Ok. So, do you think the Winter Fuel payment should be a universal benefit?
I don't think there should be a Winter Fuel payment at all. Rather, I think both the Personal Tax Allowance and the State Pension should be much greater, and then tax pensions for those who have other income. The administrative costs of taxing those pensioners whose additional income would take them over a higher tax threshold would be far less than the small army needed to deal with means testing additional payments from various "pots".
Better still would be if the UK government undertook root-and-branch reform of our Byzantine tax legislation and simplified it, perhaps adopting something like New Zealand's General Service Tax.
Their research and knowledge of the harms involved would be better than mine. I'm generally in favour of universal benefits as opposed to means testing for a lot of reasons and it used to be an important part of Labour thinking. If you go back to William Beveridge he was also no fan of means testing - being aware of the poverty trap agingjb mentioned. (I think Attlee was also a fan of universal benefits but I'm not an expert) There's a reason the NHS isn't means tested and it might be wise not to jump onto the bandwagon of means testing because that stick can equally well be used to beat healthcare with.
Ok. So, do you think the Winter Fuel payment should be a universal benefit?
If it's going to exist it should be universal and taxed back for those with higher levels of income/wealth. Ideally it should just be rolled into the state pension (and those with higher levels of income/wealth should be subject to progressive taxation).
The issue is one of rolling out the change just before winter at a time when there's ongoing cost of living inflation (including to energy prices).
The *problem* as per that Hansard quote is that there's a section of the Labour party who aren't fond of raising taxes and therefore increasingly fly the means testing flag.
Their research and knowledge of the harms involved would be better than mine. I'm generally in favour of universal benefits as opposed to means testing for a lot of reasons and it used to be an important part of Labour thinking. If you go back to William Beveridge he was also no fan of means testing - being aware of the poverty trap agingjb mentioned. (I think Attlee was also a fan of universal benefits but I'm not an expert) There's a reason the NHS isn't means tested and it might be wise not to jump onto the bandwagon of means testing because that stick can equally well be used to beat healthcare with.
Better still would be if the UK government undertook root-and-branch reform of our Byzantine tax legislation and simplified it, perhaps adopting something like New Zealand's General Service Tax.
Yeah this won't work because the GST (which is basically a flat value added tax) isn't a substitute for progressive income and wealth taxes.
So painting Starmer and Reeves as evil for wanting to remove a benefit from people who clearly don't need it, is a real stretch.
The problem is that removing the benefit from those "who clearly don't need it" also ends up removing it from some who do. Which has been the approach of the Conservatives for a long time, the whole idea that there are "deserving poor" and the "undeserving" and going to extreme measures to prevent those they deem "undeserving" from getting anything, whole armies of people tasked with cracking down on anyone in need claiming a few quid that they technically might not be entitled to but often needed.
My issue with this is that it's not only old people who are cold. Hundreds of thousands of children live in freezing cold homes and they get no assistance at all.
My issue with this is that it's not only old people who are cold. Hundreds of thousands of children live in freezing cold homes and they get no assistance at all.
True - but that’s an argument for levelling up (to coin a phrase) rather than levelling down.
My issue with this is that it's not only old people who are cold. Hundreds of thousands of children live in freezing cold homes and they get no assistance at all.
True - but that’s an argument for levelling up (to coin a phrase) rather than levelling down.
Also true.
However, (and I really don't mean anyone here), those who are making the most noise about this is the media told poor children it was their parents' fault and tough.
The problem is that removing the benefit from those "who clearly don't need it" also ends up removing it from some who do. Which has been the approach of the Conservatives for a long time, the whole idea that there are "deserving poor" and the "undeserving" and going to extreme measures to prevent those they deem "undeserving" from getting anything, whole armies of people tasked with cracking down on anyone in need claiming a few quid that they technically might not be entitled to but often needed.
