The Burnham Years - Can the new(ish) broom sweep clean?

[Holmes_and_Watson]

49 minutes ago, ecuk268 said:

I spent many years in IT and one of my very proficient colleagues had a degree in Forestry.

Who better to know the impact of paper, and drive for a paperless office through IT? 

[egg]

2 hours ago, Baird of the land said:

One of those rare liz truss needed more time people are you.

Err, ok mate. 

Odd response. 

[Mixedkebab]

5 hours ago, Farmer Saint said:

Yeah, that's what we want, this country and it's leaders to crash and burn. 

I know what we should do to spite them, let's vote to leave the EU and really fuck 'em over...oh, wait.

Cliché ridden handjobs who think they’re original by typing a post with the opposite view of what they think, then lumping in an oft repeated student Grant style political comment including “em” to sound like they’re not a pussy, followed by…oh, wait.

Edited Wednesday at 23:20 by Mixedkebab

[whelk]

6 hours ago, Mixedkebab said:

Cliché ridden handjobs who think they’re original by typing a post with the opposite view of what they think, then lumping in an oft repeated student Grant style political comment including “em” to sound like they’re not a pussy, followed by…oh, wait.

Off your medication?

[benjii]

Nurse!

[Farmer Saint]

10 hours ago, Mixedkebab said:

Cliché ridden handjobs who think they’re original by typing a post with the opposite view of what they think, then lumping in an oft repeated student Grant style political comment including “em” to sound like they’re not a pussy, followed by…oh, wait.

Blimey, rattled today are you? Calm yourself mate.

[Holmes_and_Watson]

I'd been wondering...and sure enough, she's back!

Long standing MP Diane Abbott returns from the wilderness.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy5dwd1p374o

[AlexLaw76]

 

[Farmer Saint]

17 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

 

What is this £630 tax rise? I've not seen that.

[egg]

1 hour ago, Farmer Saint said:

What is this £630 tax rise? I've not seen that.

Nope, I think the bloke made that up. However, social care is needed and must be funded, so I think a tax / levy is inevitable. We'll see a nibbling of the welfare budget, triple lock will go, but there's no other significant room for manoeuvre unless vat goes up or something daft like that. 

I'd like to see all state benefits means tested as a starter. I know people earning good money getting DLA for their kids and just chuck it in a junior ISA, and adults who earn a fortune but get PIP and lob the cash in a SIPP. 

We need to sift the greedy from the genuinely needy.  

Edited 10 hours ago by egg

[Baird of the land]

1 hour ago, Farmer Saint said:

What is this £630 tax rise? I've not seen that.

Not surprising as Andy is very woolly on the whole issue of paying for his promises, other than reciting the words ‘fully funded’ as if it’s a prayer to a deity for assistance.

[badgerx16]

4 minutes ago, Baird of the land said:

Not surprising as Andy is very woolly on the whole issue of paying for his promises, other than reciting the words ‘fully funded’ as if it’s a prayer to a deity for assistance.

Which, TBF, they all do, regardless of political colour.

[egg]

9 minutes ago, Baird of the land said:

Not surprising as Andy is very woolly on the whole issue of paying for his promises, other than reciting the words ‘fully funded’ as if it’s a prayer to a deity for assistance.

Would you be happier if he just said he'd slap taxes up?

Call me old fashioned, but I'd rather sit back and see what he does elsewhere to find the money. Removing the triple lock should cover it. 

[Baird of the land]

1 hour ago, egg said:

Would you be happier if he just said he'd slap taxes up?

Call me old fashioned, but I'd rather sit back and see what he does elsewhere to find the money. Removing the triple lock should cover it. 

I’d be happier if he didn’t put the cart before the horse

this a Labour Party that wouldn’t accept taking a little money off well off pensioners and you really think they’ll be skipping down the aisles to cut the triple lock.

[egg]

10 minutes ago, Baird of the land said:

I’d be happier if he didn’t put the cart before the horse

this a Labour Party that wouldn’t accept taking a little money off well off pensioners and you really think they’ll be skipping down the aisles to cut the triple lock.

He hasn't put the cart before the horse. He's committed to a policy, in principle. He's invited cross party discussion on that principle. There'll then be a detailed proposal re that policy. It'll then be costed, then funded on way or the other. Alongside that there'll be a review of all manner of areas of spending - welfare, state pensions included, defence, etc. We also need to see where gilt yields go and assess our borrowing costs. 

Committing to a principle was the right thing to do. Looking at everything else is also the right thing to do. Then shuffling the pennies will then happen, and be the right thing to do. 

Social care needs fixing. 

[The Kraken]

This Baird of the land chap seems terribly keen to be upset and angry about policies that haven’t even been devised yet.

[egg]

6 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

This Baird of the land chap seems terribly keen to be upset and angry about policies that haven’t even been devised yet.

Indeed. He either wants social care sorting or he doesn't. If he does, he should applaud Burnham for the commitment, and welcome the fact that he wants to take time to work out the details including the funding. I'm slightly baffled why anyone sees any of that as a bad thing. 

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, egg said:

Would you be happier if he just said he'd slap taxes up?

Call me old fashioned, but I'd rather sit back and see what he does elsewhere to find the money. Removing the triple lock should cover it. 

His welcome speech said that when he announced new policies he would also detail how they would be funded.

I'd be happier if he kept to that.

[Farmer Saint]

15 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

This Baird of the land chap seems terribly keen to be upset and angry about policies that haven’t even been devised yet.

Angry British white men being angry.

[egg]

9 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

His welcome speech said that when he announced new policies he would also detail how they would be funded.

I'd be happier if he kept to that.

He said "But always we will show how we are going to pay for it, what we are reprioritising. That will be a theme that we will always come back to."

I don't take that as a suggestion that policies and funding will be announced simultaneously - expecting that is unrealistic. 

[iansums]

On 30/07/2026 at 00:19, Mixedkebab said:

Cliché ridden handjobs who think they’re original by typing a post with the opposite view of what they think, then lumping in an oft repeated student Grant style political comment including “em” to sound like they’re not a pussy, followed by…oh, wait.

And I'm the one who's not allowed a vote? 😞

[Whitey Grandad]

1 hour ago, egg said:

Would you be happier if he just said he'd slap taxes up?

Call me old fashioned, but I'd rather sit back and see what he does elsewhere to find the money. Removing the triple lock should cover it. 

So pensioners should pay for it all?

[iansums]

2 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

So pensioners should pay for it all?

The triple lock does have to go sadly, it's unsustainable. It has done what it was supposed to in restoring pensions to a more satisfactory level although we would all want it higher. Changing it to match average wage growth would save something like £6bn (I think). The reality is that the state pension will at some point be means tested and that threshold will go down over time to a point where middle income earners will have to fully self-fund their retirement.

[tdmickey3]

19 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

So pensioners should pay for it all?

Seems like it mate...

They are all rich apparently 🙄

[Farmer Saint]

13 minutes ago, iansums said:

The triple lock does have to go sadly, it's unsustainable. It has done what it was supposed to in restoring pensions to a more satisfactory level although we would all want it higher. Changing it to match average wage growth would save something like £6bn (I think). The reality is that the state pension will at some point be means tested and that threshold will go down over time to a point where middle income earners will have to fully self-fund their retirement.

It's an odd one - I have used private healthcare since I've been of employable age, and I won't get a pension or use government funded social care.

Wonder if I'll get an NI refund?

[tdmickey3]

13 minutes ago, iansums said:

The triple lock does have to go sadly, it's unsustainable. It has done what it was supposed to in restoring pensions to a more satisfactory level although we would all want it higher. Changing it to match average wage growth would save something like £6bn (I think). The reality is that the state pension will at some point be means tested and that threshold will go down over time to a point where middle income earners will have to fully self-fund their retirement.

Satisfactory level???

£12,547 Per annum

[benjii]

12 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

Satisfactory level???

£12,547 Per annum

Factor in a few buy to lets and the fact your house purchased for 85k in 1982 is now worth £1.2 million and job's a goodun. 

[egg]

42 minutes ago, iansums said:

And I'm the one who's not allowed a vote? 😞

Post of the week 👏

[egg]

41 minutes ago, Whitey Grandad said:

So pensioners should pay for it all?

