What would you like to see in the Budget next month?

antrobus

steampowered wrote: »

The state pension was introduced in 1908. ...

The basic state pension started in 1948. See the National Insurance Act 1946. What you refer to is the 'old age pension', which is something quite different.

steampowered wrote: »

..At that time it was paid to people aged 70 or more and was means tested. At that time only one in four people reached the age of 70 and life expectancy at that age was about 9 years....

Means tested? See, I told you it was something quite different.:) The old age pension does not exist any more, the basic state pension does. (Although it is now being replaced by the new state pension.)

steampowered wrote: »

....
Life expectancy at birth in the UK in 1948 was about 66 for men and 72 for women.

Life expectancy at birth in the UK in 1983 was about 71 for men and 77 for women.

I assume cohort expectancy should be lower than that!

http://visual.ons.gov.uk/how-has-life-expectancy-changed-over-time/

Your assumption is incorrect.

A cohort life table shows the probability of a person from a given cohort dying at each age over the course of their lifetime. In this context, a cohort refers to a group of people with the same year of birth....Importantly the cohort life table takes into account observed and projected improvements in mortality for the cohort throughout its lifetime.

Period and cohort life expectancy explained
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/methodologies/periodandcohortlifeexpectancyexplained#what-are-cohort-life-expectancies

steampowered wrote: »

...Where are you getting your figures from? They are drastically different to everything that comes up when I search for the figures.

My data comes from the ONS. See Figure 2 Period and cohort life expectancy at birth, England and Wales, 1900 to 2014. The data is available for download.

The figures you quote are for period life expectancy, I am citing data for cohort life expectancy, which take account of "improvements in mortality for the cohort throughout its lifetime". Fairly obviously, it's cohort that you should use if you are running a pension scheme, as it's the best indicator of what 'retirement expectations' would be.

antrobus

GreatApe wrote: »

I think we are talking about different things...

I think your argument was long winded, irrelevant, etc.

GreatApe wrote: »

you dont need to get into the numbers, we are just one big tribe of 65 million people..

That's much more straightfoward. You should have stuck to to that.:)

antrobus

BobQ wrote: »

In the past 25 years we have seen a growth in self employment (roughly 3.4m up to 4.7m). Some are genuinely self employed, some are contrived by employers to reduce employment costs (as with a well known taxi firm)...

I suspect most are contrived by employees to reduce their tax bills.

BobQ wrote: »

...On the one hand encouraging genuine entrepreneurs who create jobs is to be encouraged. On the other hand the tax benefits of self employment mean that HMRC are loosing income from many people who work for themselves and create no additional jobs and from employers who use self employment as a means of avoiding tax. That raises tax for others....

I don't know why you keeping blaming the employers, when the 'employees' are also enjoying the "tax benefits of self employment" and "avoiding tax". They are the ones that will squeal when you ask 'em for more money.

BobQ wrote: »

...So I would like to see the tax treatment of self employment reviewed to ensure that everyone is paying their share....

You've got one; the Taylor Review.

The Chancellor has made it clear he is concerned about the issue and is likely to announce reforms to the tax system so that the treatment of permanent and self-employed workers is more equitable.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38963653

Although God knows what that will mean in practice.

BobQ wrote: »

...Add to this the loss of tax revenue from limited companies created by politicians, sportsmen, actors etc we might manage to reduce the debt in this country.

Or anybody really. You don't have to be rich to incorporate. But yes, raising taxes is a good way of reducing debt.

I recall that Mr Brown launched his IR35 initiative to attack disguised employment. I think I'm right in saying that it has resulted in raising approximately doodly squat in extra revenue. It's not that easy.

antrobus

kinger101 wrote: »

I think the cost of the gig economy is much higher than just the lost employer's NI. Many of these "self-employed" earn such a low amount that they have to get top-ups from tax credits.

When people grab an Uber cab, or get something delivered by Yodel, often they're effectively getting the tax payer to contribute.

The gig economy is not really the driver for the growth in self-employment.

