Scrapping Age Related Benefits
Discussion
Welshbeef said:
And then she said:
Welshbeef said:
Toaster he is paying 62% marginal tax rate above £100k how much more does he need to pay?
That's only for £25k of income, then it drops to 42% for £25k, and up to 47% thereafter.If we don’t take so much money from the middle earners then the government needs to get it from someone else and the only ones in the frame are the poor. The option might be to lower the threshold and start at 25%. I don’t know how much that will bring in, but I do know that for many it will mean they will be able to claim benefits.
In other words, we will need more money from taxes because those at the bottom of the pile have too little and will claim benefits just to pay rent. What the government could do, of course, is raise the minimum wage to one where people are taken off benefits. It seems a good idea, but then companies would close, putting more out of work and upping the demand for taxes. The middle will be required to pay more.
Benefits are a subsidy in many cases. Fair enough, I can see the, er, benefits of the system, but it is a bit harsh on those workers at the bottom of the pile.
Some hinted at those on low/a bit over minimum wages not working hard. My brother was made redundant under Thatcher’s regime of ‘Britain isn’t working’ myth and did a few months working as a shelf filler/general dogsbody in a supermarket and a bit less in a cafe. Despite being very fit, he was exhausted every day, and this before the efforts of large, on-line retailers wringing every bit of life out of their workers. I think anyone who reckons they work hard should try some of the easy roles of those on low wages.
FiF said:
The alternative of means testing will almost certainly cost as much as any savings, it always does.
It won’t, especially if UC can be made to work.People always talk about all the other “spongers” and “Doleys” but somehow it’s different when they’re the ones claiming the benefits (not directed at you FiF).
The “How do I get my Mum and dad’s house so it’s not used to pay for their care home” is a prime example of selfishness,
One can certainly work very hard for a pittance.
I'm freelance and can get between 350 and 450 a day.
Just that lately I'm lucky to do 6/7 days a month.
I did a stint as a labourer during one quiet period. I was on 50 quid a day and worked my ass off 5 days a week, 10 hours a day.
Problem with that is builders like to finish the day in the pub. Buy a round and half your daily pay is gone. Don't buy a round and lose your job.
I looked at truck driving jobs. £400 a week. That's leaving home early and back home late.
Currently I can earn the equivalent of a London bus driver but be around for the kids most of the time, do diy on the house and have nice weekday day trips.
Poorer people work bloody hard and I am so lucky to be in a job that despite a massive downturn doesn't mean I have to do 50 hour weeks for little return.
I'm freelance and can get between 350 and 450 a day.
Just that lately I'm lucky to do 6/7 days a month.
I did a stint as a labourer during one quiet period. I was on 50 quid a day and worked my ass off 5 days a week, 10 hours a day.
Problem with that is builders like to finish the day in the pub. Buy a round and half your daily pay is gone. Don't buy a round and lose your job.
I looked at truck driving jobs. £400 a week. That's leaving home early and back home late.
Currently I can earn the equivalent of a London bus driver but be around for the kids most of the time, do diy on the house and have nice weekday day trips.
Poorer people work bloody hard and I am so lucky to be in a job that despite a massive downturn doesn't mean I have to do 50 hour weeks for little return.
What about the people post war who have worked all their life on low wages, lived in council or housing association homes and never had the chance to start a second pension?
They are the ones that this would be catastrophic for, a lot of folk on here have been lucky and are able to have a decent retirement but trust me when I say there are many older people who have worked hard in tough jobs their whole lives who can hardly pay for fuel and electricity as it is that this would finish them.
£160 a week is not very much to survive on is it? these are the people that need these benefits, the ones that re-built the country and are now it seems, surplus to requirements as far as the government is concerned, maybe it is a way of reducing the age of the population they are going to test?
They are the ones that this would be catastrophic for, a lot of folk on here have been lucky and are able to have a decent retirement but trust me when I say there are many older people who have worked hard in tough jobs their whole lives who can hardly pay for fuel and electricity as it is that this would finish them.
£160 a week is not very much to survive on is it? these are the people that need these benefits, the ones that re-built the country and are now it seems, surplus to requirements as far as the government is concerned, maybe it is a way of reducing the age of the population they are going to test?
Countdown said:
FiF said:
The alternative of means testing will almost certainly cost as much as any savings, it always does.
It won’t, especially if UC can be made to work.People always talk about all the other “spongers” and “Doleys” but somehow it’s different when they’re the ones claiming the benefits (not directed at you FiF).
