|
oyster
5,284 posts
118 months
|
chris watton said: Du1point8 said: Some of the people that inherit assets due to hard working family that are trying to pass them down the generations would disagree.
Why work hard at all if its just going to get taken off you for socialist ideas that dont work. Perhaps some think that it's only fair that people who haven't worked a day in their life 'deserve' to be as well off as someone who works 40-60 hours per week. I don't know, but I find some views quite scary. If you're referring to me, then you've deliberately mistaken my comment and applied your own assumption on it, which is poor debating in my opinion. Anyhow, my position is clear. There's a huge defecit and a huge debt. It won't be cleared by spending reductions alone - though we do need to curb the welfare state - MASSIVELY. My opinion is that the tax burden should not fall so hard on those working hard.
|
|
|
chris watton
12,447 posts
130 months
|
oyster said: If you're referring to me, then you've deliberately mistaken my comment and applied your own assumption on it, which is poor debating in my opinion.
Anyhow, my position is clear.
There's a huge defecit and a huge debt. It won't be cleared by spending reductions alone - though we do need to curb the welfare state - MASSIVELY.
My opinion is that the tax burden should not fall so hard on those working hard. Nor should it fall on those who 'have' worked hard, and paid their taxes and NI all of their lives.
|
|
|
speedy_thrills
5,730 posts
113 months
|
We might not like what Clegg has said but on economic issues it's better for him than drawing attention to wages, unemployment or GDP. The current governments approach to improving economic management has largely failed so far and they now need to engineer a new approach that delivers to voters in the short term or they'll be out next time voters get near a ballot box.
Expect to see pandering to the lower middle class, or would the alternative prospect of a return to a Labour government please us more?
|
|
|
motco
4,796 posts
116 months
|
Fittster said: motco said: Quite! Most, if not all, pensions (public sector notwithstanding) are gleaned from money paid in from earnings over a working lifetime. No-one has any claim on that bar the pensioners. So why shouldn't the state pension be means tested? It account for 35% of Welfare payments. Because it is the pensioners' money! The NI payments that they made while they were employed earned them the pension. Those who didn't pay NI don't get the full (or any, perhaps) pension. If you had saved for your old age and accumulated a nice nest egg, would you agree to some being taken off you because someone else had less due to lower contributions?
|
|
|
DSM2
3,624 posts
70 months
|
oyster said: turbobloke said: oyster said: The over 65s are sloshing in spare cash right now. Most are in that position because of hard-earned, tax-paid. They deserve praise not hammering. As a starting point, if pointless envyist tactics really must be used, more MPs are wealthy than over-65 non-MPs. Hit the political muppets first as a leadership gesture. Include spouses, to please Clegg and Microgland and delight Samcam. Then union bosses. We're all in it together. Take off the rose-tinted specs. Most old people are in that position because they rode the crest of a housing bubble wave and because they benefitted from gold-plated pensions (both public and private sector). They haven't risked capital in investing in small businesses, they haven't invested in their old age. They contributed small amounts to pensions over 30 years, which they will draw for 40 yrs+ I'm not saying they didn't work hard. But to say they have earnt all their wealth is simply untrue. Oh dear, you're so wrong I almost can't believe that your serious. Let me paraphrase your earlier post and point you in the right direction: WE NEED TO MOVE AWAY FROM THIS CONCEPT OF SPENDING WHAT WE DON'T HAVE. Then you won't need to steal from those who already do have.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
speedy_thrills
5,730 posts
113 months
|
DSM2 said: oyster said: turbobloke said: oyster said: The over 65s are sloshing in spare cash right now. Most are in that position because of hard-earned, tax-paid. They deserve praise not hammering. As a starting point, if pointless envyist tactics really must be used, more MPs are wealthy than over-65 non-MPs. Hit the political muppets first as a leadership gesture. Include spouses, to please Clegg and Microgland and delight Samcam. Then union bosses. We're all in it together. Take off the rose-tinted specs. Most old people are in that position because they rode the crest of a housing bubble wave and because they benefitted from gold-plated pensions (both public and private sector). They haven't risked capital in investing in small businesses, they haven't invested in their old age. They contributed small amounts to pensions over 30 years, which they will draw for 40 yrs+ I'm not saying they didn't work hard. But to say they have earnt all their wealth is simply untrue. Oh dear, you're so wrong I almost can't believe that your serious. Let me paraphrase your earlier post and point you in the right direction: WE NEED TO MOVE AWAY FROM THIS CONCEPT OF SPENDING WHAT WE DON'T HAVE. Then you won't need to steal from those who already do have. It's a bit late to realise that now, we're well over the post war population increases and the population is ageing. I can't imagine people heading towards or in retirement being happy if the plug is pulled on costly NHS treatments. There will be an intergenerational debt burden passed on in many western countries and the cost of providing public services is likely to increase as the number of people reliant on those services increases even if we cut those services. In the end there is still no such thing as a free lunch but we may have figured out how to pass the bill to our children. Could be worse though, think of the young people in Greece inheriting a much higher debt burden in an era of high unemployment.
