Targetting the Over-Forties

LHW99

There are courses which will take someone with CCC at A-level.

Yes, to my mind this was the intake that the practical courses in the old polytechnics served par excellance. Once every HE institution began calling itself a university, the idea that a "university degree" meant an academic-type largely written course to prepare mainly for research, or for specific high level occupations such as medicine, law and languages went out of the window.
Do we need 50% of the population with level 4 qualifications, undoubtedly. Should they all have the type of qualification traditionally offered by universities prior to the 1990's, not at all.

Rich2808

Some under 40s are very wealthy and own multiple homes

Some over 40s are in poverty and rent off the council.

Taxation should be linked to wealth or earnings or assets held - not your age!

Pennywise

Rich2808 wrote: »

Some under 40s are very wealthy and own multiple homes

Some over 40s are in poverty and rent off the council.

Taxation should be linked to wealth or earnings or assets held - not your age!

Indeed, so why does NIC stop at retirement age?

Thrugelmir

Pennywise wrote: »

Not the ONLY way at all - how about improving efficiency and reducing waste?

Use of technology and a cash less society will improve tax take.

kinger101

Pennywise wrote: »

The PAYE system manages perfectly well to cope with people with more than one job or a job alongside a pension. Making occupational pensions subject to NIC would be relatively simple as the pensions are already paid/taxed via the PAYE system.

NI is intrinsically more complicated. For one, NI allowances are not annual, but relate to the payment period. It's not unusual to have three or four pensions on top of the state pension - particularly if there's a 50% pension for spouses. If pension schemes have to deduct NI at source, it will all to their admin costs (which will be subtracted from our pensions).

And as I already said, many pension contributions already have NI removed at source. So it disingenuous to claim there's no NI on pensions. It depends on how the money went in.

It would be far simpler just to raise income tax or remove salary sacrifice. Afterall, NI isn't an income tax. It's a tax on earnings. Pensions aren't earnings. NI could be extended to those still working after pensionable age, but I think this would be terribly regressive. Most people working beyond pension age are doing it out of necessity.

kinger101

LHW99 wrote: »

Yes, to my mind this was the intake that the practical courses in the old polytechnics served par excellance. Once every HE institution began calling itself a university, the idea that a "university degree" meant an academic-type largely written course to prepare mainly for research, or for specific high level occupations such as medicine, law and languages went out of the window.
Do we need 50% of the population with level 4 qualifications, undoubtedly. Should they all have the type of qualification traditionally offered by universities prior to the 1990's, not at all.

I agree on the need for move level 4, but I'm not convinced many of today's CCC would cut it either. If you've already done badly at A-level, why are you likely to succeed at a more advanced qualification?

The problem goes much further back. GCSEs aren't suitable qualifications for everyone.

caronoel

Pennywise wrote: »

Not the ONLY way at all - how about improving efficiency and reducing waste?

Agreed. There is no need to hike taxes again to shore up the last bastion of unreformed socialism in the UK.

In addition to cutting the huge waste in the NHS, we should also be imposing a £10 charge for each GP or A&E visit which could be capped at £100 a year or so.

There are way too many 'worried well' and missed appointments wasting NHS funds.

MPD

In international studies the NHS comes out as one of the most efficient systems in the world and amongst OECD countries it receives quite a low level of funding. If you want improvement then cash is needed.

caronoel

MPD wrote: »

In international studies the NHS comes out as one of the most efficient systems in the world...

NHS is relatively efficient compared to other bloated inefficient union laden health services? Hardly a ringing endorsement

amongst OECD countries it receives quite a low level of funding.

Complete codswallop:
https://data.oecd.org/healthres/health-spending.htm

MPD

NHS is relatively efficient, I'll accept that. The rest of the sentence is Daily Mail bile and bias.

Nice chart, we seem to be some way down considering we are the 5th largest economy in the world. It doesn't seem to back up your point.