What Will You Do With 10 Million Frozen Pensioners, Rachel?

Yes, I have used the eco4 schemes, which have benefited me a lot. I had <a href="https://marigoldeco.co.uk/">cavity wall insulation</a> done, and the services were provided by Marigold Eco, who are offering very good services in the UK.

Yes, I have used the eco4 schemes, which have benefited me a lot. I had <a href="https://marigoldeco.co.uk/">Marigold Eco</a> done, and the services were provided by Marigold Eco, who are offering very good services in the UK.

Just what we need for the Xmas season: 'a poor man came in sight, gathering winter fuel.'

I think Reeves was foolish to make a one-off announcement about the WFA. The saving is now likely to be offset by additional Pension Credit claims so it won't lead to significant savings. And the optics are awful. They could learn from King Wenceslas.

CoolCoco

The frozen pensioners will be off on a cruise or having some winter sun in their holiday home.

Sarcasm, lowest form of wit!!. Some will, good for them. Most will not. They are the ones you and many others on here think that's OK, because hey take it from pensioners, the undeserving .

My DH has had a letter from DWP saying he will still get his WFA as he is on working tax credit.

Ilovecheese

I think you have hit the nail on the head with the Stockholm Syndrome comment. So many people are seemingly happy with the current level of inequality in the country. The very rich such as the Charlie Mullins chap are very much admired and defended. The rather poor are looked down upon. It might be that blaming people for their own poverty helps to keep at bay the idea that hard times can befall any one of us.

The very rich such as the Charlie Mullins chap are very much admired and defended

Well I admire the cheeky chappie Charlie Mullins for his get-up-and-go, but the idea that we can all achieve the rags-to-riches dream if only we work hard enough just doesn't wash.

If you intend to build an empire you have to get people to work for you and if we are all going to build empires, who's going to work for whom?

I know he intends to leave rather than pay more tax - which I have a sneaky feeling he might have done anyway. But I think inevitably that someone else will come along to take his place at the top?

I don't think everyone looks down on the poor, but there do appear to be some who think that it can only happen to you if you are the author of your own poverty.

I 'watched' a cyber friend go from riches to rags - purely through his own and his son's ill health. When I 'met' him via an internet group, he was a fairly successful business man.

I think you have hit the nail on the head with the Stockholm Syndrome comment. So many people are seemingly happy with the current level of inequality in the country. The very rich such as the Charlie Mullins chap are very much admired and defended. The rather poor are looked down upon. It might be that blaming people for their own poverty helps to keep at bay the idea that hard times can befall any one of us.

Dickens

MaizieD

But, what is the real problem - isn't it that too much wealth is in the hands of too few? And if that is the problem, then nothing is going to be done about it. Wealth = power, and those with it want to keep it that way.

Interesting that any discussion of this particular point is mostly studiously ignored or the wealthy are hotly defended, Dickens.

I think that the non-wealthy, in general, suffer from Stockholm Syndrome.'

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

^Interesting that any discussion of this particular point is mostly studiously ignored or the wealthy are hotly defended...^

... posted too soon - hit the wrong key.

Interesting that any discussion of this particular point is mostly studiously ignored or the wealthy are hotly defended

... temporarily embarrassed millionaires?

MaizieD

^But, what is the real problem - isn't it that too much wealth is in the hands of too few? And if that is the problem, then nothing is going to be done about it. Wealth = power, and those with it want to keep it that way.^

Interesting that any discussion of this particular point is mostly studiously ignored or the wealthy are hotly defended, Dickens.

I think that the non-wealthy, in general, suffer from Stockholm Syndrome.'

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

Interesting that any discussion of this particular point is mostly studiously ignored or the wealthy are hotly defended...

MissAdventure

People who don't own houses work hard too, by the way.

They do.

But I was referencing those who make comments such as, "we worked hard to get where we are today, to buy our own house", etc, etc, in order to make a point.

I wasn't in the market to buy a property until my mid 40s, so I do know what it's like to be, and live among, those who rent - the possible precariousness of a tenancy, not to mention the often exorbitant rents. Neither of which seem to have shown much improvement for renters if my friend is anything to go by - her rent has gone up by 25%... and she also works very hard.

