Boomers Pension Gravy Train Finally To Be Derailed

BobQ

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Why? Surely it is better to have fewer cars and (some would say) fewer elderly drivers on the road? And to keep bus routes going?

I can and do drive, but also use my bus pass a lot for local journeys. I would not object to paying a fee for it, say £100 a
year.

).

I think the problem for those who agree that these pensioner benefits are needed for some pensioners but not for all is that any system of means testing would be expensive to administer.

My thinking is that it is easy to check if you have a car or not. If people can afford to run a car they should not be eligible for a bus pass. At some point in our lives we realise that giving up a car makes sense and a bus pass would act as an incentive to do so take cars off the road.

I can see the argument that someone like you balances the two. But my view is that if you can afford to run a car you can afford to buy commercial bus passes.

But assigning a realistic value to a bus pass and taxing it would be fair as well as only those who did not pay tax would pay for the Council bus pass.

seven-day-weekend

BobQ wrote: »

I think the problem for those who agree that these pensioner benefits are needed for some pensioners but not for all is that any system of means testing would be expensive to administer.

My thinking is that it is easy to check if you have a car or not. If people can afford to run a car they should not be eligible for a bus pass. At some point in our lives we realise that giving up a car makes sense and a bus pass would act as an incentive to do so take cars off the road.

I can see the argument that someone like you balances the two. But my view is that if you can afford to run a car you can afford to buy commercial bus passes.

But assigning a realistic value to a bus pass and taxing it would be fair as well as only those who did not pay tax would pay for the Council bus pass.

Maybe you can't - because you run a car

ruggedtoast

No one needs a car and a bus pass. It's having your cake and eating it.

A boomer speciality.

seven-day-weekend

ruggedtoast wrote: »

No one needs a car and a bus pass. It's having your cake and eating it.

A boomer speciality.

Why not? I use the car for longer journeys, the bus for shorter ones or where parking might be a problem.

My bus pass entitles me to free travel on any local bus in England, and all trains and trams within the West Midlands county.

I have said I do not mind paying towards the bus pass .

ukcarper

The bus pass is a subsidy if they were withdrawn many routes would become unprofitable and cease.

[Deleted User]

ruggedtoast wrote: »

No one needs a car and a bus pass. It's having your cake and eating it.

A boomer speciality.

I don't have a bus pass..... too young!

I see that Rugged is at it again. He just can't accept that elderly people should have any freedoms at all.

When I travel into Edinburgh city centre, or anywhere else, my choice of mode of transport will, like most people's, be based on speed, convenience, availability of parking, the weather, timings, comfort, number of travellers in group, whether anything bulky or heavy will be going in or coming back etc.

The opinion of some jealous tyrant called Rugged will be pretty low on the list of considerations :rotfl: .

Once again, in his socialist paradise, freedom and choice are sacrificed in the interests of oppression and uniformity.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the "system" is perfect - far from it. Tell you what; I'll throw Rugged a bone! I've long thought it illogical that so many aspects of "income" are tax free, while others aren't. We are being told that the country is financially knackered, so I'll happily go along with a thorough investigation into the removal of tax exemptions from everything, except for an allowance for ISA-type investment, but the tax rates should be equalised - no "penalty" for age, as Rugged demands. Any changes to systems usually throws up unintended consequences. ISAs are a very good way of encouraging saving - at least they were when interest rates were meaningful, but was it really the intention to allow the creation of a system whereby someone could invest so much, for so long, that returns are, or can be, now in excess of a salary? I'm minded to say that there should be a maximum annual income from any source that should be tax free, but I accept that brings it's own difficulties - recognition of reward for "risk", etc. There's also the issue of increasing the complexity of the system and the problem of giving cash out, only to tax it.

Things are rarely as simple as Rugged seems to suggest, no matter how stridently he suggests it. Would he work an extra shift, or an extra couple of hours, or invest for the long term, if the proceeds were to be taxed at 47% and, of course if it arose from employment also pay NI and possibly pension contributions on it? Maybe he would, but I doubt it!

Still no comments from him on a commitment to change by democratic means, I see, but there's really no surprise there. Someone who exhibits such loathing for his fellow citizens is unlikely to be a democrat; I'm surprised that he hasn't called for the abolition of voting rights for anyone over 50! :rotfl:

WR

westernpromise

Wild_Rover wrote: »

I'm minded to say that there should be a maximum annual income from any source that should be tax free

There already is. It's called the personal allowance and if you're on more than £120k it's nil.

Dird

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Why not? I use the car for longer journeys, the bus for shorter ones or where parking might be a problem.

My bus pass entitles me to free travel on any local bus in England, and all trains and trams within the West Midlands county.

You could just as easily use the car for shorter journeys too + other than brum you can get 2 hours free parking or more in most towns

CLAPTON

Dird wrote: »

+ other than brum you can get 2 hours free parking or more in most towns

I didn't know that : which towns are they ?

[Deleted User]

westernpromise wrote: »

There already is. It's called the personal allowance and if you're on more than £120k it's nil.

Really? Income from shares ISA? What about PEPs? They were introduced in 1986, so investors in them and their successors have had up to 30 years or so of investment in shares with all returns having tax advantages, or are completely tax free with returns able to be reinvested without tax, to produce more tax free returns. Fabulous for those who did it. (The power of compounding!) I have a small range of shares in an ISA and the dividends are entirely tax free; they would be entirely tax free if the returns were 100 times as big. I don't "need" the cash at the moment, so I let the dividends ride and buy more shares when the sum builds up to a level that is worthwhile and when the opportunity seems right. If I keep doing that, I'll NEVER pay any tax on the eventual proceeds if/when I cash it in. Is that not the case?

AFAIK, someone with a regular income from shares pays no tax on it, if coming from an ISA. The personal allowance is irrelevant. Someone with the same level of income - or less - from a job, will pay tax (on £ above the personal allowance), NI and pension contributions.

Are you saing that someone on a salary of 120k can't have an ISA?

Happy, nay delighted to have that contradicted!

WR