Willetts targets the older generations

mrginge

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

Who was that other poster who was hysterically obsessed with boomers?

I think it was something like ‘the toxic tosspot’

westernpromise

lisyloo wrote: »

and every £ they don't pay is one more their children will pay in tax.
Health care is currently free.
As far as personal care goes I think those with excess funds should pay for it rather than have it fall on general taxation.

I will personally lose if that happens so this is not a vested interest

"Excess funds"? What are those? And who decides?

lisyloo

"Excess funds"? What are those?

Currently more than £14,250 excluding homes (there are other exceptions such as disabled relatives livng at properties). Full details here:
https://www.ageuk.org.uk/information-advice/care/care-homes/paying-for-a-care-home/

I believe the democratically elected government in power decide on these rules.

Who do you think should pay?
Taxation in general? or should there be an element of personal responsibility for long term care?
Note that those paying will be getting state pension(s), non-means tested benefits and "nursing" elements paid for.

BTW - most of the people in care homes right now are not boomers.

westernpromise

Linton wrote: »

- the employed pay NI but you dont pay NI on unearned income. Why not?

Because NI payments entitle you to benefits if you lose your job or can't work. If your income comes from investments, you probably can't lose it and won't be entitled to benefits if somehow you do. Therefore you shouldn't be charged for benefits you will never receive.

- the very generous S&S ISA limits mean if one is relatively rich it is possible to build up sufficient tax free income to live on.

Only by stashing income that was previously taxed.

The employed cannot shelter their income from tax.

59% of income tax is paid by 10% of earners, and 27% of it by 1%, so this is a strictly hypothetical problem.

As it happens I would be significantly disadvantaged by both proposals.

Yeah, yeah.

lisyloo

The employed cannot shelter their income from tax.

I shelter a lot of mine in a pension and I'm lucky enough to get 45.8% relief (20% income, 12%NI and 13.8% employers NI).
I will need to pay some tax on it when I draw it, but 25% will be tax free and then £11.5k per year or the equivalent personal allowance, which at 4% equates to a pension pot of £287,000 (so quite a lot).

Of course you need to have enough spare income to do this so not everyone can do this, but I am disputing the "cannot".

westernpromise

lisyloo wrote: »

Currently more than £14,250 excluding homes (there are other exceptions such as disabled relatives livng at properties). Full details here:
https://www.ageuk.org.uk/information-advice/care/care-homes/paying-for-a-care-home/

I believe the democratically elected government in power decide on these rules.

Who do you think should pay?
Taxation in general? or should there be an element of personal responsibility for long term care?
Note that those paying will be getting state pension(s), non-means tested benefits and "nursing" elements paid for.

The taxpayer should pay, given how much money I have taken off me in tax. If I'm to be denied benefits that I've funded all my life for other people, the only fair alternative is to set a lifetime cap on PAYE of say £1 million, and to allow me, once I've passed that, to put excess pension contributions into a personal care fund that I can pass on, and that is outside my estate for inheritance tax purposes.

lisyloo

The taxpayer should pay, given how much money I have taken off me in tax.

Your view is different from mine, but if that is your view then you'll have to agree to the overall tax take going up if everyone is to be funded regardless of means. That is not likely to be popular because as you yourself say - no-one wants to pay more tax. You think you shouldn't have to pay more tax, well as you say yourself neither does everyone else.

This extra benefit (over and above what is provided now) cannot be provided without extra money.

Looking at my own family (which reflects many others) I don't think the young-ish grandchildren should have to pay more in tax when their grandparents are sitting on money that they cannot use and may not pass on for many years.

westernpromise

I am right to think I shouldn't pay more tax, because I already pay obscene amounts. People who pay almost nothing (most people) who think they should not pay more are just wrong.

Linton

westernpromise wrote: »

Because NI payments entitle you to benefits if you lose your job or can't work. If your income comes from investments, you probably can't lose it and won't be entitled to benefits if somehow you do. Therefore you shouldn't be charged for benefits you will never receive.

A lot of the tax we pay goes for things we personally may never use. Why should NI be different? I cant see any problem in principle for SP to be available to everyone over SPA. If people would otherwise be destitute the state would pay anyway. And if they werent the effect could be balanced by an increase in higher rate tax. There is no requirement to have paid NI for most benefits.

(ref ISA tax free) Only by stashing income that was previously taxed.

The income stashed was previously taxed, not the income generated from it. Why should it not be? There is justification for ISAs to encourage those who wouldnt otherwise save, but not to provide a major tax avoidance opportunity to those who would and can afford to save £20K/year.

59% of income tax is paid by 10% of earners, and 27% of it by 1%, so this is a strictly hypothetical problem.

Why just income tax? What about NI? What about CGT? That statistic says nothing about income from employment vs income derived from assets.

Linton

westernpromise wrote: »

I am right to think I shouldn't pay more tax, because I already pay obscene amounts. People who pay almost nothing (most people) who think they should not pay more are just wrong.

You will only pay obscene amounts of tax if you have obscene amounts of income, and that will still leave you enough for obscene amounts of expenditure.

As to why you should pay it: you are only able to receive obscene amounts of income because of the existance of the state and the rest of society. If those cease to exist your money becomes meaningless. Perhap you should focus on your take-home income rather than the way society and the economy happens to operate by giving you excess and then taking some away.