DLA or WTC may go !!

50Twuncle

NYM wrote: »

The State Pension is taxable so they are still contributing to the 'pot'

So am I - I do work part time and pay taxes
What is the difference between myself - aged 51 earning a small amount and topping this up with DLA than a 65 year old - claiming a State pension on top of a works pension ?
We have both paid NI contributions all of our working life.
And DLA is to pay the additional costs linked to being disabled.

Murphybear

benniebert wrote: »

Of course there are others.


You can get 6 months of contributory JSA and 12 months of contributory ESA.
Why then should the State Pension pay out for life?

Maybe the clue here is in the word "pension". That's what pensions do, they pay out for life;). It may be possible for future generations to be told that the state pension will be limited and they MUST make provisions for their retirement. Until then, those of us who have paid in all our working lives will carry on drawing our SRP without feeling guilty.

benniebert

NYM wrote: »

The State Pension is taxable so they are still contributing to the 'pot'

So is contributory ESA and JSA!!


I should know, I paid tax at the basic rate on my ESA when I claimed it.

benniebert

50Twuncle wrote: »

Looks like I have opened a can of worms then....

Not at all, you have brought a very valid point to the forefront.


There is a smaller pot of money available so radical ideas have to be discussed so that fewer people can access any of that depleted pot.

benniebert

robotrobo wrote: »

Slightly off the subject a little , but people with £100,000 in savings & little or no income can also be non taxpayers as well!.

But should they be allowed to claim welfare benefits whilst having that level of savings available to them whether they work or not or pay tax or not?

benniebert

Murphybear wrote: »

Maybe the clue here is in the word "pension". That's what pensions do, they pay out for life;). It may be possible for future generations to be told that the state pension will be limited and they MUST make provisions for their retirement. Until then, those of us who have paid in all our working lives will carry on drawing our SRP without feeling guilty.

I'm alright Jack comes to mind?


From when the State Pension first started back in 1948, a male started to get it when they reached 65. It was the norm that by age 70 most would have died off.


Now we have pensioners living on average to 85+.


The contributions you have paid in were not put into a little pot with your name on it. They went to others that you supported whilst you worked.
Now we have fewer people supporting people who are living longer. How would you suggest that this should work?


Unlike you, I do feel guilty in receiving my State Pension of over £190 a week. Is it right that I should be expecting the workers of today to fund it?

50Twuncle

benniebert wrote: »

But should they be allowed to claim welfare benefits whilst having that level of savings available to them whether they work or not or pay tax or not?

How do you think that this should be checked ?
By the government looking in to every bank account and savings method available ? - on top of taking tax from each of these ?
It won't work - in fact it would make some people hide their savings away (under the mattress as well as in overseas banks)

benniebert

50Twuncle wrote: »

How do you think that this should be checked ?
By the government looking in to every bank account and savings method available ? - on top of taking tax from each of these ?
It won't work - in fact it would make some people hide their savings away (under the mattress as well as in overseas banks)

Quite easily in fact.


There are enough regulations already that will enable the government to receive information in order to identify who has what and where it is.


Obviously putting it under the mattress or in a tin box buried in the back garden are two ways hiding your wealth, but what then? Try putting some of that in any type of bank account - if in cash and it is above the limit, you will have to show where the capital came from to the bank. And you will find great difficulty in putting it in another person's name - you have to show that YOU owned that capital that you are investing in YOUR name


And the overall situation is governed by a regulation that states that you are REQUIRED to notify the relevant government department of capital wealth. It is not for the government to find it - it is for the individual under penalty to disclose it.

50Twuncle

benniebert wrote: »

Quite easily in fact.


There are enough regulations already that will enable the government to receive information in order to identify who has what and where it is.


Obviously putting it under the mattress or in a tin box buried in the back garden are two ways hiding your wealth, but what then? Try putting some of that in any type of bank account - if in cash and it is above the limit, you will have to show where the capital came from to the bank. And you will find great difficulty in putting it in another person's name - you have to show that YOU owned that capital that you are investing in YOUR name


And the overall situation is governed by a regulation that states that you are REQUIRED to notify the relevant government department of capital wealth. It is not for the government to find it - it is for the individual under penalty to disclose it.

Is it illegal to stash a bit of money away under the mattress ?
and with interest rates as they are - perhaps a good move ....

Londonsu

50Twuncle wrote: »

But the money all comes from the same sources - taxes
Maybe they need a radical overhaul of the whole system..

yes it does like my Dad who paid in NI for 51 years and tax for 70 years and like my Hubby who paid NI for 45 years and IS STILL PAYING TAX


When people on means tested benefits have paid in as much my Dad and Hubby then they can start moaning about unfairness