Not necessarily, it doesn't. Moreover it's not about deserving vs undeserving poor. That's the whole shtick about working age benefits. This is about deserving poor (as in deserving of financial aid) vs undeserving not-poor, purely on the basis of being better off. As noted, it's the middle ground that needs some work.
This might be a good place to ask a related question. A bit of Googling suggests something like 25-30% of older UK workers have no private pension arrangements. Let's guess that those stats copy over into those already retired; amongst that group (at the younger end), apparently about half are in receipt of a full (new) state pension. Those who are not in receipt of a full (new) state pension and who have no private pension, will be eligible for pension credit, a means-tested benefit which brings a bunch of other benefits with it (perhaps WFP, free council tax, rent support etc). We can't guess that all those without a full NI 'stamp' will also have no private pension income, but I guess we can say *up to* about 10-15% of UK pensioners will have a full NI stamp (and therefore no pension credit) but no private pension.
It's this group I'd worry most about, unless I have got this wrong. It would be a real pisser to get 35 years in, never claim anything, and then be a lot worse off than someone whose working life had been patchy (for whatever reason) and who was on the same income, due to a means-tested benefit that you were not eligible for by virtue of your self-sufficiency.
(Those older pensioners retired on the old, smaller state pension should all be eligible for pension credit unless they have private income.)
The above rats' nest is by way of saying I think we should do this more easily by PAYE - but I am also interested in if I have this right or not. Not least, if this was my position, I'd want to be pretty sure I *didn't* get 35 years in!
We'd do the whole benefits thing alot easier if we just got rid of the benefit system, paid everyone a stipend they could live on, made the tax threshold somewhat above that so work would pay and then taxed taxed total income. Then you prescribe anything people need as a result of disability.
Thereby getting rid of a whole set of stigmatising bureaucracy (tupe the staff over to the HMRC) and a second lot of bureaucracy that costs huge amount of professional time arguing over whether x package is health or social care.
The stipend is universal (including to children care of whoever has parental responsibility) the means testing is the income tax system.
Basically, a Universal Basic Income. Several models are available, it would have been interesting if Richard Nixon hadn't decided to be a crook and had stayed in the White House long enough to implement a negative income tax (which is a version of UBI).
The Church of Scotland backed a minimum income guarantee at the General Assembly earlier this year, Here's an open letter they signed to John Swinney where interestingly, though they prioritise child poverty, they also note that 'Data also points to a recent worrying increase in deep poverty amongst pensioners'
I don't know whether it's heartening or depressing how radical they are compared to most of the political parties and how little political coverage these sort of Christian values get.
Basically, a Universal Basic Income. Several models are available, it would have been interesting if Richard Nixon hadn't decided to be a crook and had stayed in the White House long enough to implement a negative income tax (which is a version of UBI).
Does everyone get it in addition to anything they might earn ?
Basically, a Universal Basic Income. Several models are available, it would have been interesting if Richard Nixon hadn't decided to be a crook and had stayed in the White House long enough to implement a negative income tax (which is a version of UBI).
Does everyone get it in addition to anything they might earn ?
Yes, that's why it's called Universal. Set so that everyone gets an income sufficient to cover basic needs (housing, food, clothing). That could be a simple fixed sum given to everyone, with income tax thresholds set so that practically any other income is taxed. Benefits are paid on top of this for those with additional needs (eg: to cover costs relating to illness or disability). It would effectively eliminate poverty, and means that those who aren't working so they can care for family have an income to live off. It eliminates practically all welfare payments, and greatly reduces the burden on the administration of benefits for those in need of additional support.
Basically, a Universal Basic Income. Several models are available, it would have been interesting if Richard Nixon hadn't decided to be a crook and had stayed in the White House long enough to implement a negative income tax (which is a version of UBI).
Does everyone get it in addition to anything they might earn ?
Yes, that's why it's called Universal. Set so that everyone gets an income sufficient to cover basic needs (housing, food, clothing). That could be a simple fixed sum given to everyone, with income tax thresholds set so that practically any other income is taxed. Benefits are paid on top of this for those with additional needs (eg: to cover costs relating to illness or disability). It would effectively eliminate poverty, and means that those who aren't working so they can care for family have an income to live off. It eliminates practically all welfare payments, and greatly reduces the burden on the administration of benefits for those in need of additional support.
