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
-
Sorry haven't read through but theres £7bn here that could be saved out of the £10bn quoted earlier..no idea if its on the government radar but you never know..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/8584227/George-Osborne-plots-7bn-pensions-raid-on-better-off.html
What I think really sums this all up is they're removing a discount that encourages people earning now to save a decent pension and the popular way to spend it is to give current pensioners an increase. How bloody short sighted can we get :mad:
Once you can't claim tax relief on the money going into your pension, and you'll stick pay tax on it coming out, why even bother saving for one in the UK.
Better to get your wage paid as a fee to a company you own. Then set up a corporation in Luxembourg to lend money to your UK operation at high interest to offset the interest against earnings and get your tax bill down to <20%.Having a signature removed for mentioning the removal of a previous signature. Blackwhite bellyfeel double plus good...0 -
What I think really sums this all up is they're removing a discount that encourages people earning now to save a decent pension and the popular way to spend it is to give current pensioners an increase. How bloody short sighted can we get :mad:
Once you can't claim tax relief on the money going into your pension, and you'll stick pay tax on it coming out, why even bother saving for one in the UK.
Better to get your wage paid as a fee to a company you own. Then set up a corporation in Luxembourg to lend money to your UK operation at high interest to offset the interest against earnings and get your tax bill down to <20%.
As I've posted I'm not sure if its part of the governments think tank but wether the relief was 20% or 40% we'd still be investing in pensions as they become compulsory by October 2012..
Anyone earning over £7,750 will need to open a plan...if they generate a pot in excess of £50-75,000 in a life time allowing for inflation...then this will generate around £3-4,000 per year..
Thats not a great amount...but together with the proposed single pension of £7,500 ??...that would take people out of benfits in general....which I'm guessing is the governments aim..
I'm sure most people would want more money...so basically they would invest somehow..0 -
As I've posted I'm not sure if its part of the governments think tank but wether the relief was 20% or 40% we'd still be investing in pensions as they become compulsory by October 2012..
Anyone earning over £7,750 will need to open a plan...if they generate a pot in excess of £50-75,000 in a life time allowing for inflation...then this will generate around £3-4,000 per year..
Thats not a great amount...but together with the proposed single pension of £7,500 ??...that would take people out of benfits in general....which I'm guessing is the governments aim..
I'm sure most people would want more money...so basically they would invest somehow..
no
Companies must offer a pension scheme (well that is already compulsory) but they must pay at least 3% of salary to the pension.
(this is being phased in starting with the largest companies first)
However staff may oft out if they wish.0 -
the mathematics of paying pensions at the point of delivery is a mathematic identity
i.e. if we are going to 'give' pensioners 10billion per year out of gdp then that means that other people have 10 billion per year less (i.e if pensioners are going to consume 10 billion of goods and services that have been produced by other people, then there is 10 billion worth of G&S less for the people that produced them)
now whether that is expressed as money from taxes or money from profits (or a combination) the maths is the same
the issue of whether pensions funds encourage investment over and above that which would happen anyway is another question to which I don't know the answer.
I'm saying nothing new or original, it's something that every economist knows but rather difficult to explain as we are all more comfortable talking about 'money' and savings and tax.
That surely applies to all benefit recipients, not just pensioners?
The idea though that you take £10 billion from one section of society and give it to another is meant to be good for the economy, because the implication is that the richer person you just fleeced doesn't need the money and wouldn't have spent it anyway, already having earned far more than he/she needs or desires to consume.
A kind of "Oh well Mr Rich Scrooge, if you are going to be a meanie and not spend your money, We will take your hard earned moolah and place it in the hands of someone who will spend it."
Tax credits are then meant to be a way of handing back some of the fleeced money to those rich people who are not quite so rich as the rest.0 -
That surely applies to all benefit recipients, not just pensioners?
The idea though that you take £10 billion from one section of society and give it to another is meant to be good for the economy, because the implication is that the richer person you just fleeced doesn't need the money and wouldn't have spent it anyway, already having earned far more than he/she needs or desires to consume.
A kind of "Oh well Mr Rich Scrooge, if you are going to be a meanie and not spend your money, We will take your hard earned moolah and place it in the hands of someone who will spend it."
Tax credits are then meant to be a way of handing back some of the fleeced money to those rich people who are not quite so rich as the rest.
I wasn't really making your point.
However, there is a very real point that the growing divide between the ultra rich and the rest has created a situation where there is insufficient demand for the potential productive resources; i.e. we are doomed either to have high levels of borrowing to buy the 'surplus' goods or we have high unemployment or of course we redistribute the riches via the tax system.0 -
The difficulty is that the elderly have decided, and are mostly supported by the public at large, that what they have at the moment (and maybe a bit more) IS what's fair. They expect their pension, fuel allowance, bus pass and everything else and will not entertain the thought that maybe we can't afford these. They're perfectly happy, although in honesty I would say more likely completely ignorant, for it to be funded by loading debt onto their children which may well leave future generations noticably worse off.
If I had to measure the success of a generation I would do so by the efforts they make to ensure that those who come after them have it as good or better than they did. The generation that fought in the war can hold their head very high in that regard. Those that followed? They fail that test in my opinion and can't even claim credit for repenting on their deathbed
I am sure you would use such a measure of success although I would prefer Gandhi's: "You can judge a society by how they treat their weakest members".
The idea that "the elderly" can be blamed for how society at large votes is absurd. Its like blaming rich people for voting for lower taxes, too simplistic.
Those that followed the generation that fought in the war helped to re-build the nation and pay off the national debt that was left after WWII. They helped pay for the creation of the modern NHS, still a very cost-effective healthcare system by world standards and they look steps to provide for their retirement which the financial services sector has largely destroyed.
As one of this generation I would like to know what you think I did wrong. I have worked all my working life, paid all the taxes I was asked to pay, made provision as best I could for my retirement all within the rules that existed at the time.
I can see that with the benefit of hindsight we can criticise the political classes for their poor decisions, particularly where they had the evidence to support different decisions. But much of this crisis is due to the greed of others who are still reaping the benefits of their greed.
A lot of the problems we face could be solved by economic growth but there are people in this land who are using the situation for their own ends. They simply want to cut benefits for the sake of it, rather than take sensible measures to re-build the economy, something that those you castigate from the post war generations got on and did in worse circumstances.
I can accept that an 20 year old can look at the world and say " I never caused this yet I am expected to pay for it". But the generation who started work after the war could take much the same view that it was not their mess. But anyone over 25 today is likely to have been part of the present problem as many borrowed more money than was wise. Not everyone did, and even if they did was it really their fault? No, they were just following the system that the financial services industry and the politicians created.Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »I think cutting child benefit for the third child is a good suggestion, one I've stated many times before.
But in context to this thread, I'm wondering if that too, is seen as venemous and inhumane, or more acceptable? I guess, in context to this thread it's already been cut for the wealthy, and that was seen as the right thing to do, though of course the cut off caused controversy.
I think its a viable solution to cut child benefit for the third child. What I would think venemous would be to do it for children already conceived. Whether this makes it viable for short term savings I do not know but just stopping it for existing children could cause suffering.
Of course those born before the 1970s never received this handout for the first born.Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
Sorry haven't read through but theres £7bn here that could be saved out of the £10bn quoted earlier..no idea if its on the government radar but you never know..
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/8584227/George-Osborne-plots-7bn-pensions-raid-on-better-off.html
After all Osborne and Cameron and Clegg said about Brown's attack on pensions though the removal of dividend tax relief........ what hypocrisy!Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
Once you can't claim tax relief on the money going into your pension, and you'll stick pay tax on it coming out, why even bother saving for one in the UK.
No different to earlier generations that were asked to pay NI and Tax under the then system to provide for their future now if we now start whittling away at there expected package."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 -
chewmylegoff wrote: »little that i am going to EMPHASISE THAT I DON'T ADVOCATE IT - which is to stop paying the state pension to anyone who has independent earnings above, say, £15k or £20k.
No problems with that you can refund all the payments I have made through NI in a nice cash free lump sum and I'll sort myself out thanks.;)"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
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