But, what is the real problem - isn't it that too much wealth is in the hands of too few? And if that is the problem, then nothing is going to be done about it. Wealth = power, and those with it want to keep it that way.

Interesting that any discussion of this particular point is mostly studiously ignored or the wealthy are hotly defended, Dickens.

I think that the non-wealthy, in general, suffer from Stockholm Syndrome.'

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

The frozen pensioners will be off on a cruise or having some winter sun in their holiday home.

MissAdventure

Oh, you mean those "so called parents"?

Yep! The ones who can't boil an egg.

Doodledog Good post!

Maybe GNers could contribute to a GoFundMe page, if I set one up. I need to catch them while they're in a phase of caring for the poor rather than castigating them.

Oh, you mean those "so called parents"?

MissAdventure

People who don't own houses work hard too, by the way.

Some of them even work and send their children to breakfast clubs - but still get called shiftless. Same on them!

Definitely, in some cases.

Maybe even harderMissA

People who don't own houses work hard too, by the way.

Anyway - so we work hard, buy a house, and save for our old age. Sometimes at a cost to our health

Many are suffering from work-related illnesses, not so ill that they are totally incapacitated or able to receive benefits but enough to need to stay warm in winter months or risk a decline in health.

Doodledog

The WFP has surely been done to death.

It has been withdrawn. Previously, when the Tories were in power, there were numerous posts from people boasting about how they didn't need it.

I realise that the membership of GN shifts, but seeing threads about how people planned to 'protect' their money from taxation in advance of the election, so that posters didn't have to contribute to the welfare of others really doesn't sit well with the constant post-election complaints that those same 'others' will no longer get help with fuel costs. There was so little concern about the poor that people complained bitterly about the possibility of their children being taxed on over a million pounds of unearned income in the form of inheritance. Where do people think that money for the WFP would come from? People can only get benefits if other, richer people pay in the form of the very taxes that posters were openly boasting about finding ways not to pay.

I could understand the indignation at the withdrawal of the WFP if people hadn't been so keen to hang on to their money before it was announced, but not wanting to pay a penny over the odds is not compatible with wanting universal payments.

This is a long post, if anyone is easily bored, please just scroll on, I won't be offended!

I realise that the membership of GN shifts, but seeing threads about how people planned to 'protect' their money from taxation in advance of the election, so that posters didn't have to contribute to the welfare of others really doesn't sit well with the constant post-election complaints that those same 'others' will no longer get help with fuel costs.

I've been thinking about that, too.

Like others - many? most? some? - who are just about comfortable, I'm motivated by both self-interest and a desire for a more fair / equitable society. And, under our current economic system, I really do not begrudge losing the WFA if it means that those who are impoverished will get the help they need this winter.

But here's the thing.

We have been encouraged by governments and society in general too, right from the start of our working lives, to be disciplined with our finances. To save - save for a mortgage, save for our old-age. Oh, and to work hard.

During Boris Johnson's tenure, we were even told that "greed is good" - he thinks that self-interest gives society what it needs; like pharma making big profits from vaccines which then benefitted the rest of us - especially (initially) pensioners. Very Ayn Rand. But, ultimately, who pays for these huge profits (Pfizer to witness)? The NHS (+mark up), which means us presumably when we're looking at economic black-holes.

Anyway - so we work hard, buy a house, and save for our old age. Sometimes at a cost to our health. I did not work hard until I saw the error of my ways in my mid 40s and for 20+ years made up for the fecklessness of previous years by working long, long hours, saved and 'went without' in order not to be in penury when I retired at 70. And made myself ill in the process - the effects are still with me today. However, I made my choices, so... and, at least, I had those choices.

So, I can understand why some are reluctant to lose what they may have worked very hard for. And say things like, "what's the point of working hard and saving if at the end the government will come along and take it from you". Particularly if you believe that other - feckless individuals like I was (sort of anyway) - will get given what they need in benefits. And that's how we are encouraged to think, isn't it - divide and rule?

But - going back to 'greed is good' - and pharma - Pfizer in particular.

Pfizer has had an exceptionally good pandemic. Today it announced that its Covid-19 vaccine brought in $37bn billion last year, making it easily the most lucrative medicine in any given year in history. (Nick Dearden - The Guardian - 2022)

No government on earth is going to confront 'big pharma' or vested interests elsewhere in order to achieve a more fair and equitable society. Starmer certainly won't.

