Britain 2023 - A Leviathan Cowed

Tancred

And more evidence that all these life expectancy projections are complete and utter rubbish:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-23126814

The government will clutch at every straw to screw ordinary British citizens while the rich prosper.

PaulF81

We should cut the nhs budget, ration treatment and cut average life expectancy. Would save a fortune too.

N1AK

Tancred wrote: »

The state pension should go back to 65 for everyone, but become means tested so that retired GPs, judges and other 'golden pensioners' get no state pension.

Good luck with that, even ignoring the fact that all those people will have paid a very considerable amount in national insurance so their is a pretty strong ethical question about simply taking their pension away entirely, taking pensions away from them isn't exactly politically viable.

Additionally unless you set the boundary considerably lower than the kind of pension doctors earn then the amount saved would not even come close to allowing the age of retirement to return to 65.

Finally, pensions are already a dubious enough saving. If we start punishing people for having them (even just the very wealthy to begin with) it would discourage people from paying into them creating a bigger issue later on.

Personally I'd rather see policies like for example:

• Anyone who hasn't paid in enough NI would be 'loaned' a proportion of their pension. The loan would be re-payed from their assets on their death.
• Anyone would be allowed to opt out of the state pension (for a period of their choice) and would in return receive an increased inheritance allowance.
• Heating allowances and TV license should be rolled into standard pension rate (and thus covered by above rules and taxation for higher earners)

N1AK

Tancred wrote: »

State pensions are not 'welfare' - people contribute towards them through NI. Having said that, the funds are wasted by being distributed to everyone, including those who don't need the money. Therefore they should either be means tested or, alternatively and probably more simply, people over 65 should be taxed at 40% on all income above, say £25k a year. The alternative would be to charge NI on pensioners which would be grossly unfair on those on those on lower incomes.

Pensions are welfare, national insurance wasn't set up purely to cover pensions.

Those on low incomes in retirement are almost certainly those who contributed the least in terms of national insurance. Taking yet more money from those who contributed the most (those high earners who don't 'need' it) when throughout their working life they were paying in on the understanding that they would receive a state pension is unethical in my opinion.

A doctor works very hard (even if I think pay and benefits is excessive) and to take his state pension away so that we can give more to people who didn't is exactly the wrong message to send.

grizzly1911

N1AK wrote: »

• Anyone who hasn't paid in enough NI would be 'loaned' a proportion of their pension. The loan would be re-payed from their assets on their death.
• Anyone would be allowed to opt out of the state pension (for a period of their choice) and would in return receive an increased inheritance allowance.
• Heating allowances and TV license should be rolled into standard pension rate (and thus covered by above rules and taxation for higher earners)

Appreciate they are only examples.

First two bullets are fine but many people don't have much in the way of assets at death if they haven't been able to pay in sufficient NI or whatever qualifying contributions are needed.

Last bullet is a no brainer IMO. Even if they don't want to roll it into the pension simply include a check box on the tax return like they do for child benefit tax recovery.

N1AK

grizzly1911 wrote: »

First two bullets are fine but many people don't have much in the way of assets at death if they haven't been able to pay in sufficient NI or whatever qualifying contributions are needed.

Very true Grizzly, I don't expect the first change would cover the shortfall by any means, however it seems like a 'fair' way to decrease the balance. It is also quite easy to implement, and could be combined with a similar system for funding elderly care.

Personally I'd rather see a lower inheritance tax threshold which is increased based on your contribution. There isn't really a more progressive tax than a tax on things the individual receiving them hasn't done anything to earn.

grizzly1911

[QUOTE=N1AK;62215141

Personally I'd rather see a lower inheritance tax threshold which is increased based on your contribution. There isn't really a more progressive tax than a tax on things the individual receiving them hasn't done anything to earn.[/QUOTE]


There is a difference between something like HPI and accumulated savings/modest investments that have required a degree of risk.

If people have foregone consumption, from taxed income, taxing them excessively could be construed as unjust.

N1AK

grizzly1911 wrote: »

If people have foregone consumption, from taxed income, taxing them excessively could be construed as unjust.

I tend to work on the basis that we are going to raise the tax somewhere. Less money raised as inheritance tax means more money raised elsewhere.

I'd actually like to see inheritance tax turned around to a tax on what you receive not what you give. Why can a single child get three times as much inheritance tax free vs a child with two siblings and is it right?

Give everyone a lifetime allowance of say £250,000 which increases with inflation. Anything they inherit beyond that should be treated as income and taxed accordingly.