Andy Burnham’s chronicles

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Damien

What threshold? Nothing is being means-tested here.

I think a tax wouldn't be an income tax increase but an additional universal insurance scheme. Sorta like NI but ringfenced for social care. You make sure people know this is insurance in case they go into care and, if they do, it has been paid for and you don't have to sell the house.

how much do you imagine a 75 year old would be paying for this insurance

[nomadking]

The triple lock only costs extra money when wages are above inflation and/or inflation drops below 2.5%.
Wages increase lag behind increases in inflation, so sometimes the wage part of the triple lock gives false double increases. Eg When inflation was 10%, pensions got the 10%, then inflation dropped, but meantime wages had increased above inflation because of the previous 10% inflation. Pensions had a partial double increase.

[papa smurf]

before the new messiah can scrap the triple lock he'll need to win the next election,i can think of a few people who won't be voting to be poorer

Originally Posted by papa smurf

how much do you imagine a 75 year old would be paying for this insurance

It would have to be only for those in work.

---------- Post added at 18:07 ---------- Previous post was at 18:04 ----------

Originally Posted by papa smurf

before the new messiah can scrap the triple lock he'll need to win the next election,i can think of a few people who won't be voting to be poorer

Politicians will promise it, but if they decide to actually bring it back, when suddenly have to budget for it is another question.

The triple lock is something a politician would have to get rid of eventually because it's unsustainable. You can't have a pension scheme that will always go up higher than wages to pay for it. It will become a bigger and bigger percentage of the budget irrespective of how well or badly the country is doing economically.

---------- Post added at 18:08 ---------- Previous post was at 18:07 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

The triple lock only costs extra money when wages are above inflation and/or inflation drops below 2.5%.
Wages increase lag behind increases in inflation, so sometimes the wage part of the triple lock gives false double increases. Eg When inflation was 10%, pensions got the 10%, then inflation dropped, but meantime wages had increased above inflation because of the previous 10% inflation. Pensions had a partial double increase.

Well, exactly, but that's what makes it stupid.

Inflation goes up, and the pension goes up. Everyone is pretty happy with that. Eventually wages will catch up, but under the triple lock, then it goes up even more.

It's a timebomb.

[Carth]

You can't have a pension scheme that will always go up higher than wages to pay for it

A 2.5% increase on £240 a week is nowhere near a 2.5% increase on £500 a week, which is being reported in various places as the 'average' UK wage (some say it's over £600)

If you want more people of working age paying tax to fund things you need to create jobs, not give the ones you already have to AI or scare businesses into moving abroad.



edit: make that £750 a week average

[Taf]

Originally Posted by Damien

Triple lock gone in 2030 with the money going to a National Care Service instead

State Pensions "less generous" to pay for "Social Care" in ENGLAND. Did he mispeak?

And I'll bet it'll be Means Tested.

Originally Posted by Taf

State Pensions "less generous" to pay for "Social Care" in ENGLAND. Did he mispeak?

And I'll bet it'll be Means Tested.

I don't remember the England bit, but I suspect the same happens elsewhere but the care is devolved so each nation chooses how to do it?

Line on BBC 10 o’clock News tonight summed up the stupidity of media pundits everywhere, and unfortunately, the expectations of a lot of people who should know better.

"transforming Britain’s going to take a bit of a while, isn’t it?

Do you think? Surely someone will have an "oven-ready plan" that will work overnight to resolve all the major economic and social problems in the Country…

ffs…

[damien c]

So how long before this clown is removed as PM?

1 week?

1 month?

[Carth]

The Labour goons pushed Starmer out because he was making the party look weak and incompetent.
They then 'bigged up' Burnham and allowed him to take the hotseat, and are now probably thinking what the heck have we done and how do we get rid

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Carth

The Labour goons pushed Starmer out because he was making the party look weak and incompetent.
They then 'bigged up' Burnham and allowed him to take the hotseat, and are now probably thinking what the heck have we done and how do we get rid

what i saw yesterday was a man racked with guilt about his fathers death who has decided to make everyone else's elderly parents pay for his inadequacy
they can't let this pillock carry on with his mission to create a world in his own image

Originally Posted by Carth

The Labour goons pushed Starmer out because he was making the party look weak and incompetent.
They then 'bigged up' Burnham and allowed him to take the hotseat, and are now probably thinking what the heck have we done and how do we get rid

I think Burnham is the opposite in that he is actually doing something and making an argument for it. Starmer ultimately suffered because he had no politics and seemed to advance no argument, which also allowed people to project whatever they wanted onto him.

[Carth]

Burnham, as PM, is quite probably listening to the same MP's and advisory committees that Starmer was listening to . . . tail wagging the dog scenario

[jem]

Originally Posted by Carth

Burnham, as PM, is quite probably listening to the same MP's and advisory committees that Starmer was listening to . . . tail wagging the dog scenario

I would hope that Burnham is indeed listening to MPs and advisors. He doesn’t have to do what they advise, but certainly should listen.

Originally Posted by Carth

Burnham, as PM, is quite probably listening to the same MP's and advisory committees that Starmer was listening to . . . tail wagging the dog scenario

If Starmer was advised to be this bold, then he clearly wasn't listening.

I don't know if Burnham will work out, but I am pleased a politician is telling people they can't have everything for once. The triple-lock is expensive and was eventually going to have to go. Anyone who tells you otherwise is outright lying. The fact that it goes up by the highest increase of wages, inflation or 2.5% means it can increase real fast, and within a few years the government is suddenly having to find billions they may not have expected a few years prior.

The politicians now who say they will bring it back are almost certainly lying as well.