We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Should automatic benefits be cut for those who "don't need them"?
Comments
-
What I don’t like in the way means testing is done at the moment is that people who made some effort to look after themselves in old age find themselves worse of than people who did nothing.
In addition whether yo have provided through pension to provide income or whether you have simply been "careful" along the
way. There is a differential between income rich and capital rich.
There is also the argument that people have gone without and sacrificed to provide a pension only to find that when they come to cash it in 40 years later that current annuity rates decimate it."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
Because money isn't infinite and if we bankrupt the country building up debts paying for pensions now we won't be in a position to pay them later.
Obviously most people think there will be pensions in future though likely much smaller. It's not exactly a complex argument and we've been talking about it for about a million posts now.
I can't think of any serious economic analyst that suggests that a state pension of £100 per week is unaffordable now or can't be maintained in real terms into the future.
Whether the total income of pensioners (i.e. state pensions, plus private pensions etc) can be maintained at current levels is a more difficult matter.0 -
The problem with any debate about this kind of spending is that there have been so many changes in policy and benefit and so many exceptions that trying to set a generic limit is never going to work for everyone. I'm not a think tank or a government department. I can't account for all situations when making a 5 min post on a discussion board.
In the case of your mother I have to assume given the rent it isn't simply a 1 bed flat but comes with a warden and maybe so assistance? I have no issue with supporting those with additional needs and services like those often keep the elderly out of hospital which is both better for them and cheaper
I'm not suggesting we make the old miserable for the sake of it. I think we need to cut spending and that the elderly shouldn't be treated as sacred, especially as I believe they have played a large part in causing our long term financial problems.
Isn’t that the problem, to design and implement a fair system would be expensive.
My mother is in sheltered accommodation but the basic rent portion plus council tax is £100 a week.
0 -
Whether the total income of pensioners (i.e. state pensions, plus private pensions etc) can be maintained at current levels is a more difficult matter.
By pushing out the age at which it can be drawn and through taxation of the real "surplus" would allow that equilibrium to be maintained.
Perhaps a differentiated higher rate pensioner allowance or maximum pension cap/relief at 20% only of some sort is called for?
Perhaps effective tax collection of the supposed £80/100bn of uncollected tax might help?"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
Isn’t that the problem, to design and implement a fair system would be expensive.
My mother is in sheltered accommodation but the basic rent portion plus council tax is £100 a week.
I know one pensioner on basic state pension and about £15 per week of private pension with no other benefits whatsoever who has to subsist on around £30 per week for all food/groceries and discretionary spending after bills (no car and dependent on public transport). Increasing energy costs are having a disproportionate impact. This person doesn't have a big property and it it is thoroughly insulated to the highest standard.
One element that shouldn't be forgotten is the ravage that increased Council Tax did for 10 years or more, which impacted pensioners more than most. Years of pension increases were simply handed back plus more through that tax."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »By pushing out the age at which it can be drawn and through taxation of the real "surplus" would allow that equilibrium to be maintained.
Perhaps a differentiated higher rate pensioner allowance or maximum pension cap/relief at 20% only of some sort is called for?
Perhaps effective tax collection of the supposed £80/100bn of uncollected tax might help?
In my view it is more productive to think in terms of real products and services rather than simply in terms of money.
So the questions ought to be
-what percentage of the GDP should (non working) pensioners consume
-how should those resources be distributed (ie. related to their perceived contribution during their working life, flat rate etc)
-how should these to 'collected' from the working population (i.e. via taxation (state pensions & benefits and public sector pensions), company profits (funded pension schemes, savings, investments)
Obviously these are translated in monetary sums fore ease of discussion but the fundamentals are often disguised by talking about money rather than resources.0 -
-how should those resources be distributed (ie. related to their perceived contribution during their working life, flat rate etc)
In the society we live in isn't this area somewhat skewed in that even if you don't meet the criteria for a full pension (at whatever rate that is set) that the benefits system will underpin it to ensure that all subsist?
Whether it is actually called pension or benefit there is an underlying base cost."If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »In the society we live in isn't this area somewhat skewed in that even if you don't meet the criteria for a full pension (at whatever rate that is set) that the benefits system will underpin it to ensure that all subsist?
Whether it is actually called pension or benefit there is an underlying base cost.
yes that's so
Which makes the consideration of resources consumed by pensioners a useful way of looking at things rather than only how they are funded
From the piont of view of the working people at the time (i.e. people who actually produce the goods and services that pensioners consume) does it actually matter to them whether pensioners are funded by the state (in it's many guises) by funded pension schemes or by savings?
In any event all the products and services consumed by non working people are produced by working people.0 -
You make that assumption but nobody has tested
I haven't been shot, and I don't need to to know that it's worth avoiding.
Polls of voting habits and priorities for the elderly show that protecting the benefits they get is critical, and actually get more is important. Protests, actions by pressure groups etc against moderate changes show that they are impractical. Anectdotally, just look at the response here from a lot of posters at the idea of any change to the benefits pensions (even wealthy ones) got.
Obviously there are many pensioners with much more reasonable positions but all the evidence suggests they are the minority.Having a signature removed for mentioning the removal of a previous signature. Blackwhite bellyfeel double plus good...0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »Fair point guv.
What if they fail to tick it or my wife received it not me?
"have you or anyone who lives in your household received winter fuel allowance"Just out of interest I wonder how much it costs to check a tax return, there must be some ball park figures based on level of complexity.
not very much, and very very few of them are checked. the incremental cost of checking if someone has checked one box correctly would be so low as to be not worth bothering with.
furthermore, most people who expected to be higher rate tax payers wouldn't bother registering to claim WFA in the first place.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards