Cuts - Do the government really understand the consequences?

[Charles Notice]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I do have one (disabled). And I am not saying it

> would be popular, and also glad you have to apply

> now. But if savings have to be found from

> somewhere then I am sure the older generation

> would rather lose the bus pass than their

> pension.

>

> Believe me, I'd much rather that there was no need

> to cut anything, but as a local authority employee

> directly involved in trying to hack away at a

> service, I am fed up with seeing all the

> vulnerable groups hit hardest. Many many over 60s

> are not vulnerable.

What is the difference between a disabled freedom pass and an ordinary freedom pass?

Would losing yours make a difference and in what way?

I am sure the freedom pass makes a great difference in stretching the value of the very low State Pension not many people have the benefit if a local Authority pension.

[Otta]

The difference is that disabled people have already taken several hits either directly or indirectly.

Personally I know that I am very lucky to have my pass and could manage without it (although it would make a huge difference financially). But this isn't about me or you. I am not saying no one over 60 is struggling, I'm saying plenty aren't, so why shouldn't they be affected to?

I don't agree with the "they've done the right thing all their lives so why should they get hit" argument. What about the children who've done nothing wrong but are suffering? If you are not even of retirement age, why should you get a free travel pass?

I'm not anti older people by the way, I am just suggesting an area that could be looked at, as it's unclear how much more can be saved from other services.

[LondonMix]

Would it be wrong though to bring the age in line with retirement age as Otta has said? What's the logic between having it below that? Also, means testing it makes sense (though I agree the administration of means testing would like wipe out the savings). That's in large part why some many benefits are universal. You have to want to exclude all but the poorest before means testing starts to make sense from a cost benefit perspective.

[Blah Blah]

'Basically he's a Cameron ally who is probably gutted this has been leaked.'

That all makes sense Otta. I did wonder.

It surely makes sense, given that we have one of the lowest income tax rates in europe and have gone through eras when tax rates were much higher to put 1p or 2p back on the basic rate of income tax. No party dare mention it though. National Insurance has been increased but people don't seem to see that as income tax, although it goes into exactly the same coffers as income tax - so income tax has effectively been raised from time to time. I don't know how much that would bring in but we all benefit from services, even if it is just refuse collection and income tax seems the fairest way to raise revenue, and also the easiest way through which to help those on low wages. So I think that puts me in agreement with rahrah.

In part, the pressures on the NHS are dominated by longer life expectancy. And this is going to be a growing problem. Whilst it might sound like a great solution to raise the retirement age, the problem is that whilst we live longer we don't age slower. I suspect many people will find themselves on other forms of benefit before the new threshold for retirement. I certainly wouldn't want to see 65 year olds being put through the benefits system we have at present where some people are being bullied by the DWP.

The rises in diagnoses of dementia for example are directly related to people living longer. I.E they develop conditions because other conditions that would have affected their mortality in the past are now more effectively treated or avoided completely. What concerns me about those who want to change the model of the NHS is that they are looking to probably the worst model of healthcare in the world, ie America, when they should be looking to what works in Europe, where healthcare combines private and public models. And this is why TTIP has to be fought also.

There have been several recent cases of corporations buying up the patents and licenses of vital medication as soon as they expire in the US, and then increasing the price by anything up to 1000% (and that is not a typo). So people should be extremely wary of privatising healthcare. Even in the uk, the NHS costs about 70% less than the private equivalent (operations etc) so we will end up paying more for healthcare if the model isn't right. What we don't want to happen is what happens in America, where millions of people don't have access to healthcare and many die unable to afford the medication they need. Healthcare in the US is a business first. People and their health definitely come second.

[malumbu]

You lot can debate all day but its not whether the government understands the cuts but whether those who voted them in did (and of course whether there was a credible alternative party).

The argument whether we should have spent our way out of recession was lost five years ago. Now with no conscience (the Lig Dems) they can do exactly what they said on the tin (the manifesto) except they can't as there aint enough dosh. The only real criticism was the title on the tin which was rather misleading - a manifesto for business and the wealthy (or middle classes who consider themselves wealthy).

The Autumn Statement is going to be carnage. I have seen enough already at close hands. Wonder how the Mayor will respond (much to blame due to his vanity projects).

[????]

Wot Quids said Ken:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/11/ken-clarke-laments-impossible-constraint-placed-upon-chancellors

[BrandNewGuy]

A lot of sense (and a bit of nonsense) from Ken. My dream solution: a halfpenny on basic rate tax, a penny on higher rate (both to fund NHS and social care spending) and re-rate property to reflect genuine house/land prices. Many foreign residents cannot believe how low property tax is in this country. Given that's where large amounts of wealth are tied up, taxing it more would be both just and progressive.

[Blah Blah]

There's a lot of sense in his comments and a reality check too. If the public want decent public services taxes will have to go up. But what party making that case will be electable?

I think this is a hole that both the Conservatives and New Labour have dug for themselves. It's all very well moving to an individualistic competitive public consciousness, but there are consequences. Demographically we are changing and there will have to be a collective shift to recognise the reality of that. It's going to mean more tax, or a higher workforce (which means imigration and developing an economy to support that). Many people will just not be physically able to work to 75. Political parties need to be more forward thinking instead of clawing to keep things working as they are. Or as Ken warns, the backlash will come.

[Townleygreen]

for information, the Freedom Pass isn't given to 60+, but you get it when you get the state pension now - roughly when you're 66 I believe.

[Otta]

Townleygreen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> for information, the Freedom Pass isn't given to

> 60+, but you get it when you get the state pension

> now - roughly when you're 66 I believe.

I just checked the site, and you're right, for a London freedom pass you need to be 66.

Although they've now done this for which you get the same benefits and need to be 60 and live in London to qualify.

https://tfl.gov.uk/fares-and-payments/adult-discounts-and-concessions/60-london-oyster?cid=60pluslondon

[LondonMix]

That's ridiculous! Why even bother with the facade?! The entire world is spin these days...

[Loz]

Cost of the Freedom Pass: some number above ?275m. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cost_of_freedom_pass