Dementia Tax
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Rudi Hedman  Caterham 13 Jun 17 9.38am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Sugar tax. Obesity is the biggest cause of costs to the NHS. If you get fat, you're likely to get sick. The human body isn't built to have a BMI of 30, 35, 40 and being the weight of 2 people. Unless you're suffering psychologically, those pasties, crisps, chocolate and litres of coke everyday containing lots of sugar syrup is going to make you fatter. Edited by Rudi Hedman (13 Jun 2017 9.38am)
COYP |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
| Mapletree Croydon 13 Jun 17 9.43am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by npn
So if, as you seem to be saying, you should be hitting the elderly again for more tax or removing health benefits because they haven't paid in enough to cover it, does that also mean you plan on hitting the unemployed, as they've not contributed enough either? Or is it just the elderly you have issue with "sponging from the younger generation"? Aren't the unemployed sponging from all generations? And don't get me started on free dental care for kids - what have THEY ever contributed? Last bit was tongue in cheek to emphasise the point by the way. I am happy for unemployed people to be surcharged as long as they can afford it. That is the point. I don't propose we should increase taxation on anyone that doesn't have money. Just on those who have benefited in a one-off fashion from unrepeatable benefits. No Defined Benefit pension scheme of which I am aware pays for itself, they all took/are taking extra payments from their companies in the private sector and are a long term drain in the public sector. Many private schemes had payment holidays to boot, so the employees often paid little or nothing. House prices went through a period of massive inflation and we have a generation that seems to think they worked for that benefit. Well they just struck lucky and the effect is the next generation won't only not have that opportunity, they start in a far worse place where few will be able to buy housing without a great deal of help. By the way, it is interesting I am a lone voice on this site. I guess it shows the demographic of HOL contributors. Including myself. Edited by Mapletree (13 Jun 2017 9.44am)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
europalace  Europe 13 Jun 17 10.04am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
I am happy for unemployed people to be surcharged as long as they can afford it. That is the point. I don't propose we should increase taxation on anyone that doesn't have money. Just on those who have benefited in a one-off fashion from unrepeatable benefits. No Defined Benefit pension scheme of which I am aware pays for itself, they all took/are taking extra payments from their companies in the private sector and are a long term drain in the public sector. Many private schemes had payment holidays to boot, so the employees often paid little or nothing. House prices went through a period of massive inflation and we have a generation that seems to think they worked for that benefit. Well they just struck lucky and the effect is the next generation won't only not have that opportunity, they start in a far worse place where few will be able to buy housing without a great deal of help. By the way, it is interesting I am a lone voice on this site. I guess it shows the demographic of HOL contributors. Including myself. Edited by Mapletree (13 Jun 2017 9.44am)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 becky over the moon 13 Jun 17 10.24am |
 |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
Not only did you have the opportunity to pay no tax on your pension contributions, you have never paid any NIC on them or on the benefits you now draw. Most people 'paid in' to the social system for 40 to 45 years, they retire now with an expectation of at least 30 years of no NI contribution and a high expectation of health services. Does anyone really feel that their contribution and that of their employer is anywhere near enough to give them free health support in perpetuity? I see no reason why payment should stop at retirement, it's surely the same argument as for tax. It is of course dependent upon earning enough to hit the threshold. Simply sponging from the younger generations that will have to fund them, then controlling the young people through their dominance over housing, the National Trust (don't get me started) and the promise of an inheritance at some point. Theresa surely had a logic - and she wouldn't have launched such an unpopular initiative without cause.
Oh, and just for the record, I made all those payments, continuously for just over 46 years, and do you know what, no matter what you or anyone else may say I do not and never will feel like a 'scrounger' I held down 3 jobs (one full time and 2 part time) over several years just to afford the deposit on my first wreck of a maisonette - my start on the housing ladder.
A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator |
|
| Midlands Eagle 13 Jun 17 10.35am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
By the way, it is interesting I am a lone voice on this site. I guess it shows the demographic of HOL contributors. Including myself. You're not a lone voice actually but I expect that you'd hate to find that you are of the same opinion as me on something You read all these stories about old people being forced to sell their houses that they worked all their lives for whilst people that live in rented accommodation will have their care costs paid for but that is a false picture. Taking my own family as an example my parents bought their detached house in a leafy Surrey suburb just over 40 years ago. I've no idea how much it's now worth but I'd guess at North of £650,000 but they only paid £8,500 for it and probably finished paying for it 15 plus years ago so they are the lucky recipients of ridiculous house price inflation over the years. Compare that to people who have paid rent all their lives and possibly after 60 years still are. Secondly you did say that the elderly should pay NIC on their income and again I agree with you as long as the income limits are sensible. Just because someone is elderly doesn't mean that they are necessarily poor and in fact I have earned considerably more since I turned 65 than I ever did when younger
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Lyons550 Shirley 13 Jun 17 10.38am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
OK, so most people know my views. Here is the exam question. How do we stop older people bankrupting the younger generation with their increasing health needs despite them sitting on gold mines in pension pots and housing equity. My first move, put NIC on pensions. It's bizarre that older people burn disproportionate amounts of social funds yet don't contribute any more. Move the thresholds up if necessary. Edited by Mapletree (12 Jun 2017 11.25pm) The current approach is 'prevention', that's why expensive A&E's are being closed/moved at the same time these new Super Surgeries are being built. It encourages people to not appear at the 'acute' part of the system for a cut or twisted ankle allowing Hospitals to be the 'last resort'. Alongside this closer working between Health Partners and Social care is developing, improving education and support in how we can live longer healthier lives. As I said on another thread...surely it wont be too long before at 60 you get a Gym Pass instead of Bus Pass. There is already evidence in a number of studies that Dementia is likely to decline, due to the improvement in our general well being as a society.
