General Election July 2024
Discussion
Boringvolvodriver said:
That is the same whatever the issue- everybody should pay more, apart from me of course!
I don’t have an issue with the concept of paying more tax, providing that the system is fair and equitable so that the more income you have, the more tax that you pay.
So yes, rich pensioners who earn more should pay more and arguably if their income is above a certain threshold, then the state pension should be effectively taken away from them.
The rationale being that someone who has private income of say, as an example, £50,000 doesn’t really need the extra £11000 of state pension.
Imo, one shouldn’t pay tax in the expectation that you get something back personally from said tax in the form of monetary payments.
You want fairness and equitibility yet want to remove the state pension from those who have been sensible and prudent enough to save for retirement yet reward those who pissed it up a wall instead?I don’t have an issue with the concept of paying more tax, providing that the system is fair and equitable so that the more income you have, the more tax that you pay.
So yes, rich pensioners who earn more should pay more and arguably if their income is above a certain threshold, then the state pension should be effectively taken away from them.
The rationale being that someone who has private income of say, as an example, £50,000 doesn’t really need the extra £11000 of state pension.
Imo, one shouldn’t pay tax in the expectation that you get something back personally from said tax in the form of monetary payments.
Edited by Rufus Stone on Sunday 30th June 16:49
Murph7355 said:
Apparently, however, "hard working people" shouldn't be expected to pay more tax.
Which sounds like those not working should be. Which is a strange position for Labour to take, but does highlight a significant problem - that not enough people are paying in.
The Labour definition of working people apparently excludes people with any savings. Which sounds like those not working should be. Which is a strange position for Labour to take, but does highlight a significant problem - that not enough people are paying in.
The Hypno-Toad said:
I did see a Starmer speech the other day in which he said that not raising income tax was a manifesto commitment... Not a promise or a pledge, a commitment.
If you don't fulfill a promise or a pledge does that mean you have reneged on your manifesto and been untruthful to the electorate, where as does saying its a commitment give you more wriggle room?
They can raise tax revenues significantly without touching headline rates of tax and NI. So they will likely keep to that as a significant promise made, but raise billions from such things as pensions tax relief, council tax, fuel duty, etc and etc.If you don't fulfill a promise or a pledge does that mean you have reneged on your manifesto and been untruthful to the electorate, where as does saying its a commitment give you more wriggle room?
To say nothing of the fact that both the Tories and Labour will keep tax thresholds frozen so will raise billions more on income that would have either been not subject to tax, or taxed at a lower rate, if those thresholds rose in line with inflation.
Rufus Stone said:
Boringvolvodriver said:
That is the same whatever the issue- everybody should pay more, apart from me of course!
I don’t have an issue with the concept of paying more tax, providing that the system is fair and equitable so that the more income you have, the more tax that you pay.
So yes, rich pensioners who earn more should pay more and arguably if their income is above a certain threshold, then the state pension should be effectively taken away from them.
The rationale being that someone who has private income of say, as an example, £50,000 doesn’t really need the extra £11000 of state pension.
Imo, one shouldn’t pay tax in the expectation that you get something back personally from said tax in the form of monetary payments.
You want fairness and equitibility yet want to remove the state pension from those who have been sensible and prudent enough to save for retirement yet reward those who pissed it up a wall instead?I don’t have an issue with the concept of paying more tax, providing that the system is fair and equitable so that the more income you have, the more tax that you pay.
So yes, rich pensioners who earn more should pay more and arguably if their income is above a certain threshold, then the state pension should be effectively taken away from them.
The rationale being that someone who has private income of say, as an example, £50,000 doesn’t really need the extra £11000 of state pension.
Imo, one shouldn’t pay tax in the expectation that you get something back personally from said tax in the form of monetary payments.
Edited by Rufus Stone on Sunday 30th June 16:49
No system is perfect although in a decent society surely there should be an expectation that those who are fortunate enough to have funds should support those well off? Or do you think we should look after number one and sod the rest of the population?
The issue for me is at what level someone doesn’t need te state pension, - does someone with £100k income in retirement need it? It was brought in to help those workers who were low paid.
Edited by Boringvolvodriver on Sunday 30th June 17:05
Boringvolvodriver said:
That is exactly the attitude of many people though - what about those who through no fault of their own (and yes there are those people) who haven’t got loads of money and haven’t pissed it up against a wall then?
No system is perfect although in a decent society surely there should be an expectation that those who are fortunate enough to have funds should support those well off? Or do you think we should look after number one and sod the rest of the population?
The issue for me is at what level someone doesn’t need te state pension, - does someone with £100k income in retirement need it? It was brought in to help those workers who were low paid.
Your suggestion does not create a decent society. Would you like rich people to be forced to pay for their medical care too? Or perhaps pay more road tax so that poor people can pay less? No system is perfect although in a decent society surely there should be an expectation that those who are fortunate enough to have funds should support those well off? Or do you think we should look after number one and sod the rest of the population?
The issue for me is at what level someone doesn’t need te state pension, - does someone with £100k income in retirement need it? It was brought in to help those workers who were low paid.
Edited by Boringvolvodriver on Sunday 30th June 17:05
Rufus Stone said:
Boringvolvodriver said:
That is exactly the attitude of many people though - what about those who through no fault of their own (and yes there are those people) who haven’t got loads of money and haven’t pissed it up against a wall then?
No system is perfect although in a decent society surely there should be an expectation that those who are fortunate enough to have funds should support those well off? Or do you think we should look after number one and sod the rest of the population?
