Over 65 year olds to pay NI?

grizzly1911

Sapphire wrote: »

In smallish organizations you often need only people with considerable experience – you don't actually need juniors. Losing people with a great deal of experience in favour of today's college (or school) leavers could actually be detrimental to a company.

In your sphere you are no doubt correct in your explanation but in any business, to leave yourself reliant on singular key workers is very risky, unless you have some cunning mitigation in place.

grizzly1911

chewmylegoff wrote: »

under EU law, we cannot introduce another rate of VAT.

we are required to have a 'standard rate' of at least 15% and then are allowed up to 2 discount rates, which we already have (0%, 5%).

i don't think we could increase 0% rate to 5%, 5% to 20% and then shift standard rate up from 20% to, say, 50% and use it for luxuries, because then it would't be a standard rate any more, it would be a luxury rate, which i expect would fall foul of the way the VAT directive is written.

I appreciate the EU law, another reason to bail out and give us the scope to adjust our taxes to suit our needs not some utopian view.

I would look on it a bit like the introduction of rationing, something to be adopted until the country was back on its feet to concentrate spending on necessities.

nicko33

Sapphire wrote: »

In smallish organizations you often need only people with considerable experience – you don't actually need juniors. Losing people with a great deal of experience in favour of today's college (or school) leavers could actually be detrimental to a company.

I see. You want people to get experience somewhere else before you'll employ them. You want somebody to employ and train inexperienced people, or these smallish organisations could not exist.

Sapphire

nicko33 wrote: »

I see. You want people to get experience somewhere else before you'll employ them. You want somebody to employ and train inexperienced people, or these smallish organisations could not exist.

Many organizations – particularly some small and medium-sized ones – are financially strapped and simply cannot afford to indulge in the training of college and school leavers. They prefer to employ experienced people who can do the work, are used to a work environment and bring benefits to the company. There are plenty of such people available.

Given education standards these days, training someone from scratch can take years (depending on the profession) and is not very cost-effective for some companies.

nicko33

Sapphire wrote: »

They prefer to employ experienced people who can do the work, are used to a work environment and bring benefits to the company. There are plenty of such people available.

If there are plenty of such people available, then there is no need to be employing people beyond retirement age.

GeorgeHowell

National Insurance brings in a broadly similar amount to what state retirement pensions cost. There always has been a premise that NI is paying in whilst employed what will be withdrawn in retirement. State pension is of course taxable.

There is clearly a political assault at the moment on older peoples/pensioners standard of living. Interestingly both major parties appear to think that they benefit from the 'silver vote' and are therefore running a lot of flags up poles to test the reaction, but are cautious about changing policy formally in an anti-pensioner way.

Why is this assault happening ? For various reasons pensioners appear never to have been better off and are fair game for some 'redistribution', especially in the current economic climate. The UK is a very ageist society. The younger generations tend to be impatient, want it all now, mum, and aren't willing to wait for inheritances later.

Is it all fair and reasonable ? To an extent probably. Certainly some means testing of the benefits like winter fuel allowance is in order, and the only way to do this without huge bureaucracy and cost is to make them all taxable. But since pensioners income and wealth tends to be more static than workers' is, and they have indeed 'paid in' all their working lives it is difficult to see the fairness is a standard rate of income tax + NI for all. Current pensioners have planned their retirement on the tax etc regime that applied at the time so any changes should be phased in and transitional.

Graham_Devon

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

There is clearly a political assault at the moment on older peoples/pensioners standard of living.

Yer, removing bus passes and token winter fuel payments from the wealthy. Looking at getting them paying the same tax as every other employed person.

Quite some assault. Let's forget the promise to RAISE pensions to £140. Let's forget the higher tax thresholds implemented.

Sapphire

nicko33 wrote: »

If there are plenty of such people available, then there is no need to be employing people beyond retirement age.

You wish to start an argument. How tiresome.

Let me amplify: among very experienced people available are those beyond retirement age.

You see, people like you want older individuals to retire, yet your government is increasing the retirement age to the late sixties. You can't have it both ways, I'm afraid.

Sapphire

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yer, removing bus passes and token winter fuel payments from the wealthy. Looking at getting them paying the same tax as every other employed person.

Quite some assault. Let's forget the promise to RAISE pensions to £140. Let's forget the higher tax thresholds implemented.

What do you mean by 'wealthy'? I quite agree that bus passes, winter-fuel payments and free TV licences should be withdrawn from the 'wealthy' – let's say someone who has an income of more than £26,000 (though that is not actually 'wealthy'). However, contrary to what you would like to believe, many pensioners cannot be defined as wealthy and have an income below that.

Also note that many pensioners have put into the system for 40–50 years, paying for other peoples' sprogs for one thing, even if they have had no children of their own. Many of them have been prudent throughout their lives – unlike the individuals who squandered millions during the last 15 years and are now in severe debt. Do you really believe pensioners deserve to have what they've worked hard for during their lives taken away? (I suppose you will believe anything that will be to your advantage.:cool:)

grizzly1911

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yer, removing bus passes and token winter fuel payments from the wealthy. Looking at getting them paying the same tax as every other employed person.

Quite some assault. Let's forget the promise to RAISE pensions to £140. Let's forget the higher tax thresholds implemented.

Not actually raising tax thresholds for over 65s they are being held static until the yoof catch up. The extra relief is/was clawed back for high earners anyway. Lets not forget they paid their tax during their working life under the then given rules.

Pensions up, but for most only represents the Pension Guarantee. Will be taxed if people are over the the threshold.

WFA was brought in when it really should have been "pensionised" at the outset but that wasn't politically acceptable. It would then have been taxed as it should be for high income individuals.

Many uber wealthy don't claim it.

Bus passes should revert to local transport only and are in lieu of general subsidies to keep public transport going anyway. Many can't get about without it, . It is an aid to mobility and getting around. Don't forget that local planning for the likes of Tesco etc. has put many OAPs out of reach of "local" shops. Rather have them on buses than driving in many cases.

Means testing will cost more than it saves.