Instead, he will target the already impoverished (like those just above the PC cut off point), and the millions who've worked hard for their futures. And we'll continue to talk about those on benefits, and those who we think don't want to work. It happened under Cameron and Osborne, and the last government.

But, what is the real problem - isn't it that too much wealth is in the hands of too few? And if that is the problem, then nothing is going to be done about it. Wealth = power, and those with it want to keep it that way.

growstuff

Dickens

ronib

growstuff sometimes you need to see life in the round.
Okay - so has the chancellor budgeted for the increase in payments to allow newly assessed pensioners claiming pension credit for the first time? And which black hole just deepened?

I wondered about that, too.

Presumably government departments are given a budget so PC benefit will have been factored into it in the previous accounting year? If so many pensioners, as has been suggested, don't claim their entitlement, then there will be money left in the kitty so to speak. I had the idea, from somewhere, that departments had to spend their budget before the end of the accounting period - or lose it.

Not sure if that's how it works. But if it does - that previously unclaimed pension credit funding will be around somewhere, either still within the department, or back in the Treasury, so presumably one way or another will have been accounted for?

... sometimes you need to see life in the round

It's difficult to know when one has over-stepped the 'meander-mark' as it's not an exact science, and under most topics, one thing leads to another. However, the irritation of other posters will usually put a stop on it and let you know that it's a meander-too-far! I've been suitably chastised and asked for the post to be removed as being off-topic.

You're correct that budgeting for benefits doesn't work like that. It's done retrospectively because the government just doesn't know in advance how much will be claimed in benefits. In any case, at least the money will be going to those in greatest need, which has to be a good thing.

You're correct that budgeting for benefits doesn't work like that.

Afflicted with lazyitis - I could have looked it up myself!

Anyway - it's all here, detailed data on the welfare spending forecast for 24 / 25.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/benefit-expenditure-and-caseload-tables-information-and-guidance/benefit-expenditure-and-caseload-tables-information-and-guidance#what-are-the-benefit-expenditure-and-caseload-tables

There's a lot to read. See you later.

The WFP has surely been done to death.

It has been withdrawn. Previously, when the Tories were in power, there were numerous posts from people boasting about how they didn't need it.

I realise that the membership of GN shifts, but seeing threads about how people planned to 'protect' their money from taxation in advance of the election, so that posters didn't have to contribute to the welfare of others really doesn't sit well with the constant post-election complaints that those same 'others' will no longer get help with fuel costs. There was so little concern about the poor that people complained bitterly about the possibility of their children being taxed on over a million pounds of unearned income in the form of inheritance. Where do people think that money for the WFP would come from? People can only get benefits if other, richer people pay in the form of the very taxes that posters were openly boasting about finding ways not to pay.

I could understand the indignation at the withdrawal of the WFP if people hadn't been so keen to hang on to their money before it was announced, but not wanting to pay a penny over the odds is not compatible with wanting universal payments.

Dickens

ronib

growstuff sometimes you need to see life in the round.
Okay - so has the chancellor budgeted for the increase in payments to allow newly assessed pensioners claiming pension credit for the first time? And which black hole just deepened?

I wondered about that, too.

Presumably government departments are given a budget so PC benefit will have been factored into it in the previous accounting year? If so many pensioners, as has been suggested, don't claim their entitlement, then there will be money left in the kitty so to speak. I had the idea, from somewhere, that departments had to spend their budget before the end of the accounting period - or lose it.

Not sure if that's how it works. But if it does - that previously unclaimed pension credit funding will be around somewhere, either still within the department, or back in the Treasury, so presumably one way or another will have been accounted for?

... sometimes you need to see life in the round

It's difficult to know when one has over-stepped the 'meander-mark' as it's not an exact science, and under most topics, one thing leads to another. However, the irritation of other posters will usually put a stop on it and let you know that it's a meander-too-far! I've been suitably chastised and asked for the post to be removed as being off-topic.

You're correct that budgeting for benefits doesn't work like that. It's done retrospectively because the government just doesn't know in advance how much will be claimed in benefits. In any case, at least the money will be going to those in greatest need, which has to be a good thing.