Targetting the Over-Forties

Sapphire

JayWalker wrote: »

As a few people have said, it shouldn't be about age. It's lazy to say it should be, but we have a system where people over a certain age get lots of aid, regardless of their income or assets. We do not have enough money (in the State Purse) to give funds to a growing category regardless of whether they need it or even want it.


Yes, there are pensioners who've worked all their lives, paid in and need support in their late life, but there are also pensioners who never worked and those who are asset-rich. But no political party wants to risk antagonising them by bringing in a means test of any kind. Likewise, there are younger people who do have money, but we're giving them tax breaks.


Benefits for working-age people are means-tested; benefits for the disabled are means-tested, but benefits for pensioners and young people are given purely on thee grounds of age or stage of life (first-time buyer assitance, etc.) We should be applying similar measures to everyone, both in terms of benefits and taxation. But that wouldn't be a vote-winner, therefore successive governments have taken the easy option. Generalising for an entire age group is dangerous.

Some suggestions as to how extra money could be raised to provide good care for the many needy pensioners that there are:

Extra payments (say, £10 p.m.) specifically to help care for the elderly (not administrators) who are in desperate need could be made by those who wouldn't miss the money:

* a. Those in the higher income-tax bracket (it would be in their interest to pay in, too, because they will also be pensioners one day).

* b. Any pensioner receiving £30,000 p.a. or more.

* Additionally reduce the truly massive amount of foreign aid substantially in order to help existing people crippled with dementia or other diseases. It is not morally right that we help outsiders while those of our own, who have paid taxes all their lives, worked hard for decades and lived frugally without expecting handouts, suffer horribly without adequate care, grudgingly given.

* This business of early retirees who, I understand it (I don't know anyone who is doing this), are receiving pensions courtesy of taxpayers(?) should really be addressed. It is unfair that these people are paid large sums of money, retiring at 55 or below, while others have to wait until the official pension age, then often live on a pittance and are just cast aside by society. Possibly, it is these early retirees who are causing the resentment (they stole it from us and other such rhetoric) and outright hatred of the elderly that is being stoked by the media (employees of which themselves have generous pensions) and other interested parties.

* Stop paying out benefits to all economic immigrants who have come to Britain over the last ten years and are not contributing, then use the money for our pensioners who need it, and to train first-class local staff to look after the special needs that these people have.

* Go after the billions in tax havens and use some of that to help old people. Tax people who earn millions of pounds in bonuses (which they really do not need) more for the same use. (Of course, vested interests would not permit this.)

* Go after companies that don't pay adequate tax of billions of pounds. (Ditto the last remark of the previous para.)

* Return all foreign criminals to their own countries (instead of housing them in HM prisons, courtesy of taxpayers), and ensure that they do not return.

Even some such steps would go a long way to addressing the issues with pensions for those who are really in desperate need of help.

mrginge

Can my estate get a refund if I choose lethal injection instead?

kinger101

lisyloo wrote: »

If we want this service then it has to be paid for and it has to be paid for by people with the means.

We already have progressive income tax system, whereby those with the means can be made to contribute more. Alternatively, reform IHT. I generally not a fan of hypothecation, but if we are going to do it, seems a much fairer source than everyone over 40.

chris_m

Sapphire wrote: »

* This business of early retirees who, I understand it (I don't know anyone who is doing this), are receiving pensions courtesy of taxpayers(?) should really be addressed. It is unfair that these people are paid large sums of money, retiring at 55 or below, while others have to wait until the official pension age, then often live on a pittance and are just cast aside by society.

I think that you will find (should you care to investigate instead of just coming up with a knee-jerk soundbite) that most of those people are only taking that to which they are entitled according to the pension scheme rules based upon what they put in and are receiving nothing "courtesy of taxpayers" until such time as they reach state pension age and draw their state pension.

System

Seems silly to worry about this when we have another £350m a week on the way.

antrobus

JayWalker wrote: »

MPs are threatening to tax the over-40s to pay for elderly care. Once again, they're targeting this age group because there's no point aiming at younger people and governments are scared to antagonise pensioners...

I might have missed something, but I would have thought that most pensioners would count as being in the 'over-40s'.:)

But I wouldn't worry if I were you, the chances of any government introducing any such thing is very small.

Tromking

chris_m wrote: »

I think that you will find (should you care to investigate instead of just coming up with a knee-jerk soundbite) that most of those people are only taking that to which they are entitled according to the pension scheme rules based upon what they put in and are receiving nothing "courtesy of taxpayers" until such time as they reach state pension age and draw their state pension.

Yep.
Part of an PS employees pay, payable on retirement.

lisyloo

HPC_Ghuol_Hunter wrote: »

If the over-40s want to access services then they have to pay for them. This is not exactly rocket surgery.

The services are for everyone.
Both when they get older themselves but also younger people do sometimes need residential/nursing care.

We don!!!8217;t tax older people more for nhs or pensions.

Actually sorting out a tax system that works without unintended consequences, is acceptable to people (poll tax, bedroom tax) and is broadly fair seems to be very difficult indeed.

lisyloo

Sapphire wrote: »

* b. Any pensioner receiving £30,000 p.a. or more.

That will have unintended consequences and reduce the tax take
I.e. people reducing drawdown to £30k

Stop paying out benefits to all economic immigrants who have come to Britain over the last ten years and are not contributing, then use the money for our pensioners who need it, and to train first-class local staff to look after the special needs that these people have.

Sounds very much like windrush with an arbitrary cutoff.
You invite people here to contribute then if they fall on hard times themselves, chuck them out. We know how windrush was considered totally unacceptable. If you invite people here you need to look after them too.

You didnt include those with limited companies who pay only 7.5% tax by paying themselves dividends or those who claim in-work benefits by lowering their salary through salary sacriifice (all done by regulars here).

Also disregarded homes.
My MIL got free care whilst FIL was alive as the home was disregarded.
Why not put a charge on peoples home (that they dont pay until they no longer require a home).
That simply saved our inheritance for 7 months and I think they should pay from their own assets rather than expect tax payers to pay.


My personal view looking at my own family is that the tax payers (some of whom are young don't have home, some have families) should not be expected to save the assets of the elderly and the inheritance of the middle-aged. However many see taking home as theft.



Some say its not rocket science but try taking peoples homes whilst their alive and it will be called theft by the nasty party.
So yes it is extremely difficult

LHW99

Perhaps the idea of a single tax rate (over a reasonable nil-rate band) for everything, IHT, income, investments, etc should be considered again. At one time it was being suggested that an overall rate of about 16% would bring in the same amount as it would prevent a lot of tax avoidance schemes. So a universal rate of 25% could increase the amount available.