Would this universal income replace the basic old age pension to which people have paid into all their working lives ?
It wouldn't replace the pension schemes people have paid into, anymore than it would replace salaries for work. But, in most implementations a UBI would replace pensions paid from current tax income (it's possible in some cases that UBI is paid to people of working age, and different payments are made for children and pensioners, those would be details to sort out along with what level to set a UBI at).
Basically, a Universal Basic Income. Several models are available, it would have been interesting if Richard Nixon hadn't decided to be a crook and had stayed in the White House long enough to implement a negative income tax (which is a version of UBI).
Does everyone get it in addition to anything they might earn ?
Yes, that's why it's called Universal. Set so that everyone gets an income sufficient to cover basic needs (housing, food, clothing). That could be a simple fixed sum given to everyone, with income tax thresholds set so that practically any other income is taxed. Benefits are paid on top of this for those with additional needs (eg: to cover costs relating to illness or disability). It would effectively eliminate poverty, and means that those who aren't working so they can care for family have an income to live off. It eliminates practically all welfare payments, and greatly reduces the burden on the administration of benefits for those in need of additional support.
Would this universal income replace the basic old age pension to which people have paid into all their working lives ?
There is no 'basic old age pension' into which people have 'paid into all their working lives', it's a benefit funded from current contributions.
So yes, it would largely replace the current benefit system from the state.
@Cameron Just why do you think it is "rich" OAPs who drive a Mercedes? Sure, those mad enough to buy one new may be "rich" but the rest of us buy one second-hand, and then drive it until it dies - which takes a looong time.
I think if you are buying 4 year old used Mercs in good condition; you are either forking out main dealer rates, paying mates rates to a friend who owned one from new, or know a fair bit about cars.
I suspect that does not describe the average pensioner.
It wouldn't replace the pension schemes people have paid into, anymore than it would replace salaries for work. But, in most implementations a UBI would replace pensions paid from current tax income (it's possible in some cases that UBI is paid to people of working age, and different payments are made for children and pensioners, those would be details to sort out along with what level to set a UBI at).
Thanks for all your information. My opinion is that it's unaffordable.
For the very short period in 1969 when I was unemployed (between completing initial full-time education and starting my first permanent job) I drew unemployment benefit. This came in the form of a "Guaranteed Minimum Income". This was calculated in two parts: a cash amount dependent on personal circumstances (mainly number of dependents, but also disabilities needing extra money) PLUS "reasonable rent" (or for those with a mortgage it covered the interest). Overall not over-generous, but it was just enough to live on.
With change of government soon after, this scheme soon disappeared, but it seems to me to have had the characteristics of a tentative step towards a universal nasic income.
(Payment was also much more efficient than modern benefits. I finished my last exam at lunhtime on a Tuesday, signed on at the Labour Exchange that afternoon. Because of the position of my surname in the alphabetic list my "normal" signing day was Thursday. Signing again on Thursday meant that I had signed twice and was so elegible for that week's payment - cash in the hand two days after becoming unemployed.)
@Cameron Just why do you think it is "rich" OAPs who drive a Mercedes? Sure, those mad enough to buy one new may be "rich" but the rest of us buy one second-hand, and then drive it until it dies - which takes a looong time.
I think if you are buying 4 year old used Mercs in good condition; you are either forking out main dealer rates, paying mates rates to a friend who owned one from new, or know a fair bit about cars.
I suspect that does not describe the average pensioner.
No. You find out which of the local car sales places is a supplier for Motability and go from there. They have a steady supply of 3 year old vehicles with a full service history and (usually) low mileage. They tend not to be a licensed brand dealership and so sell used vehicles for less because they need quick turnover. For example, my current car at 3 years old cost less than 50% of the list price of the basic model (and mine is an upgrade on that)
when new, had less than 9,000 miles on the clock, and came with quite a few factory "extras".
