Why do you support Labour?

love0c

Iam64 What!? You save in your working life so you can enjoy a more comfortable retirement. Then you pay more tax because you have savings. And you think this fair????? I most certainly do not!

Recause unfortunately life isn't a level playing field.

Someone might have worked just as hard all their lives but not accumulated enough to not need help from the state.

Some might have worked really hard as family carers and not accumulated enough although they have contributed a great deal.

Some have been unfortunate enough to have chronic serious illnesses or disabilities although they've done there best.

Thats why I agree with the principle of taxing - not over taxing - those who can afford it. It's all about seeing oneself as part of society not as an individual.

One day, who knows, what will happen to us in the future - or our DC or DGC, and need state help? Those are th underlying principles I hold to and despite all the difficulties why I vote labour.

I thought Labour was intent on reducing numbers claiming disability benefits? Work is being put forward as better for mental health and reduces social isolation etc. by this government. So the goalposts are moving in theory at least. Plus of course there will be more money for us to send to Ukraine….

Wyllow3 I do agree with you in principle. However, before any of this can happen Labour must stop giving out to all so freely. If they did this then the actually deserving, needing people would get it and there would be enough money to do it. As it is Labour just love to gleefully give out other people's money. At the moment I do not think any party is fair.

ronib

I thought Labour was intent on reducing numbers claiming disability benefits? Work is being put forward as better for mental health and reduces social isolation etc. by this government. So the goalposts are moving in theory at least. Plus of course there will be more money for us to send to Ukraine….

Those aims are not incompatible with what I laid out - its not moving the goalposts as in continuing to support those where its necessary

On the example you chose from those I gave, disability and work: they are suggesting that its following better (or even any) treatment that numbers could be reduced/get people back into work which incurs costs of its own of course.

I had in mind most of all severe disabilities of all kinds where the family cannot be expected to bear the costs and family members cant work becuase of it.

love0c

Wyllow3 I do agree with you in principle. However, before any of this can happen Labour must stop giving out to all so freely. If they did this then the actually deserving, needing people would get it and there would be enough money to do it. As it is Labour just love to gleefully give out other people's money. At the moment I do not think any party is fair.

It's actually very complicated, isn't it? What would you like to see curtailed and how? More means testing?

Why are there so many homeless people having to live on the street when boat people arrive and are given hotel rooms and food ? Seems unfair.

Wyllow3

love0c

Iam64 What!? You save in your working life so you can enjoy a more comfortable retirement. Then you pay more tax because you have savings. And you think this fair????? I most certainly do not!

Recause unfortunately life isn't a level playing field.

Someone might have worked just as hard all their lives but not accumulated enough to not need help from the state.

Some might have worked really hard as family carers and not accumulated enough although they have contributed a great deal.

Some have been unfortunate enough to have chronic serious illnesses or disabilities although they've done there best.

Thats why I agree with the principle of taxing - not over taxing - those who can afford it. It's all about seeing oneself as part of society not as an individual.

One day, who knows, what will happen to us in the future - or our DC or DGC, and need state help? Those are th underlying principles I hold to and despite all the difficulties why I vote labour.

I agree.. good measured, compassionate post

nanna8

Why are there so many homeless people having to live on the street when boat people arrive and are given hotel rooms and food ? Seems unfair.

Not quite what you are portraying. See this Shelter Report.

england.shelter.org.uk/media/press_release/at_least_354000_people_homeless_in_england_today_#:~:text=New%20research%20from%20Shelter%20shows,hostels%20or%20other%20homeless%20accommodation

Jeremy Corbyn wasn’t popular because he was a radical, and therefore his plans for government weren’t trusted by the electorate.

I suppose you could ask people why they vote Conservative, Lib Dem, Green, Reform, it's usually a case of habit, family always voted that way( although the Greens and Reform are far more recent), belief in what a party stands for, or are members of a political party. I don't like the two main parties, and won't vote for either of them, as they've been such a huge letdown in the last 20 years.

growstuff

Barleyfields

Thanks Casdon. I hope they are able to do that rather than give pupils of independent schools an advantage in whatever circumstances Latin may still be required in order to study for some degrees, as was my experience many years ago.

I don't know of any degree where school-level Latin is still required. I did Latin O level in 1971 because it was clear that I was good at foreign languages and would possibly want to study for a languages degree. At the time, most of the prestigious universities required Latin to study foreign languages. However, that requirement was dropped in the year I applied for university and I can't really say that my knowledge of Latin has ever been very useful.

University degrees which require some knowledge of Latin (eg ancient history, law, medicine) could easily provide short course in the first year covering the essential subject-specific language.

I'm just reading through this thread as a latecomer while waiting for a delayed train.
Your path sounds similar to mine growstuff , except at a London Comprehensive there was no chance of my doing Latin. I don't know if my form tutor told the university that, but I was accepted with unconditional offers in 1976 for a languages degree with the promise I would attend weekly lessons with the Professor of Latin in his study! Latin was an entry requirement at my university. Anyway, he gave up on me after two months, and me on him. Waste of time all round.

