The inevitable pre-budget speculation on pensions

kinger101

Somebody said:

Albermarle said:

I am sure the Labour Party will not have given up on the next election, so will not be willing to take the flak for doing all those unpopular things.
As was once said a week is a long time in politics. In 3.5 years literally anything could happen.

In my view, Labour have already lost the next election as they won't be forgiven for bringing pensions into estates for IHT. 

Impacts too few people to make a difference.

IMHO, this is the fairest tax that can be leveled in a person.  Dead people don't need money. Their offspring aren't getting nothing, and should have benefitted already while the deceased was still alive.

kinger101

BlackKnightMonty said:

ClashCityRocker1 said:

hugheskevi said:

ClashCityRocker1 said:

All those projections have state pension under 10% of GDP. 

perfectly sustainable.

What about the big future growth in health expenditure and the cost of servicing the National Debt? 

You cannot look at one item of expenditure in isolation and declare it sustainable, it has to be viewed within the wider context of the Exchequer unless you are going to insist that each line of expenditure has to be sustainable on its own. That would lead to huge spending challenges for future healthcare, which could realistically only be solved by widespread privatisation.

I see 25% of Labour MPs support an increase in gambling tax to remove the 2 child benefit cap, making policy on a transactional basis rather than looking at the bigger picture. We probably need more revenue and less spending, so if money should be raised in one place, it does not follow that it should then be spent in another.

It is and always has been a matter of priorities. If you don't want to look after the sick, unemployed, elderly etc and you want to spend your money elsewhere that's what you vote for. Spending on pensions can't be "sustainable" in that it can't pay for itself. But health and education cuts basically either lead to more spending later to put things right or catastrophe for many people. Truth is to provide the services and support and defence we need taxes will need to be raised. And some of that will be taxes on the rich - if they leave the country so be it. If people are in poverty and they won't pay their way why would we want them?

On pensions we can see costs will go up but not indefinitely. We need to make health and care work, and pay people who deliver those things enough. We need, apparently, to prepare for war. Taxes need to go up rather than attempt stupidly to cut our way to prosperity. We've tried that. We could manufacture another commodities boom but then we'll get the bust.

It's about time we had a plan that involved education, training, skills, building and rebuilding, adapting to the new world realities that involve replacing carbon. Nobody really has a clear idea what the future looks like unless you count The Walking Dead.

It’s all about priorities. For 20 years pensioners have been prioritised over children. Maybe you like that politics, but for me that’s not the sort of country I want to be part of.

Let's be clear here. The only person you want to prioritize is you.

BlackKnightMonty

ClashCityRocker1 said:

But it doesn't have to be a binary choice between pensions and child benefit does it? 

It doesn’t; but it is.

LHW99

kinger101 said:

Somebody said:

Albermarle said:

I am sure the Labour Party will not have given up on the next election, so will not be willing to take the flak for doing all those unpopular things.
As was once said a week is a long time in politics. In 3.5 years literally anything could happen.

In my view, Labour have already lost the next election as they won't be forgiven for bringing pensions into estates for IHT. 

Impacts too few people to make a difference.

While it does impact few people, there is some disagreement over how unpopular it is with the population at large: it seems to depend (as with many things) on what question is asked

https://ifs.org.uk/sites/default/files/2023-12/Slides-from-Dan-Goss_0.pdf

https://www.wealthbriefing.com/html/article.php/more-than-half-of-uk-citizens-want-to-abolish-inheritance-tax--survey-

BlackKnightMonty

kinger101 said:

BlackKnightMonty said:

ClashCityRocker1 said:

hugheskevi said:

ClashCityRocker1 said:

All those projections have state pension under 10% of GDP. 

perfectly sustainable.

What about the big future growth in health expenditure and the cost of servicing the National Debt? 

You cannot look at one item of expenditure in isolation and declare it sustainable, it has to be viewed within the wider context of the Exchequer unless you are going to insist that each line of expenditure has to be sustainable on its own. That would lead to huge spending challenges for future healthcare, which could realistically only be solved by widespread privatisation.

I see 25% of Labour MPs support an increase in gambling tax to remove the 2 child benefit cap, making policy on a transactional basis rather than looking at the bigger picture. We probably need more revenue and less spending, so if money should be raised in one place, it does not follow that it should then be spent in another.