|
|
|
tonker
44,028 posts
118 months
|
We can't afford the pensions. We can't afford the Healthcare. IF we keep paying everything else out. I have a work experience girl shadowing me at the moment (poor sod) - she had no understanding of how the UK's finances are structured and what a hole we are in. She does now. She's appalled. They aren't teaching the kids the truth. Because the teachers don't want people to know the truth either (what with them being the recipients of some of the best pensions - and they don't want to 'lose' any of them). So sod the rest of you.
|
|
|
Timmy35
8,624 posts
68 months
|
motco said: If you had saved for your old age and accumulated a nice nest egg, would you agree to some being taken off you because someone else had less due to lower contributions? Pensions are classified as taxable income, so this is infact exactly what already happens.
|
|
|
turbobloke
55,667 posts
130 months
|
DSM2 said: oyster said: turbobloke said: oyster said: The over 65s are sloshing in spare cash right now. Most are in that position because of hard-earned, tax-paid. They deserve praise not hammering. As a starting point, if pointless envyist tactics really must be used, more MPs are wealthy than over-65 non-MPs. Hit the political muppets first as a leadership gesture. Include spouses, to please Clegg and Microgland and delight Samcam. Then union bosses. We're all in it together. Take off the rose-tinted specs. Most old people are in that position because they rode the crest of a housing bubble wave and because they benefitted from gold-plated pensions (both public and private sector). They haven't risked capital in investing in small businesses, they haven't invested in their old age. They contributed small amounts to pensions over 30 years, which they will draw for 40 yrs+ I'm not saying they didn't work hard. But to say they have earnt all their wealth is simply untrue. Oh dear, you're so wrong I almost can't believe that your serious. Let me paraphrase your earlier post and point you in the right direction: WE NEED TO MOVE AWAY FROM THIS CONCEPT OF SPENDING WHAT WE DON'T HAVE. Then you won't need to steal from those who already do have. Quite right, spending other people's money isn't how to solve the current problem, it's part of how we got here. If some people think they've been around at the wrong time or did the wrong thing at some other time, that's life. Looking around for scapegoats to milk is pure spite, or if it's impure then some envy is mixed in. As to pensioners being rich from house price inflation, fine if they sold in early 2007 but I suspect quite a few are still sitting where they were back then since a house is still for living in to most people. Pensioners paid off their mortgage with hard-earned, tax-paid. As to workers who got opportunities for good pensions back in the day, nice one. Jealousy is pointless.
|
|
|
NDA
10,257 posts
95 months
|
turbobloke said: Quite right, spending other people's money isn't how to solve the current problem, it's part of how we got here.
If some people think they've been around at the wrong time or did the wrong thing at some other time, that's life. Looking around for scapegoats to milk is pure spite, or if it's impure then some envy is mixed in.
As to pensioners being rich from house price inflation, fine if they sold in early 2007 but I suspect quite a few are still sitting where they were back then since a house is still for living in to most people. Pensioners paid off their mortgage with hard-earned, tax-paid. As to workers who got opportunities for good pensions back in the day, nice one. Jealousy is pointless. Fully agree. Socialists are at their happiest when they're spending other peoples money. I've worked hard, paid off my mortgage (despite a heavily taxed income), so the whole concept of a Mansion Tax is not exactly appealing. I think I've paid enough, time and time again. I can't say that returning to work is particularly appealing either - the obstacles put in the path of entrepreneurs is ridiculous, as is the punitive tax regime. I don't claim nuffink neither, never have done.
|
|
|
Symbolica
9,030 posts
85 months
|
I'm sick of successive governments thinking that the answer to everything is "More Tax!". This country doesn't have an income problem, it has an expenditure problem and I want to see a concerted effort to cut down on that before I fork over even more money to them.
|
|
|
motco
4,796 posts
116 months
|
Timmy35 said: motco said: If you had saved for your old age and accumulated a nice nest egg, would you agree to some being taken off you because someone else had less due to lower contributions? Pensions are classified as taxable income, so this is infact exactly what already happens. Yes of course but only because the contributions are made 'gross' - it's deferred tax.
|
|
|
Timmy35
8,624 posts
68 months
|
Symbolica said: I'm sick of successive governments thinking that the answer to everything is "More Tax!". This country doesn't have an income problem, it has an expenditure problem and I want to see a concerted effort to cut down on that before I fork over even more money to them. Imagine there are 10 people in a room, 3 are employed the rest are not, everyone gets a vote, someone proposes that the group borrow £10,000 and share it equally, the debt will be paid off equally by everyones income from working ( obviously this only impacts the 3 working people ). Scale that upto a national level, add in politicians whose job it is to get elected and you can see why expenditure cutting is never the popular option versus tax and spend.