@mark_in_manchester Only c25% of current pensioners get the "New" State Pension (NSP) of £220 per week, the rest get the "Basic" version which is £167 (and many, especially women get less than that). Rent support, even means-tested, may go to some but those who own their own home get zilch.
The average private pension pot in the UK is currently £100k for men, £50k for women. At current rates, if you turn all of your £100k into an annuity you'll get c £2,720 per year, or just over £52 a week - in other words, it doesn't even get you up to the level of the NSP.
[For comparison: someone in the Civil Service pension scheme earning less than £45,000 per year pays 5.45% of salary in pension contributions - that is topped-up by a staggering 27.1% of employer's contribution. To put that in easy to understand figures, a CS on £30k pays c£1,620pa to get £9,726 into their "pot": a self-employed person earning £30k would need to find over £9,000 per year to put in the same amount out of net income of £24,770pa]
An additional problem is the figure that the Government says is a pension income giving a "modest" lifestyle, which assumes a maximum of £100 per year for DIY to deal with decorating and maintenance of a home: how many of us want, or are able, to do gutter clearing and decorating in our 80s?
Why - surely that depends on your income tax rates and thresholds ?
I don't see how the government could afford it. Having said that, if the money saved on winter fuel payments for the majority of pensioners can plug their £22 billion black hole, I may be wrong.
Basically I believe that all those who are capable of work, should genuinely be looking for work. I am not including children or those on an old age pension. I would exhempt the bulk of those with serious disabilities
Why - surely that depends on your income tax rates and thresholds ?
I don't see how the government could afford it. Having said that, if the money saved on winter fuel payments for the majority of pensioners can plug their £22 billion black hole, I may be wrong.
Let's take an example. If the UBI is set to £220 per week (approximately the current new state pension rate), £11440 per year. The UK population is about 68m, so that's a total of £778b per year (or, about £650b if UBI is only paid to over 18s). Currently, the UK government spends slightly over £300b per year on benefits - of which about £90b is for disability (which should still be paid), leaving about £200b already available for the UBI pot without any changes to tax income. Without changing current tax thresholds, for the majority of people in work that UBI payment will be taxed at 20% (and, for many will push income into a higher tax band and so increase tax more than that), so at least another £100b in income tax. Of course, tax bands and rates will be adjusted. It's relatively simple to put in intermediate bands and increase higher rates with the aim of a break-even point at about average income - anyone currently paying tax will pay a bit more, but set it so that anyone under £30,000 income gets a bit more after tax, and those with higher incomes pay more tax but end up with broadly similar income after tax as they currently do. This will raise more in tax than the current rates and bands without leaving anyone significantly worse off, and should be able to easily cover the extra £400-500b needed. The UBI increases spending ability for the poorest, which will automatically boost the economy with further tax income increases from the resulting economic growth. And, by reducing stress over making ends meet and ensuring people have income to pay for decent food and to heat their homes there will be a reduction in poverty related illnesses and mental health conditions (saving the NHS money, and costs to employers having to manage staff ill health).
Basically I believe that all those who are capable of work, should genuinely be looking for work. I am not including children or those on an old age pension. I would exhempt the bulk of those with serious disabilities
Which is an unrelated issue. UBI doesn't stop people from working, but it does mean that those who currently work on very low (or non-existent) salaries have an income they can live on - including the millions who work at home caring for family with maybe only a part time job, and those studying to gain qualifications for better work.
@mark_in_manchester Only c25% of current pensioners get the "New" State Pension (NSP) of £220 per week, the rest get the "Basic" version which is £167 (and many, especially women get less than that). Rent support, even means-tested, may go to some but those who own their own home get zilch.
If all you live on is the old state pension (or a reduced NSP because of an incomplete NI record) then you qualify for pension credit that takes you up to the same level as the full NSP.