The “How do I get my Mum and dad’s house so it’s not used to pay for their care home” is a prime example of selfishness,
Early on in my twenties was in a job with final salary pension with benefits that could retire on full earned pension at 55. Left that job as hated it, and having found another took advice as to what to do to get similar benefits, or as close as reasonably possible. It involved sacrifices and effort but despite the best efforts of Gordon Brown et al and compromises on my part it's all worked out.
So bearing all that in mind some of the accusations from various quarters rankle a bit. Especially considering bank of Mum and Dad in full operation. Average help to buy kids home is said to be in the order of 16,000, when it eventually happens will be multiples of that from us, before we even consider education fees, accommodation, cars etc.
Point is situations change over the years, each generation has adapted and dealt with the challenges faced. For sure some of the current crop will do so and succeed, but some are clearly in the "anybody's fault bar mine" mode.
Athlon said:
What about the people post war who have worked all their life on low wages, lived in council or housing association homes and never had the chance to start a second pension?
They are the ones that this would be catastrophic for, a lot of folk on here have been lucky and are able to have a decent retirement but trust me when I say there are many older people who have worked hard in tough jobs their whole lives who can hardly pay for fuel and electricity as it is that this would finish them.
£160 a week is not very much to survive on is it? these are the people that need these benefits, the ones that re-built the country and are now it seems, surplus to requirements as far as the government is concerned, maybe it is a way of reducing the age of the population they are going to
If you mean directly post war that would put them in the 70 - 75s bracket. They would have had the opportunity to contribute to a SIPP if they so chose. I am nearly 65 and started mine early 80s. It’s a choice.They are the ones that this would be catastrophic for, a lot of folk on here have been lucky and are able to have a decent retirement but trust me when I say there are many older people who have worked hard in tough jobs their whole lives who can hardly pay for fuel and electricity as it is that this would finish them.
£160 a week is not very much to survive on is it? these are the people that need these benefits, the ones that re-built the country and are now it seems, surplus to requirements as far as the government is concerned, maybe it is a way of reducing the age of the population they are going to
Having said that I don’t think the pension system can or would be changed overnight, but why not over the next 25 years.
The current set up is unsustainable as the proportion of non working retired people grow in relation to those who are supporting the retired.
It is time that people were forced to save sufficiently for their old age. Clearly minimum wage would need to increase significantly and corporation and personal tax changed to suit.
I think I would add if an individual’s personal pension exceeded the average wage I.e. £27k per annum then they would not receive a state pension.
Edited by Nickgnome on Saturday 27th April 10:40
Nickgnome said:
If you mean directly post war that would put them in the 70 - 75s bracket. They would have had the opportunity to contribute to a SIPP if they so chose. I am nearly 65 and started mine early 80s. It’s a choice.
Having said that I don’t think the pension system can or would be changed overnight, but why not over the next 25 years.
The current set up is unsustainable as the proportion of non working retired people grow in relation to those who are supporting the retired.
It is time that people were forced to save sufficiently for their old age. Clearly minimum wage would need to increase significantly and corporation and personal tax changed to suit.
To counter this we have been and are in a new baby boom since 2008 Having said that I don’t think the pension system can or would be changed overnight, but why not over the next 25 years.
The current set up is unsustainable as the proportion of non working retired people grow in relation to those who are supporting the retired.
It is time that people were forced to save sufficiently for their old age. Clearly minimum wage would need to increase significantly and corporation and personal tax changed to suit.
We need to move to a one universal income which is paid to everyone out of Normal education.
That would replace state pension and the new one benefit taxes would need to be higher and the rate would need to be at National living wage.
The automation that is coming will decimate all types of the workforce and plans are needed for that - 25 years is nothing in this sphere.
Welshbeef said:
To counter this we have been and are in a new baby boom since 2008
We need to move to a one universal income which is paid to everyone out of Normal education.
That would replace state pension and the new one benefit taxes would need to be higher and the rate would need to be at National living wage.
The automation that is coming will decimate all types of the workforce and plans are needed for that - 25 years is nothing in this sphere.
There has been ongoing automation for several hundred years. More jobs have been created to fill the void. I see no change to that gradual replacement of jobs.We need to move to a one universal income which is paid to everyone out of Normal education.
That would replace state pension and the new one benefit taxes would need to be higher and the rate would need to be at National living wage.
