New Labour government - legislative agenda

[AnnO'Neemus]

Absolutely, I checked as a part of this whole discussion and someone on minimum wage, 40 hours a week is entitled to a CT reduction well in excess of the single discount. It was more like 35%. You can possibly still qualify earning well over the minimum for something at least.

I'd been unemployed for a few months before getting my last job, so I had a Universal Credit claim open. Nowadays, they don't close your claim straight away when you get a job, like they used to back in the day with Jobseekers Allowance or dole or whatever. Unless you close it yourself, which I didn't, just in case the job was shit - I've had bad luck with jobs!

I was surprised to find out that I was entitled to a wee bit of Universal Credit despite working full-time. My job obviously reported my earnings to HMRC, which reported them to DWP. And I was surprised to check my bank account one day and realise I'd received a small payment from DWP.

(Tbh, it made me feel worse, doing the jobs of 2-3 people, having the piss taken out of me about the workload, being gaslighted and told my predecessor did the job as one person, then a colleague told me my boss lied, there used to be interns for a few months every year and there used to be a sales and marketing manager, but she quit when told to make a cup of tea by a male director with archaic attitudes, so marketing was added to my role. And all that stress and lack of work:life balance for a pittance of a salary that was so low I was entitled to top-up benefits, it was crushing for my morale and confidence in all honesty.)

 

[Silas Loom]

To be clear: PIP and DLA aren't means-tested benefits. They are available to all disabled people (who meet the criteria) irrespective of how wealthy they are, because the funds are intended to cover the additional costs of being disabled. So they're sort of universal in the sense they're for disabled people who are assessed to be sufficiently disabled in terms of their disability having an adverse impact on their daily living - irrespective of how much savings/assets they have.

Quite. Which is why the particularly high costs involved in administering them aren’t arguments against means testing.

 

[InArduisFouette]

Social housing was never intended to be only for the poor or less well off or indeed some form of entertainment for nosey 'poverty spotters' On our estate we had all sorts of people manual workers , white collar workers ,skilled tradespeople , teachers, self employed a right old mix.

and if we want social housing to return to that , then like the Barbican market rents should be charged on those properties occupied by the well paid ( 125 % or better of median) , affordable rents ( - ideally sliding scale - should be charged to those earning say 85 % of the median wage to 125 % of the median wage and social rents for those earning less than 85 % of the median wage or who recieve LHA - bearing in mind that the NMW for over 21 is 66 % of median wage

 

[InArduisFouette]

That is the best argument I've heard for not restricting on income, sounds like a really healthy type of community.

if you are building without restrictions on numbers buiult - don't restrict on income , just charge rents at social / affordable / market based on the tenant's income

 

[AnnO'Neemus]

That is the best argument I've heard for not restricting on income, sounds like a really healthy type of community.

I live on an ex-council estate, stock transferred around 15 years ago into a housing trust, now merged into a bigger housing association that also dabbles in shared ownership developments and also building market rent developments.

I was on the tenants and residents association committee and a few years after the stock transfer we heard that they were changing their lettings policy and effectively dabbling in some social engineering. They decided that allocations weren't going to be based simply on who'd been on the housing waiting list longest, but they were going to offer allocations on the basis of one property to a person/family reliant on benefits, the next to a person/family who was working*, etc, so that their wider estate would be made up of mixed tenure tenants, ie they wouldn't become sink estates for unemployed/disabled benefits recipients. (Not sure how that worked out, whether it was estate by estate, or whether it went off whoever was at the top of the housing list(s).)

So they were effectively discriminating against benefits claimants, poor people, including arguably discriminating in an equalities law sense against disabled people and single mums - who are more likely to be in receipt of benefits. (There's been case law about private sector landlords discriminating against single mums.)

Don't know if they still do it, as I'm no longer involved in the tenants and residents association, but I did try to point out at the time that it was arguably discriminatory.

*I appreciate that people/families can be working and in receipt of benefits, I'm not sure whether the allocations policy was split into benefits claimants versus non benefits claimants or unemployed versus working (but perhaps in receipt of some benefits).

