General Things That Annoy You thread - part 2

cantersaddick said:

ross1 said:

cantersaddick said:

KBslittlesis said:

arny23394 said:

KBslittlesis said:

The sudden hatred of old people.

Actually, it doesn’t just annoy me, it boils my piss.

Can’t say I’ve noticed a sudden hatred of old people? What reasons do these people have for hating them? 

Pensioners, so over 67 Smudge.

It seems a fair amount of folk don’t think they’re entitled to be warm in winter. 

Honestly, it’s sickening how some treat old folk.

If I can provide a counter point. The current generation of pensioners are the richest cohort of people in our countries history. 29% of them are millionaires higher than any other age group or any cohort in the past, they hold over half of the housing wealth in this country and nearly 60% of all wealth. Many of them are excessively rich. 

Means testing was the right decision, a universal benefit forbthat cohort is clearly wrong. The threshold set for that means testing was the wrong decision. 

I do not hate pensioners (though one of my grandmothers is pretty hard to like).

Either way this whole thing is simply a wedge issue designed to stop us talking about how the mega rich and large corporations are screwing us all.

And when we go, who will be happy that we worked hard all our life and manage to save a nest egg for our old age ... our children who are supposed to be the richest generation when we are gone

Which has no bearing on whether or not a universal benefit should be given to millionaires. 

It is not hating on old people to say that those who clearly dont need it should not get winter fuel payments.

cantersaddick said:

KBslittlesis said:

arny23394 said:

KBslittlesis said:

The sudden hatred of old people.

Actually, it doesn’t just annoy me, it boils my piss.

Can’t say I’ve noticed a sudden hatred of old people? What reasons do these people have for hating them? 

Pensioners, so over 67 Smudge.

It seems a fair amount of folk don’t think they’re entitled to be warm in winter. 

Honestly, it’s sickening how some treat old folk.

If I can provide a counter point. The current generation of pensioners are the richest cohort of people in our countries history. 29% of them are millionaires higher than any other age group or any cohort in the past, they hold over half of the housing wealth in this country and nearly 60% of all wealth. Many of them are excessively rich. 

Means testing was the right decision, a universal benefit forbthat cohort is clearly wrong. The threshold set for that means testing was the wrong decision. 

I do not hate pensioners (though one of my grandmothers is pretty hard to like).

Either way this whole thing is simply a wedge issue designed to stop us talking about how the mega rich and large corporations are screwing us all.

KBslittlesis said:

You talk like poverty is a new thing?
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Pitting young against old is wrong.

cantersaddick said:

KBslittlesis said:

You talk like poverty is a new thing?
Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Pitting young against old is wrong.

Not at all. I'm simply saying if we are cutting benefits at one end (and have been constantly for 15 years now) then means testing an existing universal benefit is a sensible move. 

Child poverty is massively worse now than in 2010. 

Not pitting anyone against anyone. Simply saying than means testing is sensible!

cantersaddick said:

valleynick66 said:

So what threshold would have been right do you think assuming you mean £35k is too high (I also interpret the £35k is inclusive of the state pension of c£12k.)

Your use of ‘millionaires’ is a little disingenuous of course if that includes your property value. 

Part of the challenge now with means testing is the extra cost of administering it albeit I do agree it should be means tested.  

I note that currently all parties seem to support this latest turn of events. 

It’s consuming too much political time that’s for sure given it now won’t save anything like the sums originally proposed. 

No no I dont think its too high at all.
I think the £35k (post tax if I understand correctly) is much more like it compared to the original proposed eligibility criteria which was pension credit eligibility which was dangerously low and clearly put lives at risk. I would have to have a look at the data to determine an exact threshold that it should be set at but there will be a tipping point in post tax income that will be where it should be set.

The argument that means testing costs more than is saved is from a few years ago no when systems relied on a large amount of manual administration. It's not the case any more. We have live and linked data to administer state pensions and pensioner benefits. The marginal cost of tacking the eligibility criteria for this on to existing systems will be negligible.

IdleHans said:

You're going to look pretty foolish when you find out the child has graduated with a first in particle physics from Oxford.

valleynick66 said:

cantersaddick said:

valleynick66 said:

So what threshold would have been right do you think assuming you mean £35k is too high (I also interpret the £35k is inclusive of the state pension of c£12k.)

Your use of ‘millionaires’ is a little disingenuous of course if that includes your property value. 

Part of the challenge now with means testing is the extra cost of administering it albeit I do agree it should be means tested.  

I note that currently all parties seem to support this latest turn of events. 

It’s consuming too much political time that’s for sure given it now won’t save anything like the sums originally proposed. 

No no I dont think its too high at all.
I think the £35k (post tax if I understand correctly) is much more like it compared to the original proposed eligibility criteria which was pension credit eligibility which was dangerously low and clearly put lives at risk. I would have to have a look at the data to determine an exact threshold that it should be set at but there will be a tipping point in post tax income that will be where it should be set.

