TAX ON FULL STATE PENSION APRIL 2027

ClashCityRocker1

kinger101 said:

ClashCityRocker1 said:

kinger101 said:

Auti said:

Some of the 9.9 million claiming are in work - that seems weird that you can be in full time work and still get UC housing benefit etc - why are companies being subsidied by benefits paid to workers? There seems to be something strange going on.

If you take the example of a single parent raising 2 children in London, then even if they can do 36 hours per week, on NMW, that ain't going very far.

This is an extreme example, but not uncommon.

I'm more concerned about the people claiming it who are able to work full time but do part-time lifestyle jobs.  And cash in hand stuff.  There's no excuse for an able bodied person with no dependants to not be working full time and possibly more if needed.  

There's a lot of blame going on. "There's no excuse for an able bodied person with no dependents..." well it doesn't take long to come up with a few, and by golly it's a bit sad that so many people want to get everybody onto chain gangs to ensure their usefulness to society.

Have you finished whacking straw men?

You mean the able bodied straw men with no dependents?

BikingBud

ClashCityRocker1 said:

housing costs are an issue. We need to build enough accommodation so that prices tumble but that would be a shock for the economy too!

19 August at 10:13AM

BlackKnightMonty

ClashCityRocker1 said:

BlackKnightMonty said:

Cutting the welfare umbilical cord will drive through the behavioural change we need. We all know people who are milking the system. Welfare and benefits are completely out of control. We have 9.9 million working age who receive some form of DWP benefit. We have nearly 13 million now claiming the SP (up by 200k in the last year; that’s the population of Bournemouth !!)

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/dwp-benefits-statistics-february-2025/dwp-benefits-statistics-february-2025

Now you want to take away the State Pension!

As I have just said your "milkers of the system" are spending that money and it is staying in circulation. So no matter how galling you find it, cutting it is not going to help. In you world you think all these people will pop down the local factory and boost exports by building jet engines but that's a fantasy.

I think the SP will have to be taken away as it is unsustainable.

Take too much tax from high earners and they change their behaviour. They migrate to other more welcoming countries, or they cut back on hours so they aren’t in a tax crunching zone like the £100k trap.

If we want growth we need to encourage the most productive to want to work hard. Make sure they are rewarded. That’s the top 10% of income earners. The big economic hitters. The ones who contribute 60.3% of all the income tax paid in the UK. The 10% who alone, contribute 16.2% of the entire tax receipts received by HMG. £184.525bn / £1,132bn)

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8513/

kinger101

Auti said:

kinger101 said:

Auti said:

Some of the 9.9 million claiming are in work - that seems weird that you can be in full time work and still get UC housing benefit etc - why are companies being subsidied by benefits paid to workers? There seems to be something strange going on.

If you take the example of a single parent raising 2 children in London, then even if they can do 36 hours per week, on NMW, that ain't going very far.

This is an extreme example, but not uncommon.

I'm more concerned about the people claiming it who are able to work full time but do part-time lifestyle jobs.  And cash in hand stuff.  There's no excuse for an able bodied person with no dependants to not be working full time and possibly more if needed.  

Yes I understand that - it is the bit that the wage cannot cover it that that concerns me, and to be fair I have said benefits can be paid but all benefits should be taxed equally as if someone earns the amount of housing benefit rather than claiming it they are taxed - a level playing field. 

There are many minimum wage jobs yet profit driven (more than perhaps necessary) companies paying the least they can get away with knowing that the government will top up the wages - that seems not quite right. I am thinking of big companies.

I also believe if you value your employees productivity would increase but that is another topic.

As I understand it, UC rolled up a number of taxable and non-taxable benefits.  I'm not sure what problem this solved.

One thing that doesn't seem right is that the minimum wage jobs seem to include low skilled labour and some very demanding jobs with unsocial hours (e.g care homes).  

From the employer's perspective, they would say they are paying market rate.  Though we do have around 750,000 unfiled vacancies.

kinger101

ClashCityRocker1 said:

kinger101 said:

ClashCityRocker1 said:

kinger101 said:

Auti said:

Some of the 9.9 million claiming are in work - that seems weird that you can be in full time work and still get UC housing benefit etc - why are companies being subsidied by benefits paid to workers? There seems to be something strange going on.

If you take the example of a single parent raising 2 children in London, then even if they can do 36 hours per week, on NMW, that ain't going very far.

This is an extreme example, but not uncommon.

I'm more concerned about the people claiming it who are able to work full time but do part-time lifestyle jobs.  And cash in hand stuff.  There's no excuse for an able bodied person with no dependants to not be working full time and possibly more if needed.  

There's a lot of blame going on. "There's no excuse for an able bodied person with no dependents..." well it doesn't take long to come up with a few, and by golly it's a bit sad that so many people want to get everybody onto chain gangs to ensure their usefulness to society.

Have you finished whacking straw men?

You mean the able bodied straw men with no dependents?