It is and always has been a matter of priorities. If you don't want to look after the sick, unemployed, elderly etc and you want to spend your money elsewhere that's what you vote for. Spending on pensions can't be "sustainable" in that it can't pay for itself. But health and education cuts basically either lead to more spending later to put things right or catastrophe for many people. Truth is to provide the services and support and defence we need taxes will need to be raised. And some of that will be taxes on the rich - if they leave the country so be it. If people are in poverty and they won't pay their way why would we want them?

On pensions we can see costs will go up but not indefinitely. We need to make health and care work, and pay people who deliver those things enough. We need, apparently, to prepare for war. Taxes need to go up rather than attempt stupidly to cut our way to prosperity. We've tried that. We could manufacture another commodities boom but then we'll get the bust.

It's about time we had a plan that involved education, training, skills, building and rebuilding, adapting to the new world realities that involve replacing carbon. Nobody really has a clear idea what the future looks like unless you count The Walking Dead.

It’s all about priorities. For 20 years pensioners have been prioritised over children. Maybe you like that politics, but for me that’s not the sort of country I want to be part of.

Let's be clear here. The only person you want to prioritize is you.

I want to prioritise kids over selfish greedy pensioners. 

Cobbler_tone

BlackKnightMonty said:

kinger101 said:

BlackKnightMonty said:

ClashCityRocker1 said:

hugheskevi said:

ClashCityRocker1 said:

All those projections have state pension under 10% of GDP. 

perfectly sustainable.

What about the big future growth in health expenditure and the cost of servicing the National Debt? 

You cannot look at one item of expenditure in isolation and declare it sustainable, it has to be viewed within the wider context of the Exchequer unless you are going to insist that each line of expenditure has to be sustainable on its own. That would lead to huge spending challenges for future healthcare, which could realistically only be solved by widespread privatisation.

I see 25% of Labour MPs support an increase in gambling tax to remove the 2 child benefit cap, making policy on a transactional basis rather than looking at the bigger picture. We probably need more revenue and less spending, so if money should be raised in one place, it does not follow that it should then be spent in another.

It is and always has been a matter of priorities. If you don't want to look after the sick, unemployed, elderly etc and you want to spend your money elsewhere that's what you vote for. Spending on pensions can't be "sustainable" in that it can't pay for itself. But health and education cuts basically either lead to more spending later to put things right or catastrophe for many people. Truth is to provide the services and support and defence we need taxes will need to be raised. And some of that will be taxes on the rich - if they leave the country so be it. If people are in poverty and they won't pay their way why would we want them?

On pensions we can see costs will go up but not indefinitely. We need to make health and care work, and pay people who deliver those things enough. We need, apparently, to prepare for war. Taxes need to go up rather than attempt stupidly to cut our way to prosperity. We've tried that. We could manufacture another commodities boom but then we'll get the bust.

It's about time we had a plan that involved education, training, skills, building and rebuilding, adapting to the new world realities that involve replacing carbon. Nobody really has a clear idea what the future looks like unless you count The Walking Dead.

It’s all about priorities. For 20 years pensioners have been prioritised over children. Maybe you like that politics, but for me that’s not the sort of country I want to be part of.

Let's be clear here. The only person you want to prioritize is you.

I want to prioritise kids over selfish greedy pensioners. 

BlackKnightMonty said:

kinger101 said:

BlackKnightMonty said:

ClashCityRocker1 said:

hugheskevi said:

ClashCityRocker1 said:

All those projections have state pension under 10% of GDP. 

perfectly sustainable.

What about the big future growth in health expenditure and the cost of servicing the National Debt? 

You cannot look at one item of expenditure in isolation and declare it sustainable, it has to be viewed within the wider context of the Exchequer unless you are going to insist that each line of expenditure has to be sustainable on its own. That would lead to huge spending challenges for future healthcare, which could realistically only be solved by widespread privatisation.

I see 25% of Labour MPs support an increase in gambling tax to remove the 2 child benefit cap, making policy on a transactional basis rather than looking at the bigger picture. We probably need more revenue and less spending, so if money should be raised in one place, it does not follow that it should then be spent in another.

It is and always has been a matter of priorities. If you don't want to look after the sick, unemployed, elderly etc and you want to spend your money elsewhere that's what you vote for. Spending on pensions can't be "sustainable" in that it can't pay for itself. But health and education cuts basically either lead to more spending later to put things right or catastrophe for many people. Truth is to provide the services and support and defence we need taxes will need to be raised. And some of that will be taxes on the rich - if they leave the country so be it. If people are in poverty and they won't pay their way why would we want them?