The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Lyons550 Shirley 13 Jun 17 10.46am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman
Sugar tax. Obesity is the biggest cause of costs to the NHS. If you get fat, you're likely to get sick. The human body isn't built to have a BMI of 30, 35, 40 and being the weight of 2 people. Unless you're suffering psychologically, those pasties, crisps, chocolate and litres of coke everyday containing lots of sugar syrup is going to make you fatter. Edited by Rudi Hedman (13 Jun 2017 9.38am)
The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| npn Crowborough 13 Jun 17 10.56am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
I am happy for unemployed people to be surcharged as long as they can afford it. That is the point. I don't propose we should increase taxation on anyone that doesn't have money. Just on those who have benefited in a one-off fashion from unrepeatable benefits. No Defined Benefit pension scheme of which I am aware pays for itself, they all took/are taking extra payments from their companies in the private sector and are a long term drain in the public sector. Many private schemes had payment holidays to boot, so the employees often paid little or nothing. House prices went through a period of massive inflation and we have a generation that seems to think they worked for that benefit. Well they just struck lucky and the effect is the next generation won't only not have that opportunity, they start in a far worse place where few will be able to buy housing without a great deal of help. By the way, it is interesting I am a lone voice on this site. I guess it shows the demographic of HOL contributors. Including myself. Edited by Mapletree (13 Jun 2017 9.44am) It all depends on how you define "can afford it". If someone has scrimped and saved over their entire working lives to ensure a comfortable retirement, is it right that they are now penalised because they "can afford it"? I had this when my parents retired - never owned a house (unluckily went down the private landlord rather than council route or they would probably have had a right to buy) and then suddenly everything they had saved was going on rent, as they watched their peers who had never put anything aside getting housing benefit instead, and were, quite understandably, asking themselves why they'd bothered being frugal when they would have ended up in exactly the same position, but having had less luxuries up to that point. The point of tax relief on pensions is surely to encourage people to put money away for a retirement and not then be a burden on the state? Start making it not cost effective to save, and you get an even bigger increase in elderly people running out of cash and needing support. The inheritance tax I totally get - the recipient has not earned the money and therefore there's a good argument that it should be increased and, as I will be getting no inheritance regardless, it doesn't really apply to me anyway, but pensions, nah!
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 13 Jun 17 10.56am |
|
|---|---|
|
Hmm who would have thought that a policy of cutting taxes and providing means of avoiding tax through specific exemption policy or programs would have any long term impact on society. Of course by privatising elderly care we haven't exactly done ourselves any favours. This is the society that generation wanted and voted for.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Midlands Eagle 13 Jun 17 10.57am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Lyons550
It already is in many cases as this country would be in a far poorer economic state if it wasn't for the income so generously provided by smokers and drinkers
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 13 Jun 17 10.58am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by npn
It all depends on how you define "can afford it". If someone has scrimped and saved over their entire working lives to ensure a comfortable retirement, is it right that they are now penalised because they "can afford it"? I had this when my parents retired - never owned a house (unluckily went down the private landlord rather than council route or they would probably have had a right to buy) and then suddenly everything they had saved was going on rent, as they watched their peers who had never put anything aside getting housing benefit instead, and were, quite understandably, asking themselves why they'd bothered being frugal when they would have ended up in exactly the same position, but having had less luxuries up to that point. The point of tax relief on pensions is surely to encourage people to put money away for a retirement and not then be a burden on the state? Start making it not cost effective to save, and you get an even bigger increase in elderly people running out of cash and needing support. The inheritance tax I totally get - the recipient has not earned the money and therefore there's a good argument that it should be increased and, as I will be getting no inheritance regardless, it doesn't really apply to me anyway, but pensions, nah! I think it was entirely about winning votes, by providing a means that the slightly better off and higher in society, could effectively maximise their returns on their salary / dividends.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| hedgehog50 Croydon 13 Jun 17 11.02am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
I think it was entirely about winning votes, by providing a means that the slightly better off and higher in society, could effectively maximise their returns on their salary / dividends. Yes, we can't have that, can't encourage people to behave responsibly. Give all the money of people who have it to those that don't, that will solve everything.
We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men. [Orwell] |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.