|
|
|
turbobloke
55,667 posts
130 months
|
Symbolica said: I'm sick of successive governments thinking that the answer to everything is "More Tax!". This country doesn't have an income problem, it has an expenditure problem and I want to see a concerted effort to cut down on that before I fork over even more money to them. Agreed about the preference for less spending, and much less waste too which will help. Timmy35 said: you can see why expenditure cutting is never the popular option versus tax and spend Yet when you look at the political map, England is mostly blue apart from a number of tribal enclaves up north, there are unemployed everywhere and at least some can see further than the end of the week...it's the lefties in Scotland and Wales that get Labour elected to tax the hardworking classes and then waste most of it.
|
|
|
fbrs
7,743 posts
133 months
|
fine lets have a wealth tax. i assume public sector, final salary, inflation linked pensions will be given a market annuity value as part of the calculation? no?
|
|
|
ringram
12,260 posts
118 months
|
chris watton said: Du1point8 said: Some of the people that inherit assets due to hard working family that are trying to pass them down the generations would disagree.
Why work hard at all if its just going to get taken off you for socialist ideas that dont work. Perhaps some think that it's only fair that people who haven't worked a day in their life 'deserve' to be as well off as someone who works 40-60 hours per week. I don't know, but I find some views quite scary. Agreed inherited wealth should be taxed higher than income. With exemptions for investments. Pour encourager les autres. Otherwise its dead money for dead weight.
|
|
|
oyster
5,284 posts
118 months
|
DSM2 said: oyster said: turbobloke said: oyster said: The over 65s are sloshing in spare cash right now. Most are in that position because of hard-earned, tax-paid. They deserve praise not hammering. As a starting point, if pointless envyist tactics really must be used, more MPs are wealthy than over-65 non-MPs. Hit the political muppets first as a leadership gesture. Include spouses, to please Clegg and Microgland and delight Samcam. Then union bosses. We're all in it together. Take off the rose-tinted specs. Most old people are in that position because they rode the crest of a housing bubble wave and because they benefitted from gold-plated pensions (both public and private sector). They haven't risked capital in investing in small businesses, they haven't invested in their old age. They contributed small amounts to pensions over 30 years, which they will draw for 40 yrs+ I'm not saying they didn't work hard. But to say they have earnt all their wealth is simply untrue. Oh dear, you're so wrong I almost can't believe that your serious. Let me paraphrase your earlier post and point you in the right direction: WE NEED TO MOVE AWAY FROM THIS CONCEPT OF SPENDING WHAT WE DON'T HAVE. Then you won't need to steal from those who already do have. I agree with you. And in an ideal world we would spend what we earnt, rather than borrow. Cut the cloth to suit and all that - I 100% agree with you. Here's the problem though - it will never happen. Didn't happen under Thatcher, isn't happening nwo despite all the talk of austerity, will never happen. And being a realist rather than a dreamer, I'm afraid that taxes will have to go up - and if taxes are to go up I'd rather they weren't slapped on people working hard. They'd be of much greater value to the economy if they were slapped on either unearned wealth or non-working wealth.
|
|
|
chris watton
12,447 posts
130 months
|
oyster said: I agree with you. And in an ideal world we would spend what we earnt, rather than borrow.
Cut the cloth to suit and all that - I 100% agree with you.
Here's the problem though - it will never happen. Didn't happen under Thatcher, isn't happening nwo despite all the talk of austerity, will never happen.
And being a realist rather than a dreamer, I'm afraid that taxes will have to go up - and if taxes are to go up I'd rather they weren't slapped on people working hard. They'd be of much greater value to the economy if they were slapped on either unearned wealth or non-working wealth. Or - how about this - a tax on benefits! Long termers have to pay 25% from their welfare cheques. Sorted!
|
|
|
turbobloke
55,667 posts
130 months
|
chris watton said: oyster said: I agree with you. And in an ideal world we would spend what we earnt, rather than borrow.
Cut the cloth to suit and all that - I 100% agree with you.
Here's the problem though - it will never happen. Didn't happen under Thatcher, isn't happening nwo despite all the talk of austerity, will never happen.
And being a realist rather than a dreamer, I'm afraid that taxes will have to go up - and if taxes are to go up I'd rather they weren't slapped on people working hard. They'd be of much greater value to the economy if they were slapped on either unearned wealth or non-working wealth. Or - how about this - a tax on benefits! Long termers have to pay 25% from their welfare cheques. Sorted! Surely oyster has to agree, after all it's a tax on unearned non-working wealth and so 'of much greater value to the economy'.
|
|
|
chris watton
12,447 posts
130 months
|
turbobloke said: Surely oyster has to agree, after all it's a tax on unearned wealth and so 'of much greater value to the economy'. Easy to administer, too! Just pay them 25% less, and as you rightly state, it is unearned wealth.
|
|