You are claiming none of these people exist whereas you're making some point I didn't make about chain gangs.

ewaste

BlackKnightMonty said:

I think the SP will have to be taken away as it is unsustainable.

Take too much tax from high earners and they change their behaviour. They migrate to other more welcoming countries, or they cut back on hours so they aren’t in a tax crunching zone like the £100k trap.

If we want growth we need to encourage the most productive to want to work hard. Make sure they are rewarded. That’s the top 10% of income earners. The big economic hitters. The ones who contribute 60.3% of all the income tax paid in the UK. The 10% who alone, contribute 16.2% of the entire tax receipts received by HMG. £184.525bn / £1,132bn)

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8513/

Those on high incomes might want to emigrate thinking the grass is greener but the reality is that in the vast majority of cases the job and income can't move. That also goes for the majority of assets, hence why assets and unearned income that make people 'wealthy' should be taxed more heavily vs taxing income from work/employment.

People become accustomed to the money and live a lifestyle so won't cut hours, although I agree things like the £100k cliff edge need reviewed and ideally removed. Even if they did cut their hours more often than not the work still needs to be done by someone.

Therefore if we want growth it's the millions at the lower end and in the middle we need to make more productive which often means capital investment not tax cuts for those who are already relatively wealthy. Yes a small minority contribute a majority of tax receipts yet wealth and income inequality is plainly visible in society and continuing to worsen. Your viewpoint is to throw some wedges in that to make it worse... I mean fair enough we're all entitled to our opinions. 

I should note that I'm comfortably in the top 5% of earners, thankfully I make use of the rather generous AA and other allowances to avoid the £100k cliff edge. Yes that will likely mean that I am able to leave the workforce in my mid-fifties but that comes from the good fortune of being allowed to stash anything up to £60k away tax free each year.

MK62

ewaste said:

BlackKnightMonty said:

I think the SP will have to be taken away as it is unsustainable.

Take too much tax from high earners and they change their behaviour. They migrate to other more welcoming countries, or they cut back on hours so they aren’t in a tax crunching zone like the £100k trap.

If we want growth we need to encourage the most productive to want to work hard. Make sure they are rewarded. That’s the top 10% of income earners. The big economic hitters. The ones who contribute 60.3% of all the income tax paid in the UK. The 10% who alone, contribute 16.2% of the entire tax receipts received by HMG. £184.525bn / £1,132bn)

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8513/

..........Yes a small minority contribute a majority of tax receipts yet wealth and income inequality is plainly visible in society and continuing to worsen......

The last ONS Wealth and Assets survey estimated that of the total wealth in the UK, around half is held by the top 10%.......the top 50% hold 94%, while the bottom half hold just 6%.........the bottom 10% hold practically zero.....

Grumpy_chap

ewaste said:

Those on high incomes might want to emigrate thinking the grass is greener but the reality is that in the vast majority of cases the job and income can't move. That also goes for the majority of assets, hence why assets and unearned income that make people 'wealthy' should be taxed more heavily vs taxing income from work/employment.

I am unsure how taxing assets would work.

The value of assets can often fluctuate so what valuation do you take?

Having assets does not automatically mean having liquid funds available to pay a tax liability.

How does the tax system then deal with a year in which the value of the assets fall?

How to treat non-standard assets, art, collectibles and such like? 

What about assets that aren't even recognised?  Maybe the kids boxed Millennium Falcon which has been stuffed in the loft for the past 50 years and only comes to light when the parents eventually downsize?

BikingBud

Does all this discussion not demonstrate that our tax system is absurdly complex and needs resetting to remove all the niches and routes to exploit?

It puts in voids that splits those that work from those that don't and those that choose not to work all while introducing some other side scheme that introduces further factions by referring to terms that are never defined eg "hard workers" "broad shoulders" "rich" "poverty".

We should encourage everybody to be as prosperous as they can, let them have the rewards of their positive engagement with growing the economy.

We should discourage disengagement with the economy, sole reliance on other peoples' efforts.

We make many choices in life, inhibiting your own self betterment is a choice.

kinger101

Grumpy_chap said:

ewaste said:

Those on high incomes might want to emigrate thinking the grass is greener but the reality is that in the vast majority of cases the job and income can't move. That also goes for the majority of assets, hence why assets and unearned income that make people 'wealthy' should be taxed more heavily vs taxing income from work/employment.

I am unsure how taxing assets would work.

The value of assets can often fluctuate so what valuation do you take?

Having assets does not automatically mean having liquid funds available to pay a tax liability.

How does the tax system then deal with a year in which the value of the assets fall?

How to treat non-standard assets, art, collectibles and such like? 

What about assets that aren't even recognised?  Maybe the kids boxed Millennium Falcon which has been stuffed in the loft for the past 50 years and only comes to light when the parents eventually downsize?

There was talk of a levy on pension pots above a certain amount which sounds reasonable but impractical.  I have 2 DC, 1 SIPP and 1 DB.  

Star Wars wasn't released until 1977 so id imagine the 1975 toy would be worth a fortune.