The automation that is coming will decimate all types of the workforce and plans are needed for that - 25 years is nothing in this sphere.
To understand the relationship of the ratio of working to non working population you would need to post a comparison extrapolated to take into account the impact of the baby boom you state.
I do agree that the whole system of minimum wage which in my opinion should be a true living wage should be set to enable savings made for retirement. These savings should be mandated.
The burden needs to shift back to the individual with the state picking up those who can not manage to save sufficiently through illness or unemployment.
Welshbeef said:
Riley Blue said:
As a pensioner, I wonder which benefit(s) we would chose if given a personal annual 'goodie' budget of, say, £500. Would it be free bus travel, free TV licence for over 75s, free.... oh bugger, I've forgotten the others.... Being old is crap sometimes.
Roll it into the state pension instead then it’s in the income tax setup. Individuals can choose what they do or don’t want to spend it on.
Welshbeef said:
Yes But taxing him even more - what % is too much?
I also pay the 65% marginal tax rate and agree it is unfair that it jumps from 42% to 65% back to 42%. I would close that loophole and increase the 40% and 45% rate and implement a 50% rate.Ideally we would tax wealth not income but that doesn't seem likely to happen.
Integroo said:
I also pay the 65% marginal tax rate and agree it is unfair that it jumps from 42% to 65% back to 42%. I would close that loophole and increase the 40% and 45% rate and implement a 50% rate.
Ideally we would tax wealth not income but that doesn't seem likely to happen.
Problem with taxing wealth is in many cases you’ll have to wait until they die to take it. In so doing the country will run huge deficits for potentially decades Ideally we would tax wealth not income but that doesn't seem likely to happen.
Conversely if your stating people pay it annually you’d then instantly devalue the property so no wealth to tax. Also where does Wealth get taxed? Is it a case of house price value less mortgage then tax that as if it’s instead tax a leveraged asset it’s madness - plus clearly any house price falls you’d need tax refund instantly. Also where is this vast workforce of annnual asset valuers and who regulates them? What if the lender disagrees with the govt valuation ie they believe it’s less so you pay a different Apr on a higher LTv. It’s a can of worms
Taxing wealth can be a difficult one.
Little old lady has lived in a small terraced house in SW London almost all her life. House now worth over £1 million but she has no real income apart from state pension.
How does she pay tax on her 'wealth'?
Many on here would say sell up, down size etc, but why should she. Knows and loves the house and is surrounded by people that know her.
Income tax, in my opinion, is the fairest tax as long as it is implemented properly. I'd happily pay more tax if I knew it would go towards looking after the aged and the ill, after all, I'll be there one day.
Same goes for council tax, again it should be a local income tax and any extra taxation on car use (ULEZ, engine size, road pricing, emissions) should be added at the petrol pump.
Then the Bentley that only gets used on Sundays isn't punished compared to the Focus that does 30,000 miles a year.
Also has to be far simpler to implement thus saving more money.
Little old lady has lived in a small terraced house in SW London almost all her life. House now worth over £1 million but she has no real income apart from state pension.
How does she pay tax on her 'wealth'?
Many on here would say sell up, down size etc, but why should she. Knows and loves the house and is surrounded by people that know her.
Income tax, in my opinion, is the fairest tax as long as it is implemented properly. I'd happily pay more tax if I knew it would go towards looking after the aged and the ill, after all, I'll be there one day.
Same goes for council tax, again it should be a local income tax and any extra taxation on car use (ULEZ, engine size, road pricing, emissions) should be added at the petrol pump.
Then the Bentley that only gets used on Sundays isn't punished compared to the Focus that does 30,000 miles a year.
Also has to be far simpler to implement thus saving more money.
There are plenty of sources that refute or propose solutions for the issues with LVT identified above. If you Google it you will find lots of reliable economists arguing in its favour. It has been argued about many times before on this forum also. Can't really be bothered getting into it again!
Integroo said:
There are plenty of sources that refute or propose solutions for the issues with LVT identified above. If you Google it you will find lots of reliable economists arguing in its favour. It has been argued about many times before on this forum also. Can't really be bothered getting into it again!
Economists totally ignore the impact to the older person and their support network. Also as I stated if a LVT comes into place who and when does it get valued? If when you sell it’s much less do you then receive possibly decades of over paid LVT in return
We will see house prices drop which means less LVT - who determines the starting point?
