Restoration of Age related allowances - government petition - all please read

jamesd

Randvegeta, the state pensions were a promise made by past governments in exchange for people paying various taxes to pay for the pensions of the retired. A commitment to pay state pensions to those working now is being made by the current government. The current payments are much larger than the original commitments and are rising rapidly compared to the time when the taxes were being paid, in part due to longer life expectancies.

Where there is less or no entitlement for money paid into the system is means tested benefits like pension credit or where it's been decided to have state pension entitlement for socially worthy things like having received child benefit and presumably having raised children.

Hopefully those shopping in more expensive places are the majority who are reasonably to quite well off, not those who are just scraping by on means tested benefits. But that doesn't mean that those on means tested benefits shouldn't shop in an expensive place if they want to and can afford it, that's a choice for them to make.

Randvegeta

If the can afford it, by all means. People should live within their means.

Yes promises were made, but let's face it. The tax paid in the past doesnt fund their pensions. That was spent YEARS ago.

It may seem unfair but how fair is it to push the problem to the next generation?

I don't and won't expect to live off a pension when I retire. I plan to save enough in cash/invesments to last me the rest of my life. If people couldn't think ahead, they really have only themselves to blame.

Besides, all that money they raised in taxes was spent when they were working. During those lovley boom years when everyone had jobs, rising income and all that good stuff the youth don't have now.

Seems to me, the concensus is, people expect the youth to foot the bill for pensioners, while facing large scale unemployment and underemployment while also taking away from future prospects and current standards of living.

Any smart young Brit would get out of here while they can. I'm here for a just 6 more weeks and them I'm off! The UK is a sad, unnattractive place to be. But given the benefit/entitlement society it promotes, I'll be sure to make my way over if things turn for the worst for me. hehe

zygurat789

margaretclare wrote: »

No, I was not. And if you want to get political, my colours are red and white. As we say 'these colours don't run'. Blue is nowhere. Red and white, the colours of St George.

I agree with what has been said about the difficulties the younger generation are experiencing. I suppose it is fortunate that all of them, the ones who aren't still at school, are gainfully-employed, and that is by no means the case in all families.

My eldest GD works full-time, lives in a council flat with her dog (she needs him, it's a rough area!) and time after time there has been 'too much month left at the end of the money'. Humiliating for her, I have ended up sending her money for food. Although I'm one of the pensioners you talk so much about, no one has yet been obliged to send me money for food. We're not on any means-tested benefits so, although by no means rich, we're a long way from being poor.

My GS is a graduate and he's just found a job in his field after graduating 3 years ago. He was always a very bright kid, but that doesn't mean he hasn't had 'a few sh***y years' recently, as he puts it.

My youngest GD works part-time because she can't find a full-time job. She'll have been at work from 5 this morning, that's what she does. She'd like to marry her fiance but they have no chance of getting somewhere to live. 20 years ago they'd have been looking to get one foot on the property ladder. Not now. They couldn't possibly afford a mortgage.

What dificulties my eldest daughter is a teacher and earns more than her partner, they have one & a bit children and she is now working part time, never been without a job although she did do some agency work.
Second daughter is a single mother of two) got off benefits as soon as she could to work. Has a mortgage but has managed to buy a car (3 years old). She works in catering, not the best paid, but is working her way up. She has always had a part time job.
Youngest with no qualifications, was made redundant when her employer went bust. Got a temporary job within a month and when that finished she chose between two neither of which she wanted. Now she has found herself a job she wants. All within a year.
The difficulties are by and large self made. They have to have what employers want.

jamesd

Randvegeta wrote: »

Yes promises were made, but let's face it. The tax paid in the past doesnt fund their pensions. That was spent YEARS ago.

It never significantly accumulated. The system started out as NI taxes on those working paying the benefits for those not working. Today the total benefits bill including state pensions is about half funded by NI and half by general taxation.

Randvegeta wrote: »

It may seem unfair but how fair is it to push the problem to the next generation?

it's fair provided the taxing and spending are reasonably in balance between generations. That's why the baby boomer generation is a problem:

o when working they were a big generation so the per person cost of pensions for their elders was low.
o as they come to retire they are a larger generation than the subsequent two who will have to be taxed to pay their state pensions and life expectancies have increased, increasing the number who will still be alive and collecting the pensions. A double blow for the younger two generations.

Peak pressure on the younger two generations is expected to be in the 2040-2050 range so anyone who's planning on being around and getting a pension then had best be careful about what they ask for, lest they impose an unacceptable burden and provoke even more social strife than we already see. Those retiring today have a fair chance to still be around - with a life expectancy to age 88 or so that's 23 years on for half of those retiring at 65 today to still be alive in 2035.