While it does make for a better community in a holistic sense, I think it's problematic when this kind of social engineering is done at the expense of the poorer people who are perhaps languishing in scuzzy B&Bs being denied timely opportunities for rehousing.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Yes. Because while someone who's technically a millionaire - if you work out wealth by including the value of assets such as property - might seem wealthy to most people, it's probably not that hard to be a millionaire in London/South East. Even someone who doesn't consider themselves particularly well-off could have bought property relatively cheaply in many parts of London three or four decades ago and now with appreciation in property prices they're technically rich.

Heck, even I'm wealthy on paper, if you take property value into consideration, as my flat's worth £200k+, even though I'm fairly skint in cash terms.

Indeed, and likewise, I’m not far off millionaire in terms of assets but I don’t drive a merc or fly first class, or eat in Michelin star restaurants etc…

 

[taperoo2k]

Quite. Which is why the particularly high costs involved in administering them aren’t arguments against means testing.

Means testing has its own problems, the point of the link I shared was to show how dire the DWP
is at getting decisions correct first time around and the costs that creates. If Labour ditch universal benefits for
means testing everything they can, then you'll probably find the DWP would make similar poor decisions. It's
an engrained cultural problem at the DWP.

PIP becoming means tested is not completely out of the question, given the attitude
towards the disabled emanating from Westminster. We are a resource to be exploited to create economic
growth, no matter what the costs are to disabled people's health and wellbeing.

I do not trust Liz Kendall one bit.

 

[Dystopiary]

Yeah, Thatcher the milk snatcher was never forgiven (by many) for taking school milk off children. Who knew that a Labour government was going to implement a viciously mean, potentially fatal, policy aimed at poor vulnerable people at the other end of the age spectrum.

Disabled benefit claimants knew. ETA, knew they were like this, is what I mean.

 

[teuchter]

It's an illustration of what progressive taxation actually means. It doesn't depend on the particular numbers you plug in. It depends on the way that the taxation is proportionate to wealth. Hence it is generalisable.

That they aren't reducing taxes with this saving is irrelevant. The point is that they say they have an issue with the finances. Changing tax rates in a progressive way is an alternative way to fix that issue that they have chosen not to do, chosing instead to do this.

It seems very relevant to the argument that you appeared to be making, which is that introducing means testing was necessarily regressive:

Moving from universalism to means testing means that the richest pay less.

That's a generalisable principle that applies to pretty much any kind of govt expenditure.

If you make some kind of universable benefit means tested, I don't see that it inevitably means the richest pay less. That's only true if you use the savings from the change to reduce the amount that the richest pay. It's only generalisable in situations where you deliberately reduce what the richest pay, so it's kind of meaningless. If you introduce a policy that involves reducing what the richest pay ... then what the richest pay reduces. Obviously.

If you make a benefit means tested, and don't change your tax on the richest, then the net result is that they pay more, because they pay the same in tax but stop receiving the benefit that it was previously set off against.

 

[The39thStep]

Yeah, Thatcher the milk snatcher was never forgiven (by many) for taking school milk off children. Who knew that a Labour government was going to implement a viciously mean, potentially fatal, policy aimed at poor vulnerable people at the other end of the age spectrum.

Maggie Thatcher milk snatcher was a great slogan . Pity that Starmer or Reeves and Winter Fuel Allowance just doesn't flow into something as catchy.

 

[planetgeli]

Maggie Thatcher milk snatcher was a great slogan . Pity that Starmer or Reeves and Winter Fuel Allowance just doesn't flow into something as catchy.

Starmer and Reeves the winter thieves?

Maybe needs some work...

 

[Silas Loom]

Means testing has its own problems, the point of the link I shared was to show how dire the DWP
is at getting decisions correct first time around and the costs that creates. If Labour ditch universal benefits for
means testing everything they can, then you'll probably find the DWP would make similar poor decisions. It's
an engrained cultural problem at the DWP.

PIP becoming means tested is not completely out of the question, given the attitude
towards the disabled emanating from Westminster. We are a resource to be exploited to create economic
growth, no matter what the costs are to disabled people's health and wellbeing.

I do not trust Liz Kendall one bit.

I have similar worries about PIP. Wouldn’t surprise me in the slightest.

 

[brogdale]

Starmer, Starmer hypothermia!

 

[The39thStep]

Starmer and Reeves the winter thieves?

Maybe needs some work...

Its a start Obviously, Labour will be working on a pro abolition WTF slogan for their devout followers to chant, mugs to drink out of and to wear on T shirts.

 

[gosub]

Maggie Thatcher milk snatcher was a great slogan . Pity that Starmer or Reeves and Winter Fuel Allowance just doesn't flow into something as catchy.

Granny starver?

 

[Dystopiary]

Profit farmer
Fat cat charmer
Old people harmer

 

[The39thStep]

Profit farmer
Fat cat charmer
Old people harmer

Old people harmer could be a goer

 

[stethoscope]

Kier starmer, OAP harmer.

 

[Elpenor]

Rachel Reeves made Grandma freeze

 

[The39thStep]

Rachel Reeves made Grandma freeze

Back of the net

 

[littlebabyjesus]

If you make a benefit means tested, and don't change your tax on the richest, then the net result is that they pay more, because they pay the same in tax but stop receiving the benefit that it was previously set off against.

Nope. You are means-testing the benefit, which means that the richest don't get it. But neither do the medium or medium-low earners. The richest were paying for those as well as themselves and the lowest earners who are still eligible for it.

Fixing the amount that high earners pay is a imposing a constraint. Take that constraint away and the various mathematical considerations change considerably. The constraint has been self-imposed by the government, remember. No reason whatever why the rest of us should agree with them.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

Absolutely, I checked as a part of this whole discussion and someone on minimum wage, 40 hours a week is entitled to a CT reduction well in excess of the single discount. It was more like 35%. You can possibly still qualify earning well over the minimum for something at least.

yes.

i'm too long away from working in that line to know the detail now, but housing benefit and council tax benefit (as they were) were never 'all or nothing' so depending on household circumstances / income, you might still be eligible to get something even if you were working. likewise tax credits in more recent years, and universal credit now.

 

[PR1Berske]

Renters Rights Bill

 

[smokedout]

Absolutely, I checked as a part of this whole discussion and someone on minimum wage, 40 hours a week is entitled to a CT reduction well in excess of the single discount. It was more like 35%. You can possibly still qualify earning well over the minimum for something at least.

It varies from council to council now, they can set whatever conditions for council tax support they want.

 

[Penfold01]

Obviously, Labour will be working on a pro abolition WTF slogan for their devout followers to chant, mugs to drink out of and to wear on T shirts.

"Wrap up tight, Labour’s doing it right!"

"Heat's a luxury, Labour’s future's key!"

"Less warmth, more progress - Labour knows best!"

Nod to some "Labour to Win" dude furiously jotting these down right now.

 

[Boo Radley75]

Isn't the state pension going up by more than the maximum benefit for OAP heating allowance?

 

[Elpenor]

Isn't the state pension going up by more than the maximum benefit for OAP heating allowance?

Disingenuous to make this claim as the state pension goes up due to inflation.

 

[Silas Loom]

Renters Rights Bill

An excellent bill, and even if it doesn’t get enough attention right now from people who want to bang on about Starmer murdering grannies, it will have made a significant personal difference to almost all renters in four years.

 

[two sheds]

It looks good, but can't landlords just increase rents and force tenants out that way?

 

[Boo Radley75]

Disingenuous to make this claim as the state pension goes up due to inflation.

Well I'm not that keen on how this winter fuel allowance is being enacted but I think the whole "poor pensions are going to have to freeze to death" thing is being rather exaggerated. Both my parents are OAPs and aren't in any worry of losing this, btw.