. You really could have made you point without the quote.

You asked -- what would you do?

Asked and answered.

You may not prefer the answer, but one was proffered.

I do wonder Doodledog , why you quote something I posted, and then answer something (whatever it is) entirely different. You really could have made you point without the quote.

I agree on both counts, Norah. More taxation is necessary, but not for those on low incomes, who can least afford it.

Free public transport would be good for so many reasons, and IMO could cut the bills for people being treated for MH issues caused by loneliness and isolation, and help those who can't get to workplaces or colleges etc.

Doodledog This could be paid for by increasing the 'bands' for paying higher amounts of tax. At present there are only 3 bands, with the higher rate kicking in at somewhere around £53k, and the additional rate at £125k. There is nothing beyond that, which seems to me wrong. There should maybe be an increase at £85k and additional ones after £125k, and possibly a step in between the ridiculously low personal allowance of £12500 and the higher rate. The numbers might be wrong, as I am no expert, but the principle seems fairer than now. If the government (any government) explained things better - ie what people are getting back in return for paying more - voters would have to be determinedly obstructive to object. Most things are cheaper when bought in bulk, and it is better for everyone if all members of society are healthy and educated, so nobody would lose out. There could also be an increase in VAT on non-essential items, but that would have to be balanced against the possibility of causing job losses if things are priced out of the reach of enough people who could otherwise afford to buy them.

Public transport is subsidised or even free for everyone in other countries, and could be here, if there were a will.

I've long said the personal allowance is considerably too low, there need to be other bands inserted, and additional rate needs to be higher.

I always hear that I'm wrong for different reasons - however something has to change, more taxes are needed by the government.

Free public transport is a good idea. Less cars - good for the environment, people out of homes for errands & medical needs, school transport, etc.

I suppose the only answer to "what about pensioners who are a few pounds over getting PC" is what about them? What would you do? What does each political party or outside organisation suggest?
What I would do is to stop means-testing outside of exceptional circumstances which don't spring to mind just now, but 'the system' should be designed to ensure that people are not worse off for working, producing goods and services contributing financially to society via taxes. The 'what about them' approach to people who lose out when it is possible to opt out of that and be better off is why so many feel marginalised and resentful, and IMO is why fascism is gaining traction.

It would be interesting if research were done into how much someone claiming all means-tested benefits and entitlements would need to earn before tax to break even, and the minimum full-time wage and full pension should not be allowed to fall below this. It should never be the case that people who pay in are worse off than those who opt out. Those who can't work for genuine reasons should also have a decent standard of living, as should those who care for them.

This could be paid for by increasing the 'bands' for paying higher amounts of tax. At present there are only 3 bands, with the higher rate kicking in at somewhere around £53k, and the additional rate at £125k. There is nothing beyond that, which seems to me wrong. There should maybe be an increase at £85k and additional ones after £125k, and possibly a step in between the ridiculously low personal allowance of £12500 and the higher rate. The numbers might be wrong, as I am no expert, but the principle seems fairer than now. If the government (any government) explained things better - ie what people are getting back in return for paying more - voters would have to be determinedly obstructive to object. Most things are cheaper when bought in bulk, and it is better for everyone if all members of society are healthy and educated, so nobody would lose out. There could also be an increase in VAT on non-essential items, but that would have to be balanced against the possibility of causing job losses if things are priced out of the reach of enough people who could otherwise afford to buy them.

Public transport is subsidised or even free for everyone in other countries, and could be here, if there were a will.

rafichagran

Politicsnerd Yes PC will be OK but what about pensioners who are a few pounds over getting PC I don't agree with abolishing bus passes, alot of pensioners do use them and they are a big help financially.

I suppose the only answer to "what about pensioners who are a few pounds over getting PC" is what about them? What would you do? What does each political party or outside organisation suggest?

When I post I see it as part of an exchange of views, not a reason or set of reasons given in support of an isolated action or theory. I have yet to see a single suggested theory or suggestest action I can wholly support.

For instance the Green Party seem to have "good" policies on wealth - they seem straight from Gary (Stevenson's) economics - but where are their equally defined policies for support for those in poverty and economic stability for those on middle incomes? (If you know what these are do point me to them).

No, I don't have the answers so I just have to keep discussing the various theories that seem they may be right and educating myself however and wherever I can - often gleaning bits from those on GN

Good stuff silverbrooks

M0nica

Why not abolish all bus passes and increase the level of pc by the cost of the travel the average user makes each week? Bus companies would soon issue their own concession cards, like the rail companies do.

This would benefit those currently just above pc level while those with higher incomes would only benefit from concessions granted by bus companies themselves.

Do you mean the average use of concessionary passes or the average use by all bus users?

Bus companies already offer weekly and monthly passes which brings the cost down but are priced such that they are only cost effective if you use the bus on a regular basis. The monthly pass here costs £85. You would have to use it say 30 times a month for it to work out cheaper than buying a single £3 ticket each time. It’s worthwhile for the daily commuter but not for the occasional user.

Outside of London, the average number of journeys taken on a concessionary bus pass is only 65 per year. Such a low number suggests that many holders rarely use their pass, if at all.