One of the easiest solutions is to increase immigration, to raise the effective size of the younger generations. Anyone retiring in the boomer generation had best think rather more carefully about immigration policy than some seem to today - we need those extra tax payers.

Randvegeta wrote: »

I don't and won't expect to live off a pension when I retire. I plan to save enough in cash/invesments to last me the rest of my life. If people couldn't think ahead, they really have only themselves to blame.

They were given undertakings about a state pension, though at a lower level and for fewer years then they will actually be getting. It's OK to rely on an undertaking from a government that it will tax the next generations to pay for a benefit, in exchange for paying taxes today for current retirees.

Randvegeta wrote: »

Seems to me, the concensus is, people expect the youth to foot the bill for pensioners, while facing large scale unemployment and underemployment while also taking away from future prospects and current standards of living.

It's not only youth, which is a relatively minor part of the tax producing population. Earnings tend to go up with age and so does other wealth so older people with more mature careers tend to pay more of the tax burden.

Randvegeta wrote: »

Any smart young Brit would get out of here while they can. I'm here for a just 6 more weeks and them I'm off! The UK is a sad, unnattractive place to be. But given the benefit/entitlement society it promotes, I'll be sure to make my way over if things turn for the worst for me. hehe

Once you've experienced a range of other places you'll probably find that you grow to appreciate the pretty cohesive UK system more than you do now. It helps to see how some other societies do less well at caring for people.

le_loup

James, you will find that Randvegeta does not agree with the payment any financial benefits and also arranges his affairs so as not to pay any tax either. That is not to say that he doesn't receive other benefits from living here but he rather prefers not to consider them.
As far as I can see, he contributes to this board only in order to promulgate his rather eccentric views whilst he waits for his partner to complete their education prior to moving to Hong Kong where he is going to make his fortune.
I therefore suggest that it is an exercise in pointlessness to debate the finer point of society with him.

Randvegeta

Le Loup,

I appreciate you and I have differing views, but you have to ask yourself, why do I care so much?

It is because I see the UK heading for disaster. I care about this country. After all, I am British! What I want for Britain is a good and prosperous future. Not poverty. I really don't want to see China as the all powerful super nation is seems to be heading for.

I don't see how the high tax, high debt, high spending system we have now is going to be good in the long run.

@JamesD

Once you've experienced a range of other places you'll probably find that you grow to appreciate the pretty cohesive UK system more than you do now. It helps to see how some other societies do less well at caring for people.

I've lived in other countries before and am pretty well travelled. I think I have a very good idea of what other places are like to live.

To be fair, I like the UK. And I will be honest about what it offers that I do not recieve in Hong Kong. What I get in the UK that I DON'T get in Hong Kong is quality affordable accomodation and food. Property prices in Hong Kong are ridiculous. Food is at least twice the price! Last time I was there (January) the food I normally buy in the UK would cost about 2.5* more. Accomodation is easily 5* more for the same size and quality. So yes, I this is better in the UK.

But everything else? Public transport? Healthcare? Education? I don't see it any better here than over there.

And Le Loup, I may not pay income tax, but I am a consumer in the UK. I prefer to buy British produce from the markets. I do my shopping here, paying 20% in VAT. I own and drive a car, paying insurance, road tax and fuel, all of which raised tax revenue for this country. I also drive so little, that I seem to spend more or my road tax than I do on petrol. (I quite litterally use my car for weekly shopping at Sainsburys... yet my road tax and insurance are sky high). I have private medical cover, I have never claimed benefits, and recieved most of my education in Hong Kong, or when in England, at private schools.

So, Le Loup, I seriously do not understand why you think I am recieving any undeserved benefits. I bring my overseas money into the country, and I spend more than your average minimum wage Joe. I even support my student partner, which means double expenses in some cases. You really think I'm not a positive contribution to society? What do I owe the UK? What has it given me that I didn't pay for?

Would it not be best for the UK to implement an attractive tax regime for mobile workers such as myself and instead of my company paying tax overseas, have it paid here?

And actually I have found the answer to my Woes. Lithuania offer a nice attractive tax regime for me (5% with a cap of 15%) and even lower cost of living than the UK. My money goes a lot further there.

John_Pierpoint

ticktack wrote: »

Isn't that an inevitable consequence of giving over-65's an additional tax-free allowance? You either have to give it to all over-65s, regardless of their income, or at some income point you have to start reducing it.