An additional problem is the figure that the Government says is a pension income giving a "modest" lifestyle, which assumes a maximum of £100 per year for DIY to deal with decorating and maintenance of a home: how many of us want, or are able, to do gutter clearing and decorating in our 80s?
I think you have that in a muddle. The £100 figure comes from the minimum retirement standard set out by the PLSA, a pensions industry representative body, which describes a minimum retirement income as being around £14000. It is not a government figure.
[In passing, the PLSA retirement standards suggest a single person needs £43,000 (after tax and with no rent or mortgage to pay!) to be comfortable in retirement. That seems ludicrously out of reach for most people, with the average retirement income being less than half of that - about £18000 on 2022 figures.]
Alan’s proposal sounds workable to me, though I disagree with it saving money on the NHS budget - the money saved should go to making up for its current underfunding.
The difference could, however, be made up at least in part by scrapping maintenance grants for students - if they get the UBI then they would no longer be required (though loans to cover fees would have to remain).
Yes, with UBI you shouldn’t need maintainance grants for anything (undergrad or phd) or sick leave, maternity pay, support following a still birth, carers allowance etc etc
And all the endless intrusive form filling about your personal life would go away. And all the costs of processing all of that.
Plus - in that people are going to engage with the tax system if it is initially giving them money - it may help tackle tax evasion to some extent.
Yes, with UBI you shouldn’t need maintainance grants for anything (undergrad or phd) or sick leave, maternity pay, support following a still birth, carers allowance etc etc
And all the endless intrusive form filling about your personal life would go away. And all the costs of processing all of that.
Plus - in that people are going to engage with the tax system if it is initially giving them money - it may help tackle tax evasion to some extent.
Indeed.
Which is why I've been in favour of serious study of the potential for UBI for a while now.
Moreover, the evidence from pilot studies is that UBI increases workforce participation.
@Cameron People trying to justify the loss of the WFP have used the PLSA figure to justify that those who qualify for Pension Credit will be brought up to that figure.
The PLSA figure - more importantly the way they break it down - is off-the-scale unrealistic. For rural poor the sum of £10 per week for taxis is laughable.
@Cameron Just why do you think it is "rich" OAPs who drive a Mercedes? Sure, those mad enough to buy one new may be "rich" but the rest of us buy one second-hand, and then drive it until it dies - which takes a looong time. There's a reason that most of the taxis in places like the middle East are Mercedes: they require little maintenance to keep going and accommodate a lot of people.
My current Mercedes, which I've had for over 15 years, is nearly 19 years old and, apart from an annual service by a proper garage (so not a dealership) gives no trouble at all; fuel economy is good (at least for an automatic) and it is comfortable for long drives, plus has a capacious boot. So far it has cost me less in garage bills than a friend's BMW which is only 8 years old.
I think comparing the cost of running a Merc to the cost of running a BMW is not a particularly helpful comparison.
I know where you are coming from. My late father bought a Mercedes at the point at which he assumed it would be his "last car" because he wanted a car that would last. And indeed, he had it for 13 years, until the chemo-related peripheral neuropathy stopped him from driving.
<snip>
[In passing, the PLSA retirement standards suggest a single person needs £43,000 (after tax and with no rent or mortgage to pay!) to be comfortable in retirement. <snip>]
That’s extraordinary it’s significantly more than our working household income - in a household of two adults and one fully dependent child. (Two other children are not fully dependent due partly to their own earnings, and partly to grandparental support.)
Just for the record, the Junior Doctors' dispute with the government is over. BMA members have voted to accept the pay offer.
I assume they also voted to do all the extra hours the government want them to do.
There does not seem to be any information about that, but then again paid overtime is something resident doctors* and their senior colleagues can decide on individually anyway.
*The title “junior doctor” is being replaced with “resident doctor”
Just for the record, the Junior Doctors' dispute with the government is over. BMA members have voted to accept the pay offer.
I assume they also voted to do all the extra hours the government want them to do.