It may have been a waste of time for you escaped but don’t make the mistake of thinking that others haven’t flourished with Latin as a building block. I was made to study a module in economics and that was complete gobbledygook at the time. Economics still is an unfathomable subject for me but I wouldn’t stop anyone else from trying to make sense of it. If possible …

ronib

It may have been a waste of time for you escaped but don’t make the mistake of thinking that others haven’t flourished with Latin as a building block. I was made to study a module in economics and that was complete gobbledygook at the time. Economics still is an unfathomable subject for me but I wouldn’t stop anyone else from trying to make sense of it. If possible …

A basic grounding in how the money system works would be a lot more beneficial for our children and the country than any amount of Latin.

MaizieD - you’re so right in prioritising grounding in how the money system works over Latin
It’s something that could be taught in different ways across age groups
If you set up a virtual class can I come

Recause unfortunately life isn't a level playing field.

Someone might have worked just as hard all their lives but not accumulated enough to not need help from the state.
Agreed. By the end of a working life, though, it doesn't matter how much you have paid in - it is the number of contributions, not the value of them that counts towards a full pension. I think this is fair. Those who can afford to save as well as pay NI will have occupational pensions, and/or savings in the bank as well as a state pension, but everyone who has worked for decades and has a full contribution record should have a decent pension, which should be the same whether they have paid £10 a week or the maximum (about £80 a week?). In this case I do think that those who earn more should pay more.

Some might have worked really hard as family carers and not accumulated enough although they have contributed a great deal.
People caring for the sick or disabled should be recognised and paid, IMO. Not just free NI contributions, but allowances and employment rights such as paid holidays and cover if they are sick.

Some have been unfortunate enough to have chronic serious illnesses or disabilities although they've done there best.
Yes, and a decent society will look after people who are unable to do so themselves. If everyone capable is expected to contribute then there will be more for those who can't, but (IMO) nobody should be able to decide not to pay in if they can, yet expect to take out. That is very unfair.

Thats why I agree with the principle of taxing - not over taxing - those who can afford it. It's all about seeing oneself as part of society not as an individual.
I agree with the principle of taxation too. But I think that all capable adults should pay, as I said above. We are all part of society, so should all contribute to wider society above and beyond our own families (unless we are carers, in which case see above).

How that should work, and details such as at what ages taxation should start and end, who should be exempt, or for how many years we should be expected to contribute before being entitled to retire on a pension would need to be decided, but should be evenly spread. Those who are sick or disabled themselves may not be able to pay, and that is why it's important that the rest of us do.

One day, who knows, what will happen to us in the future - or our DC or DGC, and need state help? Those are th underlying principles I hold to and despite all the difficulties why I vote labour.
Agreed. I would hate to live under the American system where people can't afford to be ill and there is very little help for those who are unable to work. There is no need for taxation to be very high if more people pay in and the load is spread. It is the fact that it is easy for people to get a free ride that means those in work are squeezed so hard.

Sago

Beeches

Shinamae you got so angry earlier the moderator removed your comment, time for bed I think - sleep well

Yes but your whole thread was removed.

I think that top trumps Shinamae.

P.S You obviously missed the thread on paragraphs.

Ah, so it was shut down because of the lack of paragraphs.
Thanks for the info. 😂

I do like a nice paragraph 😀

well said Doodledog

petra

Sago

Beeches

Shinamae you got so angry earlier the moderator removed your comment, time for bed I think - sleep well

Yes but your whole thread was removed.

I think that top trumps Shinamae.

P.S You obviously missed the thread on paragraphs.

Ah, so it was shut down because of the lack of paragraphs.
Thanks for the info. 😂

Isn’t it interesting how a brand new poster comes on here so confidently!

Anyone would think it was an existing poster by another name.

Well Beeches you have certainly made a mark.

At least now people will be entitled to a full pension after paying 35 years of NI contributions, whereas it used to be 39 years for women and, I think 44 years for men.
With often compulsory retirement for women at 60, that meant immediately starting work after taking a first degree at university (if they went, most older women didn't in fact) and working non-stop from 21 - 60 to get the full number of years.

Now at least people can vary their working life, go back to studying, go travelling or take a gap for whatever reason and still fit in enough full years of contributions

I was a working person. A teacher doing my very best to deliver an A level education to students who often wanted to go on to University. I worked extremely hard and paid as much as I could into my pension so that I could provide for myself in older age and not be a burden on the state.
I am now taxed to the hilt and watch my neighbour who hardly worked a day in her life (so not a working person) receive benefits including pension credit, wfa, free eye tests etc etc.
It just seems so unfair when Labour say they support the 'working person'

That was in reply to thi:

Agreed. By the end of a working life, though, it doesn't matter how much you have paid in - it is the number of contributions, not the value of them that counts towards a full pension. I think this is fair.

Yes, it is fair except that the goalposts keep moving!

Nanny27

I was a working person. A teacher doing my very best to deliver an A level education to students who often wanted to go on to University. I worked extremely hard and paid as much as I could into my pension so that I could provide for myself in older age and not be a burden on the state.
I am now taxed to the hilt and watch my neighbour who hardly worked a day in her life (so not a working person) receive benefits including pension credit, wfa, free eye tests etc etc.
It just seems so unfair when Labour say they support the 'working person'

All the conditions you describe were introduced under the Tory government?

I think people are moving away from the two main parties, or in many cases, just don't vote. There seems to be a widespread dislike of the two main parties now and tribal voters are very much in the minority.