Martin's suggestion for winter fuel allowance

BarelySentientAI

Brian3357 said:

An interesting and thought provoking set of responses to my initial post. I agree with many observations. But to stress, we are still in the grip of an energy emergency and short term to be reviewed next year, maintenance of the WFA would help support pensioners through a hard winter. 

What worries me, is that Labour are insensitive to the old and may well turn the screws on them as a soft targets. Ivd contributed 40 years in taxes and national insurance, so recent being targeted. The rich should bare the brunt. 

The rich who already contribute far more in taxes?

The top 50% pay nearly 80% of total tax receipts to the government.  The bottom 40% of incomes receive more in cash benefits than they pay in taxes (both direct and indirect).

In 1999/2000, the top 1% contributed 21% of income tax receipts.  The top 10% contributed around 50%.
By 2020/2021, the top 1% contribution increased to 29%, with the top 10% contributing just over 60%.
That's despite their share of the income being only 33.7%.

It's amazing how any change that is to the detriment of a group (and all changes basically are) is described as "insensitive", "turning the screws", "being targeted", unless it's a group that the speaker thinks deserves punishment in some way, and then it's just "doing their part", "paying their share".  Particularly prevalent when the speaker considers themselves part of the targeted group.

MattMattMattUK

Brian3357 said:

An interesting and thought provoking set of responses to my initial post. I agree with many observations. But to stress, we are still in the grip of an energy emergency 

We are not, hyperbole helps no one.

Brian3357 said:

and short term to be reviewed next year, maintenance of the WFA would help support pensioners through a hard winter. 

Why such emotive language, why "hard winter"? Throwing money at all pensioners, rather than the people genuinely in need is an incredibly poor use of taxpayer funds.

Brian3357 said:

What worries me, is that Labour are insensitive to the old

Labour are not insensitive to the old, they just to not have the same inclination as the Conservatives to throw electoral bribes at older voters. That being said Labour have agreed to keep the triple lock for the duration of parliament which is an incredibly over generous policy, it is certainly more pro-old that pro-general population.

Brian3357 said:

and may well turn the screws on them as a soft targets. 

Again, more emotive language. What "screws" exactly do you see them turn on, or do you mean that they will just be less generous with extra handouts?

Brian3357 said:

Ivd contributed 40 years in taxes and national insurance,

Did you have a lifetime average income above £36k and pay tax on it? Otherwise you were not a net contributor even before you became a pensioner and after that you would have cost the state progressively more.

Brian3357 said:

so recent being targeted.

How exactly do you feel you have been targeted? Do you mean you no longer get an untargeted bribe the same as the majority of households in the UK?

Brian3357 said:

The rich should bare the brunt. 

And there we have it, you want "someone else" to pay, you want "someone else" to contribute more, so you can have more from the state. 

The truth is that everyone in the UK has paid too little tax for 50+ years, the tax free allowance is far too big, the starting rates of income tax are too low, benefits are too generous for the amount of tax people pay, we have been relying on "someone else" paying for decades, only that someone else is our children and grandchildren, we have loaded up younger people with a debt that will cause huge economic and societal hardship to repay so the idea that older generations are in some way hard done by because the government has removed a blanket bribe is farcical. 

MattMattMattUK

BarelySentientAI said:

The top 50% pay nearly 80% of total tax receipts to the government.  The bottom 40% of incomes receive more in cash benefits than they pay in taxes (both direct and indirect).

Even worse than that now, 55% of households receive more in cash benefits than they pay in taxes, once they factor in benefits in kind it drops into single digit percentage, current estimates are that 3-5% of people make net a lifetime contribution. 

Brian3357

It really isnt true that we haven't paid enough tax! We have never in history paid more tax! 

The wfa was a quick fix for an energy emergency that is still present this winter! The government should have delayed axing the allowance until prices settle down. 

Hopefully in October the government will not continue to target pensioners who have contributed a life time into the system. 

MattMattMattUK

Brian3357 said:

It really isnt true that we haven't paid enough tax! We have never in history paid more tax! 

Define "we"? If you mean tax as a percentage of GDP then it was higher in the decades after WWII. If you mean low and average earners then they pay far less than the average of the last fifty years and only marginally higher than a few years ago. If you mean high earners then they pay somewhat more than that. The UK still has low tax rates by the standards of a country that operates a welfare state and universal healthcare, out tax take as a percentage of GDP is around 20% lower than the European average.

Brian3357 said:

The wfa was a quick fix for an energy emergency that is still present this winter! The government should have delayed axing the allowance until prices settle down. 

This "emergency" is not still around, prices have settled down, this is where they are staying for the foreseeable future, cheap Russian gas is never coming back.

Brian3357 said:

Hopefully in October the government will not continue to target pensioners who have contributed a life time into the system. 

As pointed out above, most pensioners arrive at pension age never having made a net contribution because they never paid enough tax. They are also not being "targetted". Hopefully this October the government announces and then implements a budget that is balanced across all age groups, all demographics, with targeted support where needed rather than throwing money at one group who do not need it for electoral gain whilst expecting another group to pay for it, many of whom will be in far greater need than the pensioners previously in receipt of blanket handouts.

Brian3357

Many unsubstantiated statements are being made about tax burdens. Ridiculous comparison to gdp and ww2.,where extreme economic forces were at work. As a previous higher earner, ive paid significantly into the system. As pension is calculated on national insurance contributions, it is an earned right to receive state pension not a handout paid by others.

Unfortunately many never reach an age to claim and it's not inherited by spouses 

mmmmikey

All clever stuff @brian3357 but you've skilfully avoided responding to @MattMattMattUK point that tax receipts are not enough to cover spending commitments. We've been living beyond our means as a country for far too long and racking up debts for future generations to pay off.

Cutting back is never going to be popular but in my view is the socially responsible thing to do. We need to get away from this "millions to die from cold as heartless government scraps WFA" sensationalism as much as we do from the populist politics that created the problem in the first place. 

pseudodox

Entitlement to SP is calculated on years of contributions of NIC, not on the amount paid in NIC.  The actual money received is paid for out of the NIC payments of current workers/contributors.  When I was working I was contributing the money that went towards my parents SP.  Now I am retired I am very grateful to everyone paying into the system today to fund my SP.

The key word is INSURANCE - something in most instances we pay (home, car etc) & hope not to make a claim, but we are funding those who do.  NI is of course different as everyone who pays in anticipates they will receive money back from the system whether as pension or health care.  Sadly many do not live to retirement age & I am mindful of those who did pay in all their working lives & got nothing out as SP.  But maybe they got medical services, sick pay etc. Again some get more benefit than others - the only value I received in past 20 years are my free eye tests, but I am happy that friends with serious health issues are entitled to "free" health care in their hour of need.  Isn't this what being part of a collective society is all about?

Someone who dies shortly after retirement will not have received an amount equal to whatever they paid into the system.  Someone who lives into their 90s may get back far more than their personal contributions to the system.  The only way to make it into a "what you put in you get out" system is to have everyone on private pensions & to have that pension payable to their family in the event of their early demise.

casjen

Targeting the elderly is cowardly and abhorrent. Putting many millions of pensioners mental health in jeopardy in order to score political points is pathetic. Much of this so called 22 billion was already in the public domain and speaks volumes of the chancellors lack in doing her job in opposition.. If all the so called 800000 pensioners suddenly claimed credit then the cost with all the extras they will get will far outweigh the WFA cost.. The agenda against the elderly is very sad.

t0rt0ise

The trouble with targeted benefits is that they usually miss the whole target!