A system should not rely on overtime. It is the same with London Underground. They rely on people doing overturn run their full service. The service is halved when they work to rule. Also it is bad for the workers and their families. Some overtime is great for saving for things. It should not be the norm.
Centrists snuggling up to fascists when it's convenient is not a bad summary of the last century of European politics, and certainly of the last decade of British politics.
Just for the record, the Junior Doctors' dispute with the government is over. BMA members have voted to accept the pay offer.
I assume they also voted to do all the extra hours the government want them to do.
A system should not rely on overtime. It is the same with London Underground. They rely on people doing overturn run their full service. The service is halved when they work to rule. Also it is bad for the workers and their families. Some overtime is great for saving for things. It should not be the norm.
Depends what you call "rely on", I think. Using overtime to provide elasticity to accommodate varying demand is fine, and I could describe that as "relying on" overtime.
Using overtime to have your people work 60 hour weeks every week on an ongoing basis is a poor idea.
Traditionally, there was an argument that junior doctors had to work long hours because they needed to get their education in. I know my college tutors would have laughed at me had I suggested that I should work as little as 40 hours in a week during my student days. I'll happily defer to our colleague Dr. @alienfromzog for a reasonable statement about what is necessary for a junior doctor's education.
Using overtime to have your people work 60 hour weeks every week on an ongoing basis is a poor idea.
The bits of (manufacturing) engineering I know anything about seemed to work on the basis that basic was so bad, overtime was more-or-less essential. And the bits of (consulting) engineering I know anything about (and, via marriage, banking seems this way too) seem to work on the basis that although the salary is OK, you can jump for TOIL or overtime and congrats, you have been enrolled in the last-out-of-the-office competition whether you like it or not!
Just seen Starmer’s comments on Arsenal - he has to go in hospitality because he’s not safe in the stands ‘therefore if I don’t accept a gift of hospitality I can’t go to a game’
Are we completely through the looking glass or is he really this bad at politics?
*anyone* is quite at liberty to buy their own hospitality package from Arsenal. It’s the idea of paying for it himself he seems to be struggling with.
I thought he was dull but competent. I’m rapidly coming to the view he’s an idiot with the political antenna of a parsnip.
Comments
I don't think there should be a Winter Fuel payment at all. Rather, I think both the Personal Tax Allowance and the State Pension should be much greater, and then tax pensions for those who have other income. The administrative costs of taxing those pensioners whose additional income would take them over a higher tax threshold would be far less than the small army needed to deal with means testing additional payments from various "pots".
Better still would be if the UK government undertook root-and-branch reform of our Byzantine tax legislation and simplified it, perhaps adopting something like New Zealand's General Service Tax.
Their research and knowledge of the harms involved would be better than mine. I'm generally in favour of universal benefits as opposed to means testing for a lot of reasons and it used to be an important part of Labour thinking. If you go back to William Beveridge he was also no fan of means testing - being aware of the poverty trap agingjb mentioned. (I think Attlee was also a fan of universal benefits but I'm not an expert) There's a reason the NHS isn't means tested and it might be wise not to jump onto the bandwagon of means testing because that stick can equally well be used to beat healthcare with.
If it's going to exist it should be universal and taxed back for those with higher levels of income/wealth. Ideally it should just be rolled into the state pension (and those with higher levels of income/wealth should be subject to progressive taxation).
The issue is one of rolling out the change just before winter at a time when there's ongoing cost of living inflation (including to energy prices).
The *problem* as per that Hansard quote is that there's a section of the Labour party who aren't fond of raising taxes and therefore increasingly fly the means testing flag.
This.
Yeah this won't work because the GST (which is basically a flat value added tax) isn't a substitute for progressive income and wealth taxes.
But there are a lot of wealthy pensioners. That's a fact.
So painting Starmer and Reeves as evil for wanting to remove a benefit from people who clearly don't need it, is a real stretch.
That's not to say there are no issues here. There are. But the extrapolation is insane.