On pensions we can see costs will go up but not indefinitely. We need to make health and care work, and pay people who deliver those things enough. We need, apparently, to prepare for war. Taxes need to go up rather than attempt stupidly to cut our way to prosperity. We've tried that. We could manufacture another commodities boom but then we'll get the bust.

It's about time we had a plan that involved education, training, skills, building and rebuilding, adapting to the new world realities that involve replacing carbon. Nobody really has a clear idea what the future looks like unless you count The Walking Dead.

It’s all about priorities. For 20 years pensioners have been prioritised over children. Maybe you like that politics, but for me that’s not the sort of country I want to be part of.

Let's be clear here. The only person you want to prioritize is you.

I want to prioritise kids over selfish greedy pensioners. 

Parody account?
The “selfish greedy pensioners” who neglected their own kids? 

Would love the definition of a greedy pensioner. I suspect my own very working class parents are guilty as charged.

SouthCoastBoy

BlackKnightMonty said:

kinger101 said:

BlackKnightMonty said:

ClashCityRocker1 said:

hugheskevi said:

ClashCityRocker1 said:

All those projections have state pension under 10% of GDP. 

perfectly sustainable.

What about the big future growth in health expenditure and the cost of servicing the National Debt? 

You cannot look at one item of expenditure in isolation and declare it sustainable, it has to be viewed within the wider context of the Exchequer unless you are going to insist that each line of expenditure has to be sustainable on its own. That would lead to huge spending challenges for future healthcare, which could realistically only be solved by widespread privatisation.

I see 25% of Labour MPs support an increase in gambling tax to remove the 2 child benefit cap, making policy on a transactional basis rather than looking at the bigger picture. We probably need more revenue and less spending, so if money should be raised in one place, it does not follow that it should then be spent in another.

It is and always has been a matter of priorities. If you don't want to look after the sick, unemployed, elderly etc and you want to spend your money elsewhere that's what you vote for. Spending on pensions can't be "sustainable" in that it can't pay for itself. But health and education cuts basically either lead to more spending later to put things right or catastrophe for many people. Truth is to provide the services and support and defence we need taxes will need to be raised. And some of that will be taxes on the rich - if they leave the country so be it. If people are in poverty and they won't pay their way why would we want them?

On pensions we can see costs will go up but not indefinitely. We need to make health and care work, and pay people who deliver those things enough. We need, apparently, to prepare for war. Taxes need to go up rather than attempt stupidly to cut our way to prosperity. We've tried that. We could manufacture another commodities boom but then we'll get the bust.

It's about time we had a plan that involved education, training, skills, building and rebuilding, adapting to the new world realities that involve replacing carbon. Nobody really has a clear idea what the future looks like unless you count The Walking Dead.

It’s all about priorities. For 20 years pensioners have been prioritised over children. Maybe you like that politics, but for me that’s not the sort of country I want to be part of.

Let's be clear here. The only person you want to prioritize is you.

I want to prioritise kids over selfish greedy pensioners. 

As a parent of two children and the only earner in the family child benefit was removed for us although other families earning more were getting it. Its often not a level playing field.

If I live long enough I hope to benefit from the triple lock pension increases

kinger101

Cobbler_tone said:

BlackKnightMonty said:

kinger101 said:

BlackKnightMonty said:

ClashCityRocker1 said:

hugheskevi said:

ClashCityRocker1 said:

All those projections have state pension under 10% of GDP. 

perfectly sustainable.

What about the big future growth in health expenditure and the cost of servicing the National Debt? 

You cannot look at one item of expenditure in isolation and declare it sustainable, it has to be viewed within the wider context of the Exchequer unless you are going to insist that each line of expenditure has to be sustainable on its own. That would lead to huge spending challenges for future healthcare, which could realistically only be solved by widespread privatisation.

I see 25% of Labour MPs support an increase in gambling tax to remove the 2 child benefit cap, making policy on a transactional basis rather than looking at the bigger picture. We probably need more revenue and less spending, so if money should be raised in one place, it does not follow that it should then be spent in another.

It is and always has been a matter of priorities. If you don't want to look after the sick, unemployed, elderly etc and you want to spend your money elsewhere that's what you vote for. Spending on pensions can't be "sustainable" in that it can't pay for itself. But health and education cuts basically either lead to more spending later to put things right or catastrophe for many people. Truth is to provide the services and support and defence we need taxes will need to be raised. And some of that will be taxes on the rich - if they leave the country so be it. If people are in poverty and they won't pay their way why would we want them?