No. The triple lock is unaffordable, and social care is needed. I think most people acknowledge that.

Other things have to change as well. I've said above that some state benefits (eg. PIP, DLA) should be means tested.

I don't extend that means testing to the state pension, and pension credit or similar should be in place to help those pensioners who need more. 

We need a system where social care is available, where people who need state assistance get it, but we can't have a system where people receive monies that they simply don't need regardless of whether they tick certain boxes. 

[egg]

27 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

It's an odd one - I have used private healthcare since I've been of employable age, and I won't get a pension or use government funded social care.

Wonder if I'll get an NI refund?

Not enough NI payments to get a state pension?

I don't access the NHS either, and although I accept I must still pay NI, I think private health premiums should be tax deductable. Give people incentive to take strain away from the NHS. 

Re pensions, I really like the Ozzie superannuation system. Something to be said for that but our pension system has become so expensive I can't see any way of funding the existing obligations whilst banking people's contributions for their future. 

[iansums]

58 minutes ago, tdmickey3 said:

Satisfactory level???

£12,547 Per annum

Probably not no, but better than they were. To be fair, I did say 'more' acceptable level.

Edited 6 hours ago by iansums
extra detail

[iansums]

18 minutes ago, egg said:

Not enough NI payments to get a state pension?

I don't access the NHS either, and although I accept I must still pay NI, I think private health premiums should be tax deductable. Give people incentive to take strain away from the NHS. 

Re pensions, I really like the Ozzie superannuation system. Something to be said for that but our pension system has become so expensive I can't see any way of funding the existing obligations whilst banking people's contributions for their future. 

I'm also lucky enough to have private healthcare, paid for by my company, but I have to pay BIK tax which costs me about £180 per month. I have colleagues who have declined private healthcare because of the tax they'd have to pay. This seems wrong to me, the government should be encouraging people/businesses to use private healthcare, it would ease the burden on the NHS.

[tdmickey3]

29 minutes ago, iansums said:

Probably not no, but better than they were. To be fair, I did say 'more' acceptable level.

It needs to be means tested so those that need extra get it but the criteria for this has to be accurate or far to many will be in poverty.

[Farmer Saint]

1 hour ago, egg said:

Not enough NI payments to get a state pension?

I don't access the NHS either, and although I accept I must still pay NI, I think private health premiums should be tax deductable. Give people incentive to take strain away from the NHS. 

Re pensions, I really like the Ozzie superannuation system. Something to be said for that but our pension system has become so expensive I can't see any way of funding the existing obligations whilst banking people's contributions for their future. 

I'm not eligible for 27 years, so it's unlikely pensions won't be means tested by then, and unless I really fuck up I won't pass that.

[iansums]

11 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

I'm not eligible for 27 years, so it's unlikely pensions won't be means tested by then, and unless I really fuck up I won't pass that.

Oooooh, young man!

Seriously though, in 27 years the retirement age will probably be 70+.

[Farmer Saint]

20 minutes ago, iansums said:

Oooooh, young man!

Seriously though, in 27 years the retirement age will probably be 70+.

Absolutely, if we get it at all.

[Osvaldorama]

Hear me out.. why don’t people save for their own retirements instead of relying on the state? 

[Farmer Saint]

6 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

Hear me out.. why don’t people save for their own retirements instead of relying on the state? 

Well, some people don't earn enough to save for anything, let alone retirement. 

It is an outdated concept though, and should be changed along with the triple lock. Essentially it should be means tested, but again that's very difficult to do as it really depends on what type of pension you have, if drawdown and your investments fall, do you get access to the state pension again, etc etc. Unfortunately there are too many potential holes that means a lot of people could fall through the net.

Edited 4 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Osvaldorama]

5 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Well, some people don't earn enough to save for anything, let alone retirement. 

It is an outdated concept though, and should be changed along with the triple lock. Essentially it should be means tested, but again that's very difficult to do as it really depends on what type of pension you have, if drawdown and your investments fall, do you get access to the state pension again, etc etc. Unfortunately there are too many potential holes that means a lot of people could fall through the net.