True - but that’s an argument for levelling up (to coin a phrase) rather than levelling down.
Also true.
However, (and I really don't mean anyone here), those who are making the most noise about this is the media told poor children it was their parents' fault and tough.
Not necessarily, it doesn't. Moreover it's not about deserving vs undeserving poor. That's the whole shtick about working age benefits. This is about deserving poor (as in deserving of financial aid) vs undeserving not-poor, purely on the basis of being better off. As noted, it's the middle ground that needs some work.
AFZ
It's this group I'd worry most about, unless I have got this wrong. It would be a real pisser to get 35 years in, never claim anything, and then be a lot worse off than someone whose working life had been patchy (for whatever reason) and who was on the same income, due to a means-tested benefit that you were not eligible for by virtue of your self-sufficiency.
(Those older pensioners retired on the old, smaller state pension should all be eligible for pension credit unless they have private income.)
The above rats' nest is by way of saying I think we should do this more easily by PAYE - but I am also interested in if I have this right or not. Not least, if this was my position, I'd want to be pretty sure I *didn't* get 35 years in!
Thereby getting rid of a whole set of stigmatising bureaucracy (tupe the staff over to the HMRC) and a second lot of bureaucracy that costs huge amount of professional time arguing over whether x package is health or social care.
The stipend is universal (including to children care of whoever has parental responsibility) the means testing is the income tax system.
https://www.churchofscotland.org.uk/news-and-events/news/articles/tackling-poverty-should-be-central-to-scottish-government-plans-says-church
I don't know whether it's heartening or depressing how radical they are compared to most of the political parties and how little political coverage these sort of Christian values get.
Would I get this income in addition to my pensions ?
Simple? But, I fear, beyond the comprehension of our rulers.
https://www.atkwanti.co.uk/verse/tax.htm
Would this universal income replace the basic old age pension to which people have paid into all their working lives ?
There is no 'basic old age pension' into which people have 'paid into all their working lives', it's a benefit funded from current contributions.
So yes, it would largely replace the current benefit system from the state.
I think if you are buying 4 year old used Mercs in good condition; you are either forking out main dealer rates, paying mates rates to a friend who owned one from new, or know a fair bit about cars.
I suspect that does not describe the average pensioner.
Thanks for all your information. My opinion is that it's unaffordable.
With change of government soon after, this scheme soon disappeared, but it seems to me to have had the characteristics of a tentative step towards a universal nasic income.
(Payment was also much more efficient than modern benefits. I finished my last exam at lunhtime on a Tuesday, signed on at the Labour Exchange that afternoon. Because of the position of my surname in the alphabetic list my "normal" signing day was Thursday. Signing again on Thursday meant that I had signed twice and was so elegible for that week's payment - cash in the hand two days after becoming unemployed.)
No. You find out which of the local car sales places is a supplier for Motability and go from there. They have a steady supply of 3 year old vehicles with a full service history and (usually) low mileage. They tend not to be a licensed brand dealership and so sell used vehicles for less because they need quick turnover. For example, my current car at 3 years old cost less than 50% of the list price of the basic model (and mine is an upgrade on that)
when new, had less than 9,000 miles on the clock, and came with quite a few factory "extras".
The average private pension pot in the UK is currently £100k for men, £50k for women. At current rates, if you turn all of your £100k into an annuity you'll get c £2,720 per year, or just over £52 a week - in other words, it doesn't even get you up to the level of the NSP.
[For comparison: someone in the Civil Service pension scheme earning less than £45,000 per year pays 5.45% of salary in pension contributions - that is topped-up by a staggering 27.1% of employer's contribution. To put that in easy to understand figures, a CS on £30k pays c£1,620pa to get £9,726 into their "pot": a self-employed person earning £30k would need to find over £9,000 per year to put in the same amount out of net income of £24,770pa]
An additional problem is the figure that the Government says is a pension income giving a "modest" lifestyle, which assumes a maximum of £100 per year for DIY to deal with decorating and maintenance of a home: how many of us want, or are able, to do gutter clearing and decorating in our 80s?