The rapid growth of self-employment in the UK has been driven more by people in higher-paid than low-paid work, according to a new report. The analysis comes from the Resolution Foundation, an economic think tank. It says the "privileged" self-employed, with good educational qualifications and higher earnings, made up 57% of the growth in self-employment after 2009. Among them were people working in law, accountancy, health services and management consultancy. The think tank says they typically earned much more than the average worker, at between £45,000 and £65,000 a year. "Rising self-employment has been the biggest jobs story of the last decade," said Adam Corlett, of the Resolution Foundation "This growth has been controversial at times, with several companies finding themselves in court as workers try to address the insecurity that often comes with self-employment. "But behind the headlines the real recent growth area for the self-employed has been in lucrative sectors such as advertising and banking," he added.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39028310

BobQ

antrobus wrote: »

I suspect most are contrived by employees to reduce their tax bills. I don't know why you keeping blaming the employers, when the 'employees' are also enjoying the "tax benefits of self employment" and "avoiding tax". They are the ones that will squeal when you ask 'em for more money.

I agrees that some people become self employed through choice and then work for multiple customers. They benefit from the tax regime but there is no reason why it should be so generous. You mention IR35. I think it has made a difference. I recall someone who hold me he had worked as a contractor in the public sector filling the same post for 8 years, this is much more difficult to do these days.

Equally there are some people who became self employed because their "employer" insists on this artificial relationship. Uber, Yodel, many in the construction industry for example. They do not do it for the tax breaks, the employer does it to avoid NI.

So, yes, not all due to employers, some do want to work that way, but it is something that HMRC needs to ensure is fair when compared with those who are employed who have no choice but to pay their taxes.

You've got one; the Taylor Review.

The Chancellor has made it clear he is concerned about the issue and is likely to announce reforms to the tax system so that the treatment of permanent and self-employed workers is more equitable.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38963653

Although God knows what that will mean in practice.

Yes I have heard there was such a report but it might be good to see some action to follow it.

antrobus

BobQ wrote: »

I agrees that some people become self employed through choice and then work for multiple customers. They benefit from the tax regime but there is no reason why it should be so generous. ...

Being self-employed equals running a business. That's the way it was designed.

BobQ wrote: »

...You mention IR35. I think it has made a difference. I recall someone who hold me he had worked as a contractor in the public sector filling the same post for 8 years, this is much more difficult to do these days.

On 14th January 2015, Pamela Nash, the Labour MP for Airdrie and Shotts, asked the Treasury how much it had raised as a result of IR35 investigations in the different UK regions over the past five years.

In response, David Gauke, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, provided the following figures for each of the last five financial years (although data is not available by region).

• 2009/10 – £155,000
• 2010/11 – £219,000
• 2011/12 – £1.2m
• 2012/13 – £1.1m
• 2013/14 – £430,000

http://www.itcontracting.com/much-ir35-investigations-raise-hmrc/

In fiscal terms that is doodley-squat.

BobQ wrote: »

...Equally there are some people who became self employed because their "employer" insists on this artificial relationship. Uber, Yodel, many in the construction industry for example. They do not do it for the tax breaks, the employer does it to avoid NI.....

Whether or not the 'employer' benefits from the 'avoidance' of NI, does not change the fact that the 'employee' also benefits from their tax breaks.

BobQ wrote: »

..So, yes, not all due to employers, some do want to work that way, but it is something that HMRC needs to ensure is fair when compared with those who are employed who have no choice but to pay their taxes.

Yes I have heard there was such a report but it might be good to see some action to follow it.

I believe that HM Treasury have noticed that revenues are short by a £2 billion, because of the growth in self-employment, But as noted, that ain't the 'gig economy'; it's largely professionals.

MacMickster

antrobus wrote: »

Being self-employed equals running a business. That's the way it was designed.

And, of course, running a proper business involves risk, the biggest of which is losing rather than making money from the venture.

If people weren't, to an extent, incentivised to take a risk in setting up a business then our country would be far poorer as a result.

We do, however, need to crack down on these contrived self-employments where the only risk taken by the self-employed "businessman" is that they won't get paid a wage if they are off work sick.

antrobus

MacMickster wrote: »

...We do, however, need to crack down on these contrived self-employments where the only risk taken by the self-employed "businessman" is that they won't get paid a wage if they are off work sick.