The argument that means testing costs more than is saved is from a few years ago no when systems relied on a large amount of manual administration. It's not the case any more. We have live and linked data to administer state pensions and pensioner benefits. The marginal cost of tacking the eligibility criteria for this on to existing systems will be negligible.

So actually I think we are aligned on the appropriate level albeit the savings now are much more modest at the £35k level. 

My point about admin is that  I think it will require the £35k to be identified from tax returns in part ie you will in future have to declare the £200 payment as income and see it taken back in tax. That surely creates some overhead. Not that I immediately see an alternative. 

Not suggesting the overhead outweighs the saving but it does create an additional element to contend with in terms of process and support as nothing is as straightforward as at first seems. 

valleynick66 said:

cantersaddick said:

valleynick66 said:

cantersaddick said:

valleynick66 said:

So what threshold would have been right do you think assuming you mean £35k is too high (I also interpret the £35k is inclusive of the state pension of c£12k.)

Your use of ‘millionaires’ is a little disingenuous of course if that includes your property value. 

Part of the challenge now with means testing is the extra cost of administering it albeit I do agree it should be means tested.  

I note that currently all parties seem to support this latest turn of events. 

It’s consuming too much political time that’s for sure given it now won’t save anything like the sums originally proposed. 

No no I dont think its too high at all.
I think the £35k (post tax if I understand correctly) is much more like it compared to the original proposed eligibility criteria which was pension credit eligibility which was dangerously low and clearly put lives at risk. I would have to have a look at the data to determine an exact threshold that it should be set at but there will be a tipping point in post tax income that will be where it should be set.

The argument that means testing costs more than is saved is from a few years ago no when systems relied on a large amount of manual administration. It's not the case any more. We have live and linked data to administer state pensions and pensioner benefits. The marginal cost of tacking the eligibility criteria for this on to existing systems will be negligible.

So actually I think we are aligned on the appropriate level albeit the savings now are much more modest at the £35k level. 

My point about admin is that  I think it will require the £35k to be identified from tax returns in part ie you will in future have to declare the £200 payment as income and see it taken back in tax. That surely creates some overhead. Not that I immediately see an alternative. 

Not suggesting the overhead outweighs the saving but it does create an additional element to contend with in terms of process and support as nothing is as straightforward as at first seems. 

HMRC data is part of the live linked data already to set eligibility for other pensioner benefits so this is simply running another query based on the new eligibility criteria on an existing dataset. So the costs on that side are negligible. The other side on how much is taken back in tax is a good point and I am less familiar with that part of the system but more and more of it is being automated through tech so cant see it being that administratively heavy or expensive but cant say for sure as I said not as close to that side of it.

It surely can’t be that simple as income comes from a variety of sources for some eg ad hoc pension drawdown, variable credit interest etc. and hence the need for annual tax returns to see if you are under or Uber the £35k threshold. 

 No plans I’m aware of for tax returns to be less needed /more automated in the short term as this change is. 

ross1 said:

SporadicAddick said:

KBslittlesis said:

SporadicAddick said:

KBslittlesis said:

The sudden hatred of old people.

Actually, it doesn’t just annoy me, it boils my piss.

Well frankly it's that generations fault for the conditions the poor youngsters have to live in today. They f*cked their kids futures with their lack of appreciation of their impact on climate, and their economic incompetence which means many young professionals now have to work at least 5 days a week and can't afford to get on the housing ladder. I'm not surprised young degree educated professionals are looking to leave this country in their droves.  

Oh, and they smell of piss (the old people, not the young degree educated professionals).

You’re joking right?

No, they do smell of piss.

I would not like to move in the same circle as you, as an OAP and know many others, I have never met one that smells of anything abhorrent to the nose 

cantersaddick said:

valleynick66 said:

So what threshold would have been right do you think assuming you mean £35k is too high (I also interpret the £35k is inclusive of the state pension of c£12k.)

Your use of ‘millionaires’ is a little disingenuous of course if that includes your property value. 

Part of the challenge now with means testing is the extra cost of administering it albeit I do agree it should be means tested.  

I note that currently all parties seem to support this latest turn of events. 

It’s consuming too much political time that’s for sure given it now won’t save anything like the sums originally proposed. 

No no I dont think its too high at all.
I think the £35k (post tax if I understand correctly) is much more like it compared to the original proposed eligibility criteria which was pension credit eligibility which was dangerously low and clearly put lives at risk. I would have to have a look at the data to determine an exact threshold that it should be set at but there will be a tipping point in post tax income that will be where it should be set.

The argument that means testing costs more than is saved is from a few years ago no when systems relied on a large amount of manual administration. It's not the case any more. We have live and linked data to administer state pensions and pensioner benefits. The marginal cost of tacking the eligibility criteria for this on to existing systems will be negligible.