Should automatic benefits be cut for those who "don't need them"?

N1AK

ukcarper wrote: »

What do you suggest should be done about state pensions and universal benefits paid to pensioners.

I'd make as many benefits universal as possible, or get rid of them. The money would be raised by additional taxation. The state pension should be enough to heat your house, if it isn't it would need to be higher.

I would set the state pension at a level that would support a couple living in a two bedroom apartment. If they want to live in a larger property that's fine but it would be at their own cost.

If I had to guess I'd say that the state pension would end up 5-8% lower in real terms (ignoring incorporating heating allowance).

I'd increase the state pension age more quickly than is currently planned. I would also make the IHT (inheritance tax) threshold lower and would change the law so that savings/property owned by people who didn't pay sufficient NI/tax during their working life could be reclaimed on their death to cover some of the cost.

grizzly1911

N1AK wrote: »

I'd make as many benefits universal as possible, or get rid of them. The money would be raised by additional taxation. The state pension should be enough to heat your house, if it isn't it would need to be higher.

The WFA was an accounting fudge as we don't want to be seen to increasing pensions. Unfortunately energy price increases have overtaken it and IMO should be added in to pension and taxed at your highest rate.

I'd increase the state pension age more quickly than is currently planned. I would also make the IHT (inheritance tax) threshold lower and would change the law so that savings/property owned by people who didn't pay sufficient NI/tax during their working life could be reclaimed on their death to cover some of the cost.

Not planning to stand for election any time soon then.;)

Don't know how you would establish whether they had or hadn't paid enough tax during their working life.

Don't really see how you would stop them cashing in a suitable point and ******* it up the wall in one way or another.

Perhaps we should start introducing this for anyone under 30 so they can plan for it?

N1AK

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Not planning to stand for election any time soon then.;)

Exactly which is why the whole topic is pretty redundant.

Today's 50 somethings on the other hand should be very worried. Unless we see some real economic growth then keeping up current spending on services and payments to the elderly is very unlikely and they won't have the voter control the current pensioner generation does. If the back breaks then it will get very hard for them.

N1AK

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Don't know how you would establish whether they had or hadn't paid enough tax during their working life.

Don't really see how you would stop them cashing in a suitable point and ******* it up the wall in one way or another.

It's not like I've planned out a manifesto! However there's been a method of showing over how long people have paid NI (which also accounts for time out due to children) that may provide a potential method. I believe this was, and may still be used, to decide whether you are eligible for an additional pension payment... Failing that NI was introduced in 1911 it would take a pretty defeatist attitude to think that looking at historical tax and NI is impossible.

Stopping them wasting the money may be more complex. Obviously you can analyse whether their is a % claim beyond which 'avoidance' rockets and work to that. You could also, for example, require equity in property be allocated to the government as services are provided in return for more than minimal provision.

Give me a few thousand and I'll come back to you with a policy paper towards the back of the year :j

N1AK

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Perhaps we should start introducing this for anyone under 30 so they can plan for it?

If we could afford to do nothing for the next 40 years to solve the hole in our finances that might be an option. As nice as it sounds to only introduce these changes for people who can now plan for it we've left it far too late for that. Besides which I'm not overly bothered about telling people who didn't fund the benefits they now vote to receive that they can't have them.

CLAPTON

NI records are maintained from the time you first worked

these are used to work out whether you are entitled to the full state pension and graduate pension/serps/second state pension

I've no ideas whether tax records are maintained for that long

grizzly1911

N1AK wrote: »

You could also, for example, require equity in property be allocated to the government as services are provided in return for more than minimal provision.

At the same time issuing them with a uniform grey suit and cap and giving them a little red book to read at bedtime?:)

Loanranger

N1AK wrote: »

I respect those who earn it. If that's the best argument you could think of and the most effective way of expressing it then you'll have to try harder, Gramps. It's pretty pathetic to think you deserve either respect, or credit for the existence of all who came after you, just because you happened to be born before them.

While you were growing up from 1985 onwards, I was working and paying taxes to support your healthcare and your education. I very much resent you suggesting that you are now lumbered with people like me. I paid for your support while you were unable to provide it for yourself and now it's your turn to provide for mine. This is how a caring society works.

N1AK

grizzly1911 wrote: »

At the same time issuing them with a uniform grey suit and cap and giving them a little red book to read at bedtime?:)

Hey come up with your own policies

Welfare is about providing for those who can't provide for themselves. If someone didn't pay in a fair share of NI/tax then why should you be subsidised by the state while owning an asset worth hundreds of thousands of pounds. That isn't someone who 'needs' welfare, that's someone with a pretty well developed entitlement complex.

In the end the £200,000 of house that could be reclaimed (for example) could go on paying for more teachers, guide dogs for the blind, cancer research. It isn't because god forbid anyone isn't allowed to pass their house on.

grizzly1911

N1AK wrote: »

If we could afford to do nothing for the next 40 years to solve the hole in our finances that might be an option. As nice as it sounds to only introduce these changes for people who can now plan for it we've left it far too late for that. Besides which I'm not overly bothered about telling people who didn't fund the benefits they now vote to receive that they can't have them.

Don't disagree with you but trying to retrospectively recover something that many people have prudently prepared for under one set of rules isn't the answer. As you and I know the question of where the balance lies is always the difficult bit.

Those that didn't fund the benefits are a different kettle of fish but equally if they are not pulled into society, because there is no real option for them, then is that all their own fault or the fault of the wider society.