I’d describe myself as a more realistic average user, using my pass say six times a week for three return journeys to town which, without a free pass, would cost £18 pw.

Based on the flat fare, 65 journeys * £3 would be £195 a year or £3.75 a week. In your suggestion, Pension Credit would rise by that much. The PC recipient would lose their bus pass but only have enough extra income to pay for one bus journey a week.

All other former holders of the bus pass would be worse off by £195 based on just 65 journeys a year. I’d be £936 worse off. Having worked and paid NIC for 50 years and waited an extra six years for my SP because of equalisation, so another six years for my bus pass, I’d be a tad miffed.

I’d just use my car instead for journeys into town, adding to road congestion and the bus operators would lose that government revenue from the bus journeys I used to take. But what about the pensioner who doesn’t have a car? £936 would be too much to find for most people on low to moderate incomes.

Or, if you were to base average use on the price of the monthly season ticket, that would add over £20 pw to Pension Credit. That isn’t going to happen as it would make Pension Credit around £17 a week more than someone with only full New State Pension. The government isnt going to raise the SP to match. The numbers just don’t work.

As I wrote upthread, it’s clear that the provision of concessionary bus passes creates a net benefit. It enables operators to keep otherwise unviable routes running, boosts local businesses and increases tax yield as well as providing a means to reduce social and physically isolation. All for less than a billion year. It’s a subsidy well spent.

Snap rafichagran. Sorry, I didn't see your post.

PoliticsNerd

M0nica

Why not abolish all bus passes and increase the level of pc by the cost of the travel the average user makes each week? Bus companies would soon issue their own concession cards, like the rail companies do.

This would benefit those currently just above pc level while those with higher incomes would only benefit from concessions granted by bus companies themselves.

That sounds good to me M0nica, firstly because it is a system change which helps more people and secondly it gives more agency to those poorest of pensioners receiving PC.

Not all pensioners use buses or can use buses. Some pensioners need transport at times when buses aren't available. Some rarely get out but need appropriate transport when they do. By giving a additional amount this would include those who need the occasional taxi but cannot use or don't have access to buses. You could even expect that those who cannot get to the shops could use it to pay for deliveries.

With this scheme presumably those who are just above the threshold for Pension Credit would receive nothing.

Politicsnerd Yes PC will be OK but what about pensioners who are a few pounds over getting PC I don't agree with abolishing bus passes, alot of pensioners do use them and they are a big help financially.

M0nica

Why not abolish all bus passes and increase the level of pc by the cost of the travel the average user makes each week? Bus companies would soon issue their own concession cards, like the rail companies do.

This would benefit those currently just above pc level while those with higher incomes would only benefit from concessions granted by bus companies themselves.

That sounds good to me M0nica, firstly because it is a system change which helps more people and secondly it gives more agency to those poorest of pensioners receiving PC.

Not all pensioners use buses or can use buses. Some pensioners need transport at times when buses aren't available. Some rarely get out but need appropriate transport when they do. By giving a additional amount this would include those who need the occasional taxi but cannot use or don't have access to buses. You could even expect that those who cannot get to the shops could use it to pay for deliveries.

Our bus passes were issued once we started receiving our State Pensions.

The people who want to means test are the better off pensioners, people who get only state pension or have a small occ pen as well need this, doctors/ dentist appointment, shopping and getting out.
The poster saying her Grandson has to pay fares, guess what, we all did when we were working.
I get sick of wealthy pensions spouting we should not have it because some people who work all their lives have state and small oc pen do need it. I don't agree with means testing either, to those who don't need it, make a donation to charity and cut out the virtue signalling.

Let’s face it, getting old can be rubbish so every little helps as they say. In London under 16s get free travel so there are hordes of school kids waiting at the bus stop to ride a couple of stops they could easily walk.

Why not abolish all bus passes and increase the level of pc by the cost of the travel the average user makes each week?
For all the reasons mentioned above about those just above PC, or those who have struggled to lift themselves from poverty only to find that they have saved themselves out of the freebies they could have had if they had spent their money. Means-tests drag those with little down to the level of those who have nothing.

If governments want people to provide for themselves in older age (which is vital as we have an aging society) they can't keep penalising those who do so. As ever, it's easy to talk about who 'can afford' things; but that is hugely subjective, and is usually said by those who have way above average. If people save or pay into extra pensions they should get the benefit of that, not have their money clawed back pound for pound by means-tests.

Why not abolish all bus passes and increase the level of pc by the cost of the travel the average user makes each week? Bus companies would soon issue their own concession cards, like the rail companies do.

This would benefit those currently just above pc level while those with higher incomes would only benefit from concessions granted by bus companies themselves.

Cabbie21
^The use of buses by older people with passes helps to keep bus services on the road.^

I think that is a hugely important factor in many places, especially for rural communities.

NotSpaghetti

Why not wait till people are retired I think?
Or link to benefits?

I'm Englosh, and had to wait till I turned 66 and was in receipt of my state Old Age Pension before I qualified for a bus pass. When my ex turned 65 he got his bus pass then, but he's 6 years older than me and when he got his bus pass men could get their bus passes at 65.
Since the state pensionalbe age rose to 66 that's the earliest you can get a bus pass.