On pensions we can see costs will go up but not indefinitely. We need to make health and care work, and pay people who deliver those things enough. We need, apparently, to prepare for war. Taxes need to go up rather than attempt stupidly to cut our way to prosperity. We've tried that. We could manufacture another commodities boom but then we'll get the bust.

It's about time we had a plan that involved education, training, skills, building and rebuilding, adapting to the new world realities that involve replacing carbon. Nobody really has a clear idea what the future looks like unless you count The Walking Dead.

It’s all about priorities. For 20 years pensioners have been prioritised over children. Maybe you like that politics, but for me that’s not the sort of country I want to be part of.

Let's be clear here. The only person you want to prioritize is you.

I want to prioritise kids over selfish greedy pensioners. 

BlackKnightMonty said:

kinger101 said:

BlackKnightMonty said:

ClashCityRocker1 said:

hugheskevi said:

ClashCityRocker1 said:

All those projections have state pension under 10% of GDP. 

perfectly sustainable.

What about the big future growth in health expenditure and the cost of servicing the National Debt? 

You cannot look at one item of expenditure in isolation and declare it sustainable, it has to be viewed within the wider context of the Exchequer unless you are going to insist that each line of expenditure has to be sustainable on its own. That would lead to huge spending challenges for future healthcare, which could realistically only be solved by widespread privatisation.

I see 25% of Labour MPs support an increase in gambling tax to remove the 2 child benefit cap, making policy on a transactional basis rather than looking at the bigger picture. We probably need more revenue and less spending, so if money should be raised in one place, it does not follow that it should then be spent in another.

It is and always has been a matter of priorities. If you don't want to look after the sick, unemployed, elderly etc and you want to spend your money elsewhere that's what you vote for. Spending on pensions can't be "sustainable" in that it can't pay for itself. But health and education cuts basically either lead to more spending later to put things right or catastrophe for many people. Truth is to provide the services and support and defence we need taxes will need to be raised. And some of that will be taxes on the rich - if they leave the country so be it. If people are in poverty and they won't pay their way why would we want them?

On pensions we can see costs will go up but not indefinitely. We need to make health and care work, and pay people who deliver those things enough. We need, apparently, to prepare for war. Taxes need to go up rather than attempt stupidly to cut our way to prosperity. We've tried that. We could manufacture another commodities boom but then we'll get the bust.

It's about time we had a plan that involved education, training, skills, building and rebuilding, adapting to the new world realities that involve replacing carbon. Nobody really has a clear idea what the future looks like unless you count The Walking Dead.

It’s all about priorities. For 20 years pensioners have been prioritised over children. Maybe you like that politics, but for me that’s not the sort of country I want to be part of.

Let's be clear here. The only person you want to prioritize is you.

I want to prioritise kids over selfish greedy pensioners. 

Parody account?
The “selfish greedy pensioners” who neglected their own kids? 

Would love the definition of a greedy pensioner. I suspect my own very working class parents are guilty as charged.

I think someone wasn't given enough Werther's Originals in their formative years.

kinger101

LHW99 said:

kinger101 said:

Somebody said:

Albermarle said:

I am sure the Labour Party will not have given up on the next election, so will not be willing to take the flak for doing all those unpopular things.
As was once said a week is a long time in politics. In 3.5 years literally anything could happen.

In my view, Labour have already lost the next election as they won't be forgiven for bringing pensions into estates for IHT. 

Impacts too few people to make a difference.

While it does impact few people, there is some disagreement over how unpopular it is with the population at large: it seems to depend (as with many things) on what question is asked

https://ifs.org.uk/sites/default/files/2023-12/Slides-from-Dan-Goss_0.pdf

https://www.wealthbriefing.com/html/article.php/more-than-half-of-uk-citizens-want-to-abolish-inheritance-tax--survey-

While they may think it's unfair, it doesn't necessarily translate to change in votes. I suspect it's partly wrapped up in the fact death triggers it.  And partly because the really rich largely avoid it.

I think people are more inclined to vote on what alters their disposable income 

aroominyork

Somebody said:

Albermarle said:

I am sure the Labour Party will not have given up on the next election, so will not be willing to take the flak for doing all those unpopular things.
As was once said a week is a long time in politics. In 3.5 years literally anything could happen.

In my view, Labour have already lost the next election as they won't be forgiven for bringing pensions into estates for IHT. 

This change in policy will mean our kids will probably inherit several hundreds of thousands less, but it is the right policy and will not stop me from voting centre-left. It makes no sense that pensions have been exempt from IHT and have been the last place from which retired people draw income. People with money can, luckily, afford to not only think about their own interests.