Basically I believe that all those who are capable of work, should genuinely be looking for work. I am not including children or those on an old age pension. I would exhempt the bulk of those with serious disabilities
Which is an unrelated issue. UBI doesn't stop people from working, but it does mean that those who currently work on very low (or non-existent) salaries have an income they can live on - including the millions who work at home caring for family with maybe only a part time job, and those studying to gain qualifications for better work.
If all you live on is the old state pension (or a reduced NSP because of an incomplete NI record) then you qualify for pension credit that takes you up to the same level as the full NSP.
Why would home owners need rent support?
I think you have that in a muddle. The £100 figure comes from the minimum retirement standard set out by the PLSA, a pensions industry representative body, which describes a minimum retirement income as being around £14000. It is not a government figure.
[In passing, the PLSA retirement standards suggest a single person needs £43,000 (after tax and with no rent or mortgage to pay!) to be comfortable in retirement. That seems ludicrously out of reach for most people, with the average retirement income being less than half of that - about £18000 on 2022 figures.]
The difference could, however, be made up at least in part by scrapping maintenance grants for students - if they get the UBI then they would no longer be required (though loans to cover fees would have to remain).
And all the endless intrusive form filling about your personal life would go away. And all the costs of processing all of that.
Plus - in that people are going to engage with the tax system if it is initially giving them money - it may help tackle tax evasion to some extent.
Indeed.
Which is why I've been in favour of serious study of the potential for UBI for a while now.
Moreover, the evidence from pilot studies is that UBI increases workforce participation.
The PLSA figure - more importantly the way they break it down - is off-the-scale unrealistic. For rural poor the sum of £10 per week for taxis is laughable.
I think comparing the cost of running a Merc to the cost of running a BMW is not a particularly helpful comparison.
I know where you are coming from. My late father bought a Mercedes at the point at which he assumed it would be his "last car" because he wanted a car that would last. And indeed, he had it for 13 years, until the chemo-related peripheral neuropathy stopped him from driving.
But I think a Merc is like the quality boots in Vimes "Boots" Theory
I assume they also voted to do all the extra hours the government want them to do.
There does not seem to be any information about that, but then again paid overtime is something resident doctors* and their senior colleagues can decide on individually anyway.
*The title “junior doctor” is being replaced with “resident doctor”
A system should not rely on overtime. It is the same with London Underground. They rely on people doing overturn run their full service. The service is halved when they work to rule. Also it is bad for the workers and their families. Some overtime is great for saving for things. It should not be the norm.
Just a year ago Sunak being friendly with Meloni was - rightly - seen as deeply problematic. Yet here we are.
Deeply concerning.
Depends what you call "rely on", I think. Using overtime to provide elasticity to accommodate varying demand is fine, and I could describe that as "relying on" overtime.
Using overtime to have your people work 60 hour weeks every week on an ongoing basis is a poor idea.
Traditionally, there was an argument that junior doctors had to work long hours because they needed to get their education in. I know my college tutors would have laughed at me had I suggested that I should work as little as 40 hours in a week during my student days. I'll happily defer to our colleague Dr. @alienfromzog for a reasonable statement about what is necessary for a junior doctor's education.
The bits of (manufacturing) engineering I know anything about seemed to work on the basis that basic was so bad, overtime was more-or-less essential. And the bits of (consulting) engineering I know anything about (and, via marriage, banking seems this way too) seem to work on the basis that although the salary is OK, you can jump for TOIL or overtime and congrats, you have been enrolled in the last-out-of-the-office competition whether you like it or not!
Are we completely through the looking glass or is he really this bad at politics?
*anyone* is quite at liberty to buy their own hospitality package from Arsenal. It’s the idea of paying for it himself he seems to be struggling with.
I thought he was dull but competent. I’m rapidly coming to the view he’s an idiot with the political antenna of a parsnip.