The issue for me is at what level someone doesn’t need te state pension, - does someone with £100k income in retirement need it? It was brought in to help those workers who were low paid.
Your suggestion does not create a decent society. Would you like rich people to be forced to pay for their medical care too? Or perhaps pay more road tax so that poor people can pay less? No system is perfect although in a decent society surely there should be an expectation that those who are fortunate enough to have funds should support those well off? Or do you think we should look after number one and sod the rest of the population?
The issue for me is at what level someone doesn’t need te state pension, - does someone with £100k income in retirement need it? It was brought in to help those workers who were low paid.
Edited by Boringvolvodriver on Sunday 30th June 17:05
Sway said:
Generally, the high tax socialist countries with both staggeringly good public services and happy citizenry, everyone pays a big chunk. There's not really a perspective of 'who can afford to' - everyone chips in a decent percentage of whatever income they've got (yes, there's obviously progressive rates, but in some ways less progressive than what we have).
Which is fine. It's not denying someone something they have paid for becsuse they made additional provision for themselves. JagLover said:
The Labour definition of working people apparently excludes people with any savings.
www.forbes.com/uk/advisor/savings/average-savings-...Average savings by age in the UK
AGE GROUP AVERAGE SAVINGS
18 - 24 - £3,636
25 -34 - £3,748
35 - 44 - £5,714
45 - 54 - £9,402
55 - 73 - £18,245
74+ - £36,940
AGE GROUP PERCENTAGE WITH ANY FORM OF SAVINGS ACCOUNT
18-24 - 54%
25-34 - 65%
35-44 - 66%
45-54 - 69%
55-64 - 76%
65-74 - 81%
75+ - 83%
So 1/3 or working age adults have no savings account and the average amount in that account is £5k, and it is only the elderly that buck that trend.
And so to say working people excludes people with savings is just a statement of fact, as the vast majority of working people don't have any savings - yes I know that will come as a shock to the PBDs here.
pingu393 said:
Perhaps, I should have spent an extra £100 down the pub, or on fags, every month for the last 40 years 
Lliving that lifestyle I doubt most would be collecting SP for long if at all...Taxes & responsible behaviour, if people who choose to live as Pingu has outlined find they need extensive NHS treatment due to this lifestyle, then I feel that it would be fair for a tax to be applied as they chose this lifestyle...Also Sports injuries , you knw the potential risks yet chose to go hang gliding, Rugby, Horseriding etc ...
Hate me later.
irc said:
pingu393 said:
It could get very "interesting".
The only non-workers with money are pensioners and investors.
It would be political suicide to go after pensioners, so it's investors that will be targetted.
Depends. Many pensioners are well off. As NI is really just another tax why are they exempt? Get the crusties to pay NI. The only non-workers with money are pensioners and investors.
It would be political suicide to go after pensioners, so it's investors that will be targetted.
Or another NI tweak would be to increase the NI rate for higher rate taxpayers. After all in Scotland higher rate taxpayers pay the full 8% rate from £43k to £50k and there hasn't been much complaint.
So rather than the current 2% make the current 8% rate up to well past £50k. There are tax rises coming and it won't just be the very richest that pay them.
Kermit power said:
I'd start by removing the tax free lump sum on the pension of anyone retiring before state pension age without having had children. That group is most able to afford it as they've not had kids, and has also most contributed to the ageing population crisis for the same reason.
I can just imagine the maternity wards being full of 66 year old female tax avoiders 
Kermit power said:
I'd start by removing the tax free lump sum on the pension of anyone retiring before state pension age without having had children. That group is most able to afford it as they've not had kids, and has also most contributed to the ageing population crisis for the same reason.
Yet reward those who fecklessley breed?Rufus Stone said:
Your suggestion does not create a decent society. Would you like rich people to be forced to pay for their medical care too? Or perhaps pay more road tax so that poor people can pay less?
Where did I say anything about forcing? The whole point is that those who earn more should surely be expected to contribute more into the pot of money. You could say that the rich do pay for their medical care by having private cover as well as paying tax and that those who have more money and therefore can afford bigger more expensive cars do pay more road tax already with the £40,000 threshold.
I accept that I will pay more tax than many because I have the disposable income to buy more things so will pay more VAT on the stuff that I buy. Also the more I earn, the more tax I pay.
Rufus Stone said:
Kermit power said:
I'd start by removing the tax free lump sum on the pension of anyone retiring before state pension age without having had children. That group is most able to afford it as they've not had kids, and has also most contributed to the ageing population crisis for the same reason.
Yet reward those who fecklessley breed?Kermit power said:
I'd start by removing the tax free lump sum on the pension of anyone retiring before state pension age without having had children. That group is most able to afford it as they've not had kids, and has also most contributed to the ageing population crisis for the same reason.
There is already talk that Labour May do away with the 25% tax free element in entirety so be careful what you wish for!Boringvolvodriver said:
Kermit power said:
I'd start by removing the tax free lump sum on the pension of anyone retiring before state pension age without having had children. That group is most able to afford it as they've not had kids, and has also most contributed to the ageing population crisis for the same reason.
There is already talk that Labour May do away with the 25% tax free element in entirety so be careful what you wish for!Rufus Stone said:
Kermit power said:
I'd start by removing the tax free lump sum on the pension of anyone retiring before state pension age without having had children. That group is most able to afford it as they've not had kids, and has also most contributed to the ageing population crisis for the same reason.
Yet reward those who fecklessley breed?If you're not, then we need to have more kids here. Maybe if we take some of the extra tax and spend it on education, we'll be able to create a more efficient future workforce from the kids we do have?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff