Burnham

[Dorset Boy]

Social care reform is too big an issue for one party. It needs to be a cross party agreement and agreed strategy.

I fail to understand why people shouldn't pay for their own care. However the point at which the State (Local Authority) steps in to help is too low £23,250, and contributes "fully" is much too low (£14,250).
Mental health issues I anticipate are heavily skewed towards the under 40s, so that will need addressing and funding.

Burnham did state he wanted cross party cooperation.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Burnham is kicking social care into the long grass because solving the issue will probably involve tax rises or cuts elsewhere. He doesn't want to raise taxes so early in his leadership because he likely thinks he might not have done enough to justify them by the time of the election. He's tinkering with stuff, whilst avoiding concrete action on big issues, and hoping it's enough to get him a second term.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Burnham is kicking social care into the long grass because solving the issue will probably involve tax rises or cuts elsewhere. He doesn't want to raise taxes so early in his leadership because he likely thinks he might not have done enough to justify them by the time of the election. He's tinkering with stuff, whilst avoiding concrete action on big issues, and hoping it's enough to get him a second term.

The last manifesto ruled out income tax changes so a blatant breaking of manifesto pledges is more likely to have held him back, as will concerns over party unity if significant cuts are made to big spend areas such as benefits.

If he started changes now there would not be enough time or money for any practical benefits to show before the next election.

 

[Psamathe]

My thinking is that either the elderly pay for it and the young don’t get an inheritance, or the young get an inheritance and have to pay for it with taxes.
Either way “we” pay for it.

There are actually not many decisions regarding paying for it. Only real decision is whether it's a seperate "ring fenced" fund (like NI/contributory benefits/state pensions) or a general taxation.

If it's a separate fund like contributory benefits/state pensions then the source of the funding needs to be identified but the amounts will always vary over time anyway. If it's not isolated then it's general taxation so no decisions as to "who pays" as that's decided on a budget by budget basis as it's just included as part of all the other taxes (excl.NI) - one Government reduced for welathier, next Government increases for wealthier. Rarely adjusted directly by age.

All a lot more straightforward is funded as part of Government expenditure and avoiding the complexities of the pension/contributory schemes running in surplus and then lending money to Government, etc.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Robert Peston has put up a piece this afternoon in which he suggests Burnham is considering funding social care by getting rid of the pension triple lock.

https://www.itv.com/news/2026-09-27...e-pensions-triple-lock-to-pay-for-social-care

I wouldn't object to that personally as we're in a better position than most, but I think you'd have to sell it as beneficial to both old and young, which requires the benefits to the elderly anyway being evident pretty quickly rather than 5 or 10 years down the line.

 

[Psamathe]

Robert Peston has put up a piece this afternoon in which he suggests Burnham is considering funding social care by getting rid of the pension triple lock.

https://www.itv.com/news/2026-09-27...e-pensions-triple-lock-to-pay-for-social-care

I wouldn't object to that personally as we're in a better position than most, but I think you'd have to sell it as beneficial to both old and young, which requires the benefits to the elderly anyway being evident pretty quickly rather than 5 or 10 years down the line.

The daftness about "Getting rid of the triple lock" is no politicians have and idea what the savings might be. eg turn it into a double lock "wage growth & inflation" and it won't make much difference. discard it altogether then apparently other legislation cuts in and it becomes increases with wge growth and high inflation will push those dependent of the State/New State Pension further into poverty.

Public perception is somewhat distorted as the State/New State Pension with no savings is actually not very much (eg with food inflation we've seen recently) but a fair number of pensioners receive additional pensions and savings income making life a lot easier for them. Most people I see around appearing of retired age seem to be driving BMWs or Range Rovers so state pension is probably a drop in their income.

And cut the Triple Lock and what happens to the NIF fund surpless (given that by law the NIF can only be used for social security benefits, such as the State Pension.

There are undoubtedly better ways, maybe more complex but better eg reduce of get rid of the 25% tax free allowance lump sum from a private pension fund, maybe tax pension fund payments about a higher threshold. I suspect that bring corporation tax in line with income tax would help ie increase taxes on those retirees with higher incomes from non state-pension sources and maintain increases for those dependent on the state pension alone.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Most people I see around appearing of retired age seem to be driving BMWs or Range Rovers so state pension is probably a drop in their income.

While true that many pensioners are comfortably off due to private/company pensions in addition to the state pension, I am not convinced by your rigorous analysis of car ownership statistics of the elderly.

In my straw poll of dozens of retired friends and acquaintances I have one BMW owner, one Mercedes owner (both cars older than 8 years) and no Range Rovers, and I live in a fairly prosperous suburb.

Lazy generalities need to have more than a passing resemblance to reality to mean anything.

 

[briantrumpet]

While true that many pensioners are comfortably off due to private/company pensions in addition to the state pension, I am not convinced by your rigorous analysis of car ownership statistics of the elderly.

In my straw poll of dozens of retired friends and acquaintances I have one BMW owner, one Mercedes owner (both cars older than 8 years) and no Range Rovers, and I live in a fairly prosperous suburb.

Lazy generalities need to have more than a passing resemblance to reality to mean anything.

Stats, stats, and more stats here.

https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...s-incomes-financial-years-ending-1995-to-2025

 

[Psamathe]

While true that many pensioners are comfortably off due to private/company pensions in addition to the state pension, I am not convinced by your rigorous analysis of car ownership statistics of the elderly.

In my straw poll of dozens of retired friends and acquaintances I have one BMW owner, one Mercedes owner (both cars older than 8 years) and no Range Rovers, and I live in a fairly prosperous suburb.

It wasn't intended as a statistical analysis but rather there are enough doing very comfortably and noticeable that it can skew views of the lifestyle pensioners live such that it gets easy to forget/overlook the impact that abandoning the triple lock would have on those depending on it alone.

And that over recent years food inflation has often been somewhat higher than the inflation figure used for pension increases and those depending on state pension are disproportionately impacted by food costs.

Ie there are better ways to tax pensioners to focus on the wealthier groups without further impacting those already struggling.

 

[Dorset Boy]

Why should pensioners be taxed differently to the rest of the population?

 

[Ian H]

Why should pensioners be taxed differently to the rest of the population?

Currently the only difference is that pensioners don't pay NI.

 

[briantrumpet]

Vanishingly unlikely, but maybe Burnham kept Mahmood on as the token Reform sympathiser so she could be shifted away from her worst instincts but still offer something for those who have 'legitimate concerns'.

Yeah, I know, who am I kidding?

But...

 

[icowden]

Why should pensioners be taxed differently to the rest of the population?

Many would think that after having been taxed on their income for the entire working life, and having paid into a private or workplace pension that taxing that as well is extracting the urine a little.

 

[briantrumpet]

Many would think that after having been taxed on their income for the entire working life, and having paid into a private or workplace pension that taxing that as well is extracting the urine a little.

I think I might be in debt already on the healthcare, well before drawing my state pension.

 

[Psamathe]

Many would think that after having been taxed on their income for the entire working life, and having paid into a private or workplace pension that taxing that as well is extracting the urine a little.

Except through most of my career my private pension contributions were exempt from tax (ie deducted from income before tax calculated). Plus under current rules I can take out 25% tax free and the rest just taxed same as income (seems more than fair given it wasn't previously subject to any tax).