Ed Balls and the State Pension

Exactly, Lilygran. Let them try, if they dare!

Which group of the population is most likely to vote?

But the Bishop that expressed the views about the baby boomers that led to your remarks was not trying to make any religious beliefs law, all he was doing was commenting on the undue advantages he felt one cohort of the population had received.

It is an interesting point of view that can be discussed, but religion doesn't have anything to do with it beyond the fact that he openly professes a religion.

I agree with you Janea

There is a difference I think between someone who has been driven by their religious beliefs and values to bring about social change, or devote themselves to public service, and senior officers of the Church expressing political views and aligning themselves with one political party or another.
In the case of the Church of England it is particularly problematic, since the C of E is the established Church of the State. Because of this, like the Queen and the judiciary, senior C of E leaders should remain apolitical.
That is not to say they should remain silent about social injustice, but they should be careful what they say and when they say it.
The Right Rev. Richard Chartres may have crossed that fine line, with his little foray into boomer-bashing following on so closely from Ed Balls' policy statement.

Frank So what?

Yes, I accept that religious people have done great good - but do you not think they would still be the kind of people who wanted to make the world a better place even if they had not been believers?
I could cite many examples of very bad things done in the name of religion, not just Christianity, but I won't bother. I still don't want the beliefs of others imposed on me by law.

Great nan, if you think that then all the great social welfare steps of the last 200 years, from the abolition of slavery to the welfare state would have to be abandoned because the movements that have spear headed social justice have, in the past, almost always been spearheaded by people with strong religious beliefs that drove their belief in the reforms they championed.

Greatnan

I will be paying 20% tax on my state pension as my occupational pension already uses my tax allowances.
In fact I am already paying more tax on my occupational pension than what I will get in state pension so I will in effect get no state pension.

Frank

bluebell

I don't think many people could afford to put £40,000 a year in to their pension.

Frank

I am happy for anyone to comment on political issues - as long as the law is not based on the religious beliefs of a minority of people. (Which is all that secularists ask).

Aka - I would like to see a reasoned argument as to why Church ( or any church) leaders should not comment on political issues

Don't feed the trolls! (Is Liz Jones moonlighting on Gransnet?

My state retirement pension is taxable in France - I wonder what the UK government would do about that? They already tax my two government service pensions at source.

Tax relief on pension contributions for higher rate tax payers - if this were abolished and everyone got tax relief at the basic rate, the lowest figure I could find would be £2.23bn annual saving. Some estimates were much higher. There is now a maximum of £50000 pa that you can pay into a pension fund and get tax relief on . This is going down to £40000 in 14/15 - but that's still a lot of tax relief. Of course any such savings wouldn't show up in the welfare budget but in the Treasury.

Frank

I have just read your post. I am appalled. Many people have chequered employment histories. Ill health, unemployment and many older women paid the married woman's stamp and were kept out of the workplace for years by child rearing responsibilities. Some could afford to pay voluntary contributions but most could not. These factors all meant that they have retired on only basic pension or less.

I am proud to live in a country that has a welfare system that guarantees older people an adequate, but not generous income, so that they do not need to die premature deaths in misery from hunger, cold and homelessness.

Yes, I know Anno has already said this but it does deserve reiterating. After retirement I worked as a home visitor with elderly people and saw and understood the factors that led to people retiring on low pensions. I did meet people who were feckless and disorganised all their lives and their low income in retirement reflected this, but these were few and far between compared with those who had faced many vicissitudes in life and after a lifetime of struggle could at least in retirement be guaranteed a sure and adequate income.

Aka - you would know all about attacking the post and not the poster !! I've clearly learnt from the best!! Flick - the point I was making about tax relief was that on pension contributions during working life and it would save an enormous amount goes off to find link

Thanks for posting that Jane it's always interesting to see how The Church like to make pronouncements on politics, especially those sitting pretty in senior positions.

Bishop of London backs up Ed Balls in today's Telegraph

You're right, bluebell. I don't usually rise to the bait but that was just so crass...!

Bluebell I think the policy on GN is to attack the post not the poster.

But they are already increasing the pension age and there is a limit to how far it can be increased before so many people in the just short of pensionable age group are either unemployed because of reduced efficiency or have medical conditions that make work almost impossible that the savings on pension is matched by payment of unemployment and sickness benefits.

The amount of money that would be saved by taking away higher rate tax relief, like the plan to withdraw winter fuel allowance from higher rate tax payers, makes a good headline but actually will save very little money,

Anno - save your breath - some of us were trying to have a sensible discussion on a really serious issue and then one poster brings it to a level that it's impossible to engage with in any meaningful way at all. I just can't even begin to address the points raised by Frank - it's not worth the effort.

That is incredibly thoughtless, Frank. Many women have not paid full contributions and because of marital breakdown, often through no fault of their own, have been left without full pensions which are brought up to minimum income by pension credits. You would presumably have them out on the streets. Or possibly euthanased.

There should be no minimum income guarantee.
People should only get what they have paid for.

Frank

It is what the first post on this thread said and I considered how this could be done.

If you are going to cap pension expenditure, there are a number of ways you can do it, cut annual increases in the pension to a rate below the rate of inflation, but this has already been done when it was decided to base the annual increase in pensions on the Consumer price index rather than on the retail price index. Pension age could be raised, but again this is already being done.

All that is left is to cut all the bells and whistles, winter fuel payment, free TV licences, prescriptions, bus passes etc, which would be my preference. Then add a substantial sum to the minimum income guarantee and this would cascade upwards through the Pension Credit system to assist all pensioners on modest incomes who would then paying for things that were previously free, or a cap is put on the state pension for those with reasonable occupational/private pensions.

Can anyone think of any other way to do it, bar the Dignitas/euthanasia route?