Grandmother losing EVERYTHING!

Archi_Bald

Eco_Miser wrote: »

In that situation the millionaire should be paying 95%+ income tax, and thus paying indirectly for his nana's care, and everyone elses.

With a progressive, or even flat-rate, system of income tax, the millionaires are going to be paying vastly more tax than the minimum wage workers, or even the above average income workers; so a free-at-the-point-of-use care system would be viable.

Nice simple idea but there's a serious flaw in your logic as the millionaires will all long have left the country by the time their tax went to 60% or so. There are plenty of places in the world they can go to - Dubai, Cayman Islands, Monaco etc etc. So not only would there be no extra income from the higher taxation, but you'd also have lost all of the tax these people would have paid, together with any jobs they would have provided. They'd probably also take their nannas, but may be they leave them behind. It would basically be shooting yourself in both feet.

The populist 2012 french socialist experiment with a 75% tax rate was a spectacular failure and has quietly been scrapped.

Closer to home, Labour's 50p tax rate cost us £7bn instead of adding to the tax coffers.

masonic

Eco_Miser wrote: »

With a progressive, or even flat-rate, system of income tax, the millionaires are going to be paying vastly more tax than the minimum wage workers, or even the above average income workers; so a free-at-the-point-of-use care system would be viable.

It might be better to raise the money required with reforms to inheritance tax. Drop the tax free threshold and/or increase the rate. This would, in effect, spread the cost over the asset rich. No doubt some people would find a way around that too though.

Enterprise_1701C

This is a country where the rich get punished and the !!!!less get rewarded. This was started by the labour government. Why should people that spend their whole lives saving for their retirement then have to lose that money in order to pay for Scotland to have totally free treatment and homes etc?

We will almost certainly leave the country before we get to that stage, and we are by no means rich.

Just one thing I will say, if you blame this on the tories and labour get in at the next government, Minibrand has not stated that he will not team up with the SNP so therefore obviously intends to put his ambitions above the country to be PM. I for one will not object to this because this means that Scotland would become independent and we would no longer have to subsidise them. Strangely enough this also almost guarantees that labour would not be in government for a long time and the country might actually have chance to recover from having the country wreckers at the helm.

le_loup

Lot a daily mail readers been let out to play today.

jem16

JenniferK wrote: »

Move her to Scotland.

How would that help precisely?

Marker_2

Gadfium wrote: »

He has the means to pay, therefore he should pay. Partly because he has worked hard all his life means that the others, who do not have the means to pay, are getting cared for.
Personally I think that's eminently fair. Those who can pay, do. And those who cannot pay get the care that they need.

The alternative is to return to Victorian values and workhouses.

But thats the problem. Those that do ... pay, those that don't get it thanks to those that do!

le_loup wrote: »

Grandfather possibly paid £5,000 for a house now worth £500,000. Is that due to his hard work?
I ask merely for information.

I don't know why anyone has 'thanked' your comment. His home certainly isn't worth £500,000 but he certainly didn't pay £5000 for a home either.

masonic wrote: »

So exactly what is it you are proposing? That those people should be refused care and left to rot? Or that taxpayers who may never be able to afford to buy a house of their own be taxed further to preserve your inheritance?

My proposal is to stop tax payers being shafted. There is no point whatsoever doing all you can now for your children when you are long gone if its all going to be stripped from you anyway. Without a doubt those that have worked hard are being penalised for it. Whilst those that didn't are no worse or better off.

I have personally been umming and rring for a while whether to pay extra into my pension (as my grandparents did). But seeing how that money has had to be used now has made me decide not to. The extra money I would have put into a pension I will just put towards holidays or something. Not the type of attitude I wanted to have.

There are so many - through choice - that do not work, and I will be damned if I am scrimping and saving for my future (for my children) whilst others who are not doing hard graft are getting it for free.

Although I would be very suprised if the current 'benefits' system exists come my retirement age.

Speaking of which, not only will I have to pay fully for a care home should I have to live in one - while others get it free - but I will be forced to work for longer for the pleasure. Go figure.

:cool:

Gadfium

le_loup wrote: »

Lot a daily mail readers been let out to play today.

There is, isn't there? It must be the weather!

Marker wrote: »

But thats the problem. Those that do ... pay, those that don't get it thanks to those that do!