According to a tax broker's webpage at http://www.icl-ifa.co.uk/2012/03/budget-2012-granny-tax/:

"The gap between the personal allowance and age-related personal allowances had already been closing, as the coalition government worked towards their target of a £10,000 personal allowance for everyone.

This gap had closed from 33.4% in 2010/11 to 24.8% in 2011/12. It is due to close further still to 22.8% in the 2012/13 tax year, when the age allowance at age 65 will be £10,500 and the personal allowance will be £8,105."

Eventually, everyone with an income below £100,000 will get the same Personal Allowance. That doesn't seem to me to be unfair.

zygurat789 wrote: »

So it is fair for the posh bully boy to reduce his mates tax and take it away from the least powerful? You have a peculiar idea of what is fair.
The point is that pensioners are the least well off and least powerful of the income groups because they cannot change jobs or ask for a rise. They have to depend upon the scraps (at CPI rate) handed out (grudgingly) by the politicians.
This board is about tax CUTTING if you want to increase peoples taxes go and start your own board. Start off with the rich who CAN afford it.

I am wondering if there is an un-acknowledged agenda at work:

When the 10% tax band was introduced, the government took on extra workers in an EU deprived area at St Austell. The flood of pensioners claims never came, though I used to claim for my mum every year. She thought it was magic money. There is still a rump of a 10% band for cash poor people; just as there is a trace of a married persons allowance for very old people.

Similarly there is a shrinking band of old people's additional personal age allowance but it is strictly means tested.

HMRC has cut back on staff and invested in additional computer systems that, as far as tax rather than benefits goes, integrates the sub systems, rather than allowing taxpayers to (not) claim all their allowances.

Computer are rigid, there is no (or very little) room for the fudge factor.

So has the government shot themselves in the foot, and created a whole lot of extra work, checking every pensioner in the 30% band and then having to send them a rebate?

So we live in a country where "government" takes nearly 50% of our money in various overt and hidden compulsory unmitigated payments (tax), spends some of it running a massive bureaucracy, and then has to borrow some money from our children to give it to us, so that we vote for them again.

Funny way to run a country - but that is what you get in a democracy.

John_Pierpoint

jamesd wrote: »

One of the easiest solutions is to increase immigration, to raise the effective size of the younger generations. Anyone retiring in the boomer generation had best think rather more carefully about immigration policy than some seem to today - we need those extra tax payers.

le_loup wrote: »

As far as I can see, Randvegeta contributes to this board only in order to promulgate his rather eccentric views whilst he waits for his partner to complete their education prior to moving to Hong Kong where he is going to make his fortune.
I therefore suggest that it is an exercise in pointlessness to debate the finer point of society with him.

I appreciate postings from contributors whose life experience and thought processes are somewhat "outside the box" compared to the majority, especially when they are able to throw a light on matters from a more global perspective.

I do hope Randvegeta continues to contribute to discussions from Hong Kong. A small quasi independent state, a bit like a cross between Luxembourg and Monaco. Much of its wealth was based on a raw material of desperate immigration and Empire preference tariff arrangements. Perhaps it will become to Shanghai what Edinburgh is to the City of London.
If you want to see what a state that has run out of natural resources, and has used immigration and trade to solve its poverty problems is like, look at Hong Kong and think about Venice.
Nice for a visit but I would not like to live there - immigration is not a sustainable solution to a declining economy. We need an extra planet for that to work.

I look forward to more postings from Randvegeta in Hong Kong, just as we now get interesting commentary from Generali in Australia.

As I see it there are three sources of support in old age:
Massive personal wealth - a qualified cousin of mine was one of a team of a dozen, over the pond, keeping alive the widow of an industrial dynasty.
Dependency on an over borrowed over taxed state.
Dependency on your children.

I wonder if the Randvegeta partnership has parents and siblings?

le_loup

Randvegeta wrote: »

The UK is a sad, unnattractive place to be.

Randvegeta wrote: »

To be fair, I like the UK.

Perhaps, when you have made up your mind, you will let us know what you really think, meanwhile we sad people who live in this unnatractive place, will try to make the best of it while you have a ball in Lithuania.

margaretclare

I disagree so much with the following:

What difficulties....The difficulties are by and large self made. They have to have what employers want.

and

One of the easiest solutions is to increase immigration, to raise the effective size of the younger generations. Anyone retiring in the boomer generation had best think rather more carefully about immigration policy than some seem to today - we need those extra tax payers.

Not if they bring in their pre-made large families with them and require housing, benefits and all the services that existing taxpayers have already paid for!! And not if this small country is to be turned into a land like Hong Kong with tower-blocks wall-to-wall! I love my 'green and pleasant land' and don't want to see it concreted over.