And the question is this; how do you distinguish between (a) the genuine business and (b) contrived self-employment?

There are 4.8 million people who are self-employed. On top of which there are, I have no idea how many, but maybe a million or more who have self incorporated. You need a set of rules, and then you need to apply them, and that's an awful lot of files to check.

rtho782

BobQ wrote: »

So your solution is to starve them, execute them, poison them, withdraw medical treatment, confiscate their assets and let hyperthermia do the job?

My bet is that you will change your mind when you reach that age.

I did not say that at any point.

I simply suggested levelling the playing field by eliminating NI and increasing income tax accordingly, meaning pensioners pay the same tax as the rest of us. Given that there are a higher proportion of 70-79 year olds in the higher rate tax bracket than 30-39 year olds, this seems logical.

I suggested means testing the state pension by having a high taper rate in the tax code system, similar to how the personal allowance is claimed back at high rates of earnings. This saves having to individually review every case etc.

I suggested linking state pension to average earnings, rather than the triple lock, which has served it's purpose at this point.

I suggested reducing the IHT threshold, but that doesn't affect the pensioners, it affects my generation far more.

I suggested moving DB pensions to DC pots. I don't see how this is going to make all the pensioners starve - many of us only have DC pots.

As for the NHS, I only suggested a £5 GP appointment fee. Given that I also linked that to abolishing prescription charges which are currently £8.40, for anyone that pays for prescriptions this is a net saving if the GP prescribes them something. I also suggested we keep the Prescription Prepayment Certificate, and it now covered GP appts. So given that the PPC is only about £10 a month, it would be a good option for anyone that needs to see a doctor regularly.

antrobus

rtho782 wrote: »

...I simply suggested levelling the playing field by eliminating NI and increasing income tax accordingly, meaning pensioners pay the same tax as the rest of us. Given that there are a higher proportion of 70-79 year olds in the higher rate tax bracket than 30-39 year olds, this seems logical....

How do you know that there are a higher proportion of 70-79 year olds in the higher rate tax bracket?

What is the logic of comparing 70-79 year olds with 30-39 year olds? Does this mean that you are about 35?:)

rtho782 wrote: »

....I suggested means testing the state pension by having a high taper rate in the tax code system, similar to how the personal allowance is claimed back at high rates of earnings. This saves having to individually review every case etc....

There are 11.6 million over 65s in the UK. 78% of them turned out to vote in 2015. Congratulations you have just lost the government the next General Election by the widest margin since records began.:)

rtho782 wrote: »

...I suggested linking state pension to average earnings, rather than the triple lock, which has served it's purpose at this point....

In itself the triple lock is not particularly an issue at the moment.

rtho782 wrote: »

...I suggested reducing the IHT threshold, but that doesn't affect the pensioners, it affects my generation far more....

Of course it doesn't effect the pensioners. They'll be dead when the IHT is payable.

rtho782 wrote: »

...I suggested moving DB pensions to DC pots. I don't see how this is going to make all the pensioners starve - many of us only have DC pots....

As far as I am aware, there are no central government DB schemes, so there is nobody to move.

rtho782 wrote: »

....As for the NHS, I only suggested a £5 GP appointment fee. Given that I also linked that to abolishing prescription charges which are currently £8.40, for anyone that pays for prescriptions this is a net saving if the GP prescribes them something. I also suggested we keep the Prescription Prepayment Certificate, and it now covered GP appts. So given that the PPC is only about £10 a month, it would be a good option for anyone that needs to see a doctor regularly.

Prescription charges are already free in Wales and Scotland. I think they are more or less free in NI. As far as England is concerned; 89.9 per cent of all prescription items were dispensed free of charge
http://content.digital.nhs.uk/catalogue/PUB17644/pres-disp-com-eng-2004-14-rep.pdf

But never mind, you've already p***** off every pensioner in the UK, so you might was well p*** off everyone who is sick and disabled as well. After all, it will only take one General Election to wipe your party off the face of the earth.:)