Which is kind of my point.. think ahead, save for retirement from a young age and then you won’t need to worry what the state pension age is, or what the idiots in parliament decide 

Edited 4 hours ago by Osvaldorama

[The Kraken]

7 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Well, some people don't earn enough to save for anything, let alone retirement. 

It is an outdated concept though, and should be changed along with the triple lock. Essentially it should be means tested, but again that's very difficult to do as it really depends on what type of pension you have, if drawdown and your investments fall, do you get access to the state pension again, etc etc. Unfortunately there are too many potential holes that means a lot of people could fall through the net.

Completely disagree. The national pension is something that we all have to pay into from the day we starting earning. We don’t get a choice in the matter. You’d be asking the bigger contributors to the fund to take less/none of it. I can very much get on board with the notion that higher earners pay more tax therefore more money for the same public services that everybody enjoys. But to say you have to pay more, and then get less/none at the end? Absolutely not.

Edited 4 hours ago by The Kraken

[tdmickey3]

15 minutes ago, Farmer Saint said:

Well, some people don't earn enough to save for anything, let alone retirement. 

It is an outdated concept though, and should be changed along with the triple lock. Essentially it should be means tested, but again that's very difficult to do as it really depends on what type of pension you have, if drawdown and your investments fall, do you get access to the state pension again, etc etc. Unfortunately there are too many potential holes that means a lot of people could fall through the net.

Precisely, to many will fall through the net and some will get it undeservedly 

[Farmer Saint]

39 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

Completely disagree. The national pension is something that we all have to pay into from the day we starting earning. We don’t get a choice in the matter. You’d be asking the bigger contributors to the fund to take less/none of it. I can very much get on board with the notion that higher earners pay more tax therefore more money for the same public services that everybody enjoys. But to say you have to pay more, and then get less/none at the end? Absolutely not.

But as I said above, I think that's going to happen to me and people my age anyway.

Edited 3 hours ago by Farmer Saint

[Farmer Saint]

39 minutes ago, Osvaldorama said:

Which is kind of my point.. think ahead, save for retirement from a young age and then you won’t need to worry what the state pension age is, or what the idiots in parliament decide 

It's not just about thinking ahead though - things can happen the year before retirement that means you won't have enough, that's the issue with it being invested.

[iansums]

54 minutes ago, The Kraken said:

Completely disagree. The national pension is something that we all have to pay into from the day we starting earning. We don’t get a choice in the matter. You’d be asking the bigger contributors to the fund to take less/none of it. I can very much get on board with the notion that higher earners pay more tax therefore more money for the same public services that everybody enjoys. But to say you have to pay more, and then get less/none at the end? Absolutely not.

This is a myth. The money you 'pay in' in terms of NI goes towards current pensions for current pensioners, it doesn't go into any sort of fund for your retirement. NI is just another tax and IMO should be abolished and moved (over time) to income tax. Our tax system is ridculously complex and gets moreso every year. At least a Labour and Tory government implemented workplace pensions which was a start.

[Weston Super Saint]

45 minutes ago, iansums said:

This is a myth. The money you 'pay in' in terms of NI goes towards current pensions for current pensioners, it doesn't go into any sort of fund for your retirement. 

Which is truly shocking.  Imagine if the money was invested.  Doesn't need to be in individual pots as the management of that would be horrendous, but let's say there was a pot for all those who turned 18 in 1990.  That pot was then added to year on year from that year's NI contributions from that 'cohort'.  50 years later when they start receiving their pension I imagine that pot would easily cover the £12.5k per person pa.  I'd say the Gov't would also see a very healthy profit on what was left after they'd paid the pensions out each year as well.  Not to mention the capital would still exist in another 20 years when most of them had died....

Our pension system is probably the most short sighted one in existence.

[Whitey Grandad]

2 hours ago, Osvaldorama said:

Hear me out.. why don’t people save for their own retirements instead of relying on the state? 

Because if they do they'll get it all stolen from them by the State whilst the spendthrifts and reckless will get everything handed to them on a plate.

[Challenger]

2 hours ago, Osvaldorama said:

Which is kind of my point.. think ahead, save for retirement from a young age and then you won’t need to worry what the state pension age is, or what the idiots in parliament decide 

Be careful not to save too much though or a chunk of it will get snatched when you croak.