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

N1AK

Loanranger wrote: »

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.

Your view is far too simplistic. You, personally, may have paid enough tax during your working life to cover your own and your families share of government spending and liabilities accrued (though frankly it's very unlikely, as most of your generation didn't, and neither of us could work it out anyway).

I don't think I'm lumbered with anyone. I think the current working generations, and likely future generations, are lumbered with the liabilities you and your generation accumulated. In 1960 16% of government spending went on welfare. This year it is 34%.

You can be as offended as you like by what I've said. Frankly I'm not much bothered. Sonny boy and your demand for respect was enough to set the tone you'd follow with the rest of your posts: All bark and nothing to back it up.

N1AK

grizzly1911 wrote: »

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.

I'm afraid I don't agree that what I was suggesting would affect those who had 'prudently' prepared. But regardless, what then would you say is the answer? Cut spending on everything else. Massively increase taxation on everyone else.

CLAPTON

the reality is the the 'working' generation produces goods and services for the children (too young to work), pensioners (too old to work ..maybe debateable), the sick and disabled (unable to work), the unemployed (can't or won't find a job)

that's how it is

the total income (goods and services) depends upon the number and productivity of the working people.

the distribution of that wealth is a somewhat different matter which is effected by taxation, pension schemes (whether funded or unfunded),savings etc


but lets not confuse that which we can produce (GDP) and the distribution of that income.

grizzly1911

N1AK wrote: »

I'm afraid I don't agree that what I was suggesting would affect those who had 'prudently' prepared. But regardless, what then would you say is the answer? Cut spending on everything else. Massively increase taxation on everyone else.

The balance is the key as it has always been and it always will be.

What do you class as prudently prepared?

Dumped everything into a pension taking maximum tax advantage for 40+ year, or those that have saved earnestly, perhaps managed to buy a modest property and through no fault of their own has capital amount of their own with absolutely no tax assistance.

The former may be income rich at the expense of the general tax payer but the later isn't?

Why should the latter be penalised?

CLAPTON

grizzly1911 wrote: »

The balance is the key as it has always been and it always will be.

What do you class as prudently prepared?

Dumped everything into a pension taking maximum tax advantage for 40+ year, or those that have saved earnestly, perhaps managed to buy a modest property and through no fault of their own has capital amount of their own with absolutely no tax assistance.

The former may be income rich at the expense of the general tax payer but the later isn't?

Why should the latter be penalised?

the pensioner may have benefited from tax relief although may pay tax on his pension

the house owner has of course benefited from inflation which means his house has been partly paid for by savers who have have been cheated by interest rates below inflation

so a bit of swings and roundabouts really

grizzly1911

N1AK wrote: »

I think the current working generations, and likely future generations, are lumbered with the liabilities you and your generation accumulated. In 1960 16% of government spending went on welfare. This year it is 34%.

Firstly I don't see any generations have lumbered us with this predicament - politicians trying to prolong their existence yes.

Giving two statistics in isolation doesn't paint the true picture.

What was that spending on in 1960 and now - precisely. What items were paid for privately that are now provided more uniformly under a shared responsibility. There is no doubt a whole range of expenditure on politically correct measures that weren't even a twinkle in the electorates conscience back then.

There is also the question of European legislation and obligations of the European state.

It could also be that they aren't so clever at recovering tax and thus have to spend more, as a proportion, on welfare and other things have reduced to complement. Perhaps we are not spending so much on a nuclear deterrent or armed forces.

Back the motability was confined to a plastic pig.

grizzly1911

CLAPTON wrote: »

the pensioner may have benefited from tax relief although may pay tax on his pension

the house owner has of course benefited from inflation which means his house has been partly paid for by savers who have have been cheated by interest rates below inflation

so a bit of swings and roundabouts really

The saver will have also had poor interest rates and been taxed at source, having paid tax once already.

Inflation will also have factored into the pension fund returns too.

The pensioner may have amassed relief at 40% but being taxed at 20% on the income.

Graham_Devon

Loanranger wrote: »

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.

Come on now. You took the lumbered totally out of context to make a point.

It's fact that the current generation of retirees and approaching retirees have / will take more out of the system than they put in. By quite some way too.

This has to be paid for, and that will be paid for the people coming up behind you, and in this case, the people not yet born.

Hence those people are lumbered with the payments for todays retirees. This isn't being nasty, it's fact.

I notice that you state you paid for the posters support through education etc, and now it's his turn to pay for your retirement.

This does leave the stark question as to who's paying for childrens education today if he is paying for your retirement if you wish to look at it the way you are looking at it. The argument is completely flawed.

No one is saying they are lumbered with you personally. Rather lumbered with the costs of providing the services (and in this case services that are clearly not needed) for you to enjoy.

Theres been some serious offence taken on this thread by some of the older generation. I'm really not sure why.

If people were suggesting winter payments were taken from those in poverty, I'd agree, thats wrong. But no ones suggesting that, and it doesn't matter how many times people say that, it seems to be ignored, and another "poor me, nasty you" line follows.

Theres a massive sense of misdirected entitlement put across by some on the thread.

seven-day-weekend

I, like many other people in this discussion, am a Pensioner and have never claimed any State Benefits other than the universal Child Benenfit (for one child).

I rtetired for eight years and went to live in Spain, got fed up, came back and I am now working again, having become a professional house/petsitter at the age of 62. I'm looking after a mad Staffie as I type.

I have one comment to make. You can have my £10 Christmas Bonus and if absolutely necessary, my Heating Allowance.....but don't DARE touch my bus pass!

BobQ

N1AK wrote: »

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.

I recall five years ago Labour suggested that we could fund social care for those who need it to a good standard if everyone paid a percentage of whatever they left when they died whether or not they actually needed. It was panned as a "death tax" in the media, although I thought it was a reasonable deal for most people.