Targetting the Over-Forties

Sapphire

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.

I was not talking about invited people – I just think far too many people have been coming here in the time period I mentioned for the benefits, including relatives (often comprising large families including non-tax-paying children, elders and partners), of individuals who are working in low-paid jobs. I know this, because I have talked to such people. It seems utterly unfair that non-working people from other countries who have paid in nothing and are not contributing should have access to very expensive benefits courtesy of UK taxpayers. It is contributing greatly to over-population and to a sense of injustice in society; we should be looking after our own first. We should also be getting the indigenous population properly trained up and working, but few politicians these days seem willing to tackle such issues and many others, probably due to vested interests of one sort or another, or just to lack of caring about this country (some honourable exceptions, but too few of them).

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).

Agree.

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.

Agree. But the (mostly youth, in my experience), who stand to inherit would not like this.

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. However many see taking home as theft.

Greed. It has always been thus.

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.

Agree.

StevieJ

kinger101 wrote: »

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.

Seems pretty obvious to me, extend the 'National Insurance' tax to pensioners. I am not sure why they don't pay it if they earn enough? Oh I just remembered, they are holding the govt to ransom :-)

lisyloo

extend the 'National Insurance' tax to pensioners. I am not sure why they don't pay it if they earn enough?

I'm wondering if the idea was/is that you contribute all your working life and then become a non-contributor in retirement.


Personally one of things I dislike is changing the rules all the time.
I've worked all my life and saved hard with certain expectations.
My state pension age has been raised from 60 to 67 which I don't mind as I've had plenty of notice and the reasons are valid.
However if you suddenly decided to take another 12% NI from my income when I've had no notice, then I'd be pretty unhappy about that (the lack of notice being more objectionable that the amount actually).


I realise taxes need to go up and I'm prepared to play my part however drastic life changing amounts with no notice for people to prepare are not acceptable.


I'd rather the dividend loophole was shut.
Why should I pay 7.5% IT rather than 20%.
Furthermore spouses can receive dividends and give it straight back again with no tax charge, so a high earning person can use their spouses tax allowance and there isn't any logical justification for that.
In-work benefits for medium/higher earners who can afford to salary sacrifice are not justified either.

kinger101

StevieJ wrote: »

Seems pretty obvious to me, extend the 'National Insurance' tax to pensioners. I am not sure why they don't pay it if they earn enough? Oh I just remembered, they are holding the govt to ransom :-)

Unless payments are made via salary sacrifice, it's quite possible that someone's pension was already subject to NI on input. It would make no sense whatsoever for a basic rate taxpayer to put money into a SIPP from already NI-taxed income to then pay NI again when it's drawn. Unless of course, a single annual drawdown was made (largely avoiding NI).

The administration of NI would also be a mess, as many people have pensions from multiple sources.

GreatApe

lisyloo wrote: »

I realise taxes need to go up

This is not a given, services could become more efficient much much more efficient
I would be surprised if robots didn't take over most tasks within 25 years.

I'd rather the dividend loophole was shut.
Why should I pay 7.5% IT rather than 20%.
Furthermore spouses can receive dividends and give it straight back again with no tax charge, so a high earning person can use their spouses tax allowance and there isn't any logical justification for that.
In-work benefits for medium/higher earners who can afford to salary sacrifice are not justified either.

The opposite should happen, a married couple should be able to opt to have a joint tax return where all the allowances are doubled and they file as one. Why should a married couple who earn £100k by one earner be charged so much more than a married couple who each earn £50k?

Malthusian

lisyloo wrote: »

You didnt include those with limited companies who pay only 7.5% tax by paying themselves dividends

Dividends are taxed at 25% at basic rate, not 7.5%. You forgot corporation tax. 1 - 81% * 92.5% = 25%.

It is often a more tax-efficient way of getting your earnings out of a limited company than salary (on which you don't pay corporation tax, but you do pay income tax and NI), but 7.5% it is not.

It's surprising how often outrage indicates a misapprehension rather than an actual injustice.

westernpromise

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I get the need to raise money, but I really fail to figure out the "anyone over 40" thing.

I'm sure we all know really well off 20 somethings and really poor 50 somethings.

Why not simply base this on ability to pay? This just smacks of ageism otherwise.

And why reduce corporation tax, if you are looking to increase taxes on ordinary working people?

If you base everything off ability to pay you end up with 1% of people earning 14% of the money but paying 27% of the income tax, which is not sustainable.

westernpromise

GreatApe wrote: »

Why should a married couple who earn £100k by one earner be charged so much more than a married couple who each earn £50k?

Because the left hates such people and wants their lives made worse. In Soviet Russia the equivalent class were deliberately killed.

The left would confiscate his money and burn it sooner than let him keep and enjoy it.

antrobus

StevieJ wrote: »

Seems pretty obvious to me, extend the 'National Insurance' tax to pensioners. I am not sure why they don't pay it if they earn enough? Oh I just remembered, they are holding the govt to ransom :-)

It has already been suggested. By the government I believe.

The £2bn or so it would raise was to fund social care.

P.S. The reason the concession exists, I believe, was that it was a quid quo pro for the earnings rule. The basic state pension was subject to an earnings rule prior to 1989.

antrobus

lisyloo wrote: »

...
However if you suddenly decided to take another 12% NI from my income when I've had no notice, then I'd be pretty unhappy about that (the lack of notice being more objectionable that the amount actually)....

NIC are payable on earnings, not income.

I'm not sure whether anyone has proposed levying NICs on interest, dividends, or indeed pensions.