New flat rate pension

StevieJ

N1AK wrote: »

Furthermore it yet again stuffs those who actually behaved prudently and were entitled the the enhanced pension (rather than not working and/or opting out) because they paid more for a benefit they would have received regardless. Lesson to take away from this: There's no point in long term saving for pensions because the rules, benefits, costs etc can be completely changed at virtually no notice and there's nothing you can do to avoid it.

I thought that pensions earned under the old regime will be honoured? is that not correct?

StevieJ

N1AK wrote: »

I see no compelling reason why someone who hasn't saved for retirement and the care they will need should be provided with everything while keeping their property, which they couldn't do with cash, and hand it on to others who haven't done anything to earn it. However, as with any policy that takes anything from the retired or near retired those groups would fight it vehemently because their sense of entitlement greatly outweighs any concerns for the country's and other people's future.

I should imagine that the young ones who will be on the receiving end would fight it even more

N1AK

StevieJ wrote: »

I thought that pensions earned under the old regime will be honoured? is that not correct?

No that is correct. However what I was referring to is that people who opted out, or weren't eligible for the increased pension will be moved up to the new standard rate alongside those that did.

It's a bit like if your parents told you and a sibling to save up for something you wanted. You did and your sibling didn't but your parent then decides to give them the money to buy it. Not exactly a way to motivate you to save in future and likely to make you feel pretty hard done by.

grizzly1911

N1AK wrote: »

No it's a form of taxation there's nothing inherently socialist about it although it would make it harder for future generations to live off of the produce of their ancestors.



Most people haven't provided enough over the past 40 years so we need to get the money from somewhere. Currently it's being borrowed and/or loaded onto future generations in tax and cuts; dropping the inheritance tax threshold and protection of property from care expenses is just taking off of them on their death rather than off their children after inheritance in higher tax, longer working lives etc.

As to people deciding to waste money I'm not sure it'll happen. If you had a £500k estate now with 2 children you'd be able to give it all away to them with no tax. What I'm suggesting would mean a £150k tax bill (still £175k post tax). Most parents would still want to leave children something.

It would make nominal difference to the ruling elite as the difference between £325k and £100k if you've got £20 million is nominal. They already dodge the vast majority entirely which is obviously an issue in and of itself.

So it is an inheritance tax threshold of £100k rather than everything over £100k being effectively taxed at !00%. I didn't think Messrs Blair, Osborne etc would like to hand over everything. As you say they already dodge what they can anyway. I think reducing the threshold would simply make this happen with more people.

I am sorry I can't quite follow your maths but I get what you are saying.

You are right in that some pensioners have paid little into the system, but the majority have paid their share as deemed necessary by the government of the day. Clapton makes the point of how the cycle should work.

What we are seeing now is is a cash flow crisis because tax volumes are falling and welfare costs are increasing, for all sorts of reasons, is this going to continue without change?

Are we saying that we must accept increasing numbers of inactive working age people and greater numbers subsisting on welfare.

Are the younger generations failing society by not finding alternative income streams for society. Have they simply given up, is it just too difficult? Where will that leave them?

If that is what the government honestly believe it should open and honest about it. We are facing an economic war and it needs to fought cohesively not with divisions as is currently the case.

I would also like to know so I can stop "suffering" and go and blow it all, there is little point saving it for those who have given in.

BobQ

The information was available if no one looked at it to consider whether spending plans were sustainable is by definition incompetence or ignorance.

2/ The failings of government are largely the failure of the electorate. Perhaps the electorate now are no better but that doesn't negate the failure of those who supported prior financial mismanagement.

I think you need to bear in mind that in that era there was no internet so the notion that the information was there is quite unfair. Today loads of people can extract information from the net. In the 60s and 70s people would need to extract the information from libraries which was not that easy.

Also consider that young people in those days were not that interested in politics and the economy. They are either hell bent on enjoying life or concerned about other bigger issues (in those days nuclear war, world hungar, fighting for employment rights, animal rights, etc.). Those that weremaking these decisions are largely dead or in their dotage.

N1AK wrote: »

Personally I would replace the inheritance tax threshold with a lifetime inheritance allowance of ~£100,000 per person. I would also use assets like property to pay for care etc (on the basis that they would be transferred to government ownership on the owners death).

I see no compelling reason why someone who hasn't saved for retirement and the care they will need should be provided with everything while keeping their property, which they couldn't do with cash, and hand it on to others who haven't done anything to earn it. However, as with any policy that takes anything from the retired or near retired those groups would fight it vehemently because their sense of entitlement greatly outweighs any concerns for the country's and other people's future.

I appreciate your sentiment, maybe the solution is a little draconian but I would support this accepting that the rich would as ever find ways to subvert such a system through trusts and lifetime gifts.

Personally I would levy a one off tax on anyone reaching say 60, a small percentage of their wealth at that date. The tax would be placed in a fund (or be a charge on their home) and in return we would all be guaranteed good quality care should we reach an age where we needed it. Most people would not need care so would in effect be funding those that needed it. Its just an insurance policy but it would bring piece of mind.