No, it's the solution to the problem. When Churchill passed the Family Allowance Act he created the Welfare State, with the aim of providing the start of a "cradle to grave" system to help those that are unable to help themselves. This was and is funded through taxation and National Insurance. Those that can pay, do, whilst those those that can't don't.

Marker wrote: »

My proposal is to stop tax payers being shafted. There is no point whatsoever doing all you can now for your children when you are long gone if its all going to be stripped from you anyway. Without a doubt those that have worked hard are being penalised for it. Whilst those that didn't are no worse or better off.

I have personally been umming and rring for a while whether to pay extra into my pension (as my grandparents did). But seeing how that money has had to be used now has made me decide not to. The extra money I would have put into a pension I will just put towards holidays or something. Not the type of attitude I wanted to have.

There are so many - through choice - that do not work, and I will be damned if I am scrimping and saving for my future (for my children) whilst others who are not doing hard graft are getting it for free.

Although I would be very suprised if the current 'benefits' system exists come my retirement age.

Speaking of which, not only will I have to pay fully for a care home should I have to live in one - while others get it free - but I will be forced to work for longer for the pleasure. Go figure.

:cool:

So, in effect, what you are proposing is a system where everyone looks after themselves and their family. in fact, why not go further and just look after yourself and let your offspring fend for themselves? in the meantime, I presume that you will not be taking advantage of hard-working taxpayers (like me, for example) that don't have kids and who's tax £s are being used to pay for the NHS and other social services. So you won't be collecting any Family Allowance? You'll never, ever darken the door of a NHS hospital or casualty department? No? Thought not. Funny how people righteous indignation disappears when they are being cut out of a car after an accident, or having a sick child treated free-of-charge in an Emergency room, isn't?

What you are proposing is a system that is what the Republicans in the US seem to desire. I for one, have no desire to have a system that has resulted in one of the lowest life expectancies n the developed world.

Finally, what you also seem to be doing is trying to argue your way out of the social contract that we all undertake as part of living in a civilised country. one where the most able to pay, pay more. It is a mark of our sophistication, in comparison to backwaters like the US, that we are measured by how we treat the least able in our society and not the richest.

Steve_xx

Marker wrote: »

My proposal is to stop tax payers being shafted. There is no point whatsoever doing all you can now for your children when you are long gone if its all going to be stripped from you anyway. Without a doubt those that have worked hard are being penalised for it. Whilst those that didn't are no worse or better off.

:cool:

I propose that taxpayers stop being shafted too. I propose that Child Benefit is NOT paid to couples who earn up to 50k each. I think that the state ought not to be funding peoples kids in any way shape or form when each member of a couple can earn anything up to 50K.

Voyager2002

Archi_Bald wrote: »

Nice simple idea but there's a serious flaw in your logic as the millionaires will all long have left the country by the time their tax went to 60% or so. There are plenty of places in the world they can go to - Dubai, Cayman Islands, Monaco etc etc. So not only would there be no extra income from the higher taxation, but you'd also have lost all of the tax these people would have paid, together with any jobs they would have provided. They'd probably also take their nannas, but may be they leave them behind. It would basically be shooting yourself in both feet.

Except that the places you mention are not good for making money, only for spending it.

The UK can be a very profitable place to do business: the problem is that those who make most here are allowed not to pay realistic levels of taxation, and so are 'free riding' on the backs of everyone else.

colsten

Marker wrote: »

I have personally been umming and rring for a while whether to pay extra into my pension (as my grandparents did). But seeing how that money has had to be used now has made me decide not to.

You can use it just as you like now, after age 55 (going up with pension age). Meanwhile, your employer pays extra into it, and you get tax breaks. That's a brilliant deal, as you can take responsibility yourself for how you want to spend it or you can just buy an annuity, or a combination of the two etc etc. What's not to like about it?

Marker wrote: »

There are so many - through choice - that do not work, and I will be damned if I am scrimping and saving for my future (for my children) whilst others who are not doing hard graft are getting it for free.

there will be many who agree with you, and people have a simple choice in the next election if they want further reforms to the benefits system. It's not as if the current government hasn't already significantly addressed the problem.

Marker wrote: »

Speaking of which, not only will I have to pay fully for a care home should I have to live in one - while others get it free - but I will be forced to work for longer for the pleasure.

There are care homes and there are care homes. You don't have to live in one of the free ones if you can afford to live in one of your choice. It's great to know though that even if you find yourself penniless, you won't be left to rot in the street.