What if you have zero equity in the house? Example you buy it price falls then get the LTV charge so you have to sell but when you sell your in net negative equity and potless - how does one then pay the LVT? Also what if the price you sell it at the real market valu is nothing like the value he LVt assumes it was which in turn caused the selling of it?
Happy to have a PM chat on this topic
Another whopping elephant in the LVT room is what happens with local authority and Housing Association property?
The occupants won't be paying the LVT, but are the councils and HAs going to bankrupt themselves by paying it?
Or what?
No-one ever answers this.
The occupants won't be paying the LVT, but are the councils and HAs going to bankrupt themselves by paying it?
Or what?
No-one ever answers this.
Edited by selmahoose on Saturday 27th April 13:11
selmahoose said:
One whopping elephant in the LVT room is what happens with local authority and Housing Association property?
The occupants won't be paying the LVT, but are the councils and HAs going to bankrupt themselves by paying it?
Or what?
What if you own the Buy to let in a limited company are suddenly ALL companies required to pay a LVT annually? The occupants won't be paying the LVT, but are the councils and HAs going to bankrupt themselves by paying it?
Or what?
Nickgnome said:
Athlon said:
What about the people post war who have worked all their life on low wages, lived in council or housing association homes and never had the chance to start a second pension?
They are the ones that this would be catastrophic for, a lot of folk on here have been lucky and are able to have a decent retirement but trust me when I say there are many older people who have worked hard in tough jobs their whole lives who can hardly pay for fuel and electricity as it is that this would finish them.
£160 a week is not very much to survive on is it? these are the people that need these benefits, the ones that re-built the country and are now it seems, surplus to requirements as far as the government is concerned, maybe it is a way of reducing the age of the population they are going to
If you mean directly post war that would put them in the 70 - 75s bracket. They would have had the opportunity to contribute to a SIPP if they so chose. I am nearly 65 and started mine early 80s. It’s a choice.They are the ones that this would be catastrophic for, a lot of folk on here have been lucky and are able to have a decent retirement but trust me when I say there are many older people who have worked hard in tough jobs their whole lives who can hardly pay for fuel and electricity as it is that this would finish them.
£160 a week is not very much to survive on is it? these are the people that need these benefits, the ones that re-built the country and are now it seems, surplus to requirements as far as the government is concerned, maybe it is a way of reducing the age of the population they are going to
Having said that I don’t think the pension system can or would be changed overnight, but why not over the next 25 years.
The current set up is unsustainable as the proportion of non working retired people grow in relation to those who are supporting the retired.
It is time that people were forced to save sufficiently for their old age. Clearly minimum wage would need to increase significantly and corporation and personal tax changed to suit.
I think I would add if an individual’s personal pension exceeded the average wage I.e. £27k per annum then they would not receive a state pension.
Edited by Nickgnome on Saturday 27th April 10:40
One worker in the family and the wife at home with the kid(s), no saving possible. Not everyone who has worked has had the chance to save.
Athlon said:
It really was not a possibility to some though was it? I know folk who subsidised their income by growing their own veg, never had central heating and barely had enough money to feed and clothe themselves despite working every spare hour. Not everyone got a break in life and have and never had a chance to better the position they found themselves in.
One worker in the family and the wife at home with the kid(s), no saving possible. Not everyone who has worked has had the chance to save.
Too many on PistonHeads think there is a direct correlation between hard work and wealth. The harder you work, the wealthier you are. If you are poor, it's because you are lazy and feckless.One worker in the family and the wife at home with the kid(s), no saving possible. Not everyone who has worked has had the chance to save.
It's nonsense, but a commonly held viewpoint. Mainly from people that have done well and refuse to accept that good fortune and/or good circumstance contributed to their success.
Athlon said:
It really was not a possibility to some though was it? I know folk who subsidised their income by growing their own veg, never had central heating and barely had enough money to feed and clothe themselves despite working every spare hour. Not everyone got a break in life and have and never had a chance to better the position they found themselves in.
One worker in the family and the wife at home with the kid(s), no saving possible. Not everyone who has worked has had the chance to save.
I do not disagree that there will always be some that have huge difficulty in managing their lives and simply do not have the intellect to move themselves onward.One worker in the family and the wife at home with the kid(s), no saving possible. Not everyone who has worked has had the chance to save.
That is what the safety net should be for. Not the several million who have chosen not to save mainly through carelessness rather than intent. I maintain all working people should be mandated to contribute to their own scheme.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff