Tax on pensioners proposed
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
 Lyons550  Shirley 09 May 18 2.23pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Spiderman
Rental prices in particular the SE are ridiculous. Kids going to University have no chance of saving (see my previous post), please don't blame them for not having any savings. Do they have to go to University though?
The Voice of Reason In An Otherwise Mediocre World |
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
  |
 becky over the moon 09 May 18 2.32pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
There's something rather wonderfully ironic in the fact that Lord David Willetts, as Executive Chair of the Resolution Foundation who propose this grab from pensioners to help young people, including those burdened by student loan debt to get on in life, is the very same man who as Universities Minister introduced (and increase) the bloody student loans that blighted their chances in the first place.
A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator |
|
| Mapletree Croydon 09 May 18 2.34pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hrolf The Ganger
Do what? I assure you that people earning over 45k pay NI. Don't be so full of yourself. The people that are currently retired didn't pay NIC above £45k for most of their lives. The 1% above £45k only came in from 2003. It then moved to 2% from 2011.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mapletree Croydon 09 May 18 2.37pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by becky
Of course, if all those selfish Generation X and Millennials actually took care of their elderly relations themselves instead of expecting the State to to so, as previous generations have, there wouldn't be all those pesky old people bed-blocking and needing care home places. Tongue also very firmly in cheek My experience is that the currently retired people were dreadful at looking after their parents. Very selfish generation from just post war. They were also rubbish at looking after their grandchildren
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Hrolf The Ganger 09 May 18 2.56pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
Don't be so full of yourself. The people that are currently retired didn't pay NIC above £45k for most of their lives. The 1% above £45k only came in from 2003. It then moved to 2% from 2011. Yawn.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Midlands Eagle 09 May 18 3.03pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
My experience is that the currently retired people were dreadful at looking after their parents. Very selfish generation from just post war. They were also rubbish at looking after their grandchildren As one of the group that you are referring to I must heartily disagree with you as the decline in family values started well after my generation
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mapletree Croydon 09 May 18 3.10pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
But that is not what is proposed. It is a tax on working pensioners not all pensioners. I don't work and would be exempt yet I might be better off than those taxed. For the record I actually agree with you it seems odd that the people who use the system most by and large don't contribute. All pensioners should contribute something unless they are really poor. As for free prescriptions the system is a joke and has been abused for years.
Quite so. I find the argument that people have a right to free NHS treatment when retired - as they contributed all of their lives - risible. The calculation is complex but let's say they mostly paid in - in today's money - around £2,000 to £2,500 per annum. Currently the NHS spend is around £2,200 per person. 31.5m people are in work of a population totaling 66.5m. So the amount each working person would need to contribute per year to cover current needs is over £4,600. Alternatively an individual that lives for 80 years and works for 50 would need to pay in £3,520 per annum to have 'banked' enough to pay for their inclusion in the system. It's a well rehearsed point that our current retirees - if they have pensions - probably have defined benefit ones. These are crippling businesses like British Airways, BT and Royal Mail and allowing competitors to overtake them. Why shouldn't such people contribute for the increasing costs of their healthcare. The cost per head when the NHS started up was approx £230 in today's money. So in real terms it has risen nearly ten fold, including due to an increasingly aging population.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| npn Crowborough 09 May 18 3.12pm |
|
|---|---|
|
hands up - I think I may have read the proposal wrong. Taking tax from money already earned - NO, but if, as I think I understand now, they are talking about taxing anything you earn (i.e. work for, earn, pay tax on, just like everyone else) - I'm fine with that. Age should make no difference to how much tax you are liable for (just how much you earn, i.e. if you're under the tax threshold)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mapletree Croydon 09 May 18 3.14pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Midlands Eagle
As one of the group that you are referring to I must heartily disagree with you as the decline in family values started well after my generation My children have never benefited from an active grandparent, not one out of four. That is a common story from my age group, I hear it all the time. My children feel deeply saddened but also are not inclined to support their grandparents now when suddenly they want to engage for selfish reasons. I expect coming generations to do better on this point, not worse, from all I hear from the young people around me. And I do think my generation has learned the lesson having watched the previous generation spend its time and money on holidays and cars instead of family.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Mapletree Croydon 09 May 18 3.25pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Lyons550
Do they have to go to University though? Yeah, selfish kids. Fancy wanting to prepare themselves to compete in the global market. Should leave that to Canada, South Korea and Lithuania.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| elgrande bedford 09 May 18 3.50pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
Quite so. I find the argument that people have a right to free NHS treatment when retired - as they contributed all of their lives - risible. The calculation is complex but let's say they mostly paid in - in today's money - around £2,000 to £2,500 per annum. Currently the NHS spend is around £2,200 per person. 31.5m people are in work of a population totaling 66.5m. So the amount each working person would need to contribute per year to cover current needs is over £4,600. Alternatively an individual that lives for 80 years and works for 50 would need to pay in £3,520 per annum to have 'banked' enough to pay for their inclusion in the system. It's a well rehearsed point that our current retirees - if they have pensions - probably have defined benefit ones. These are crippling businesses like British Airways, BT and Royal Mail and allowing competitors to overtake them. Why shouldn't such people contribute for the increasing costs of their healthcare. The cost per head when the NHS started up was approx £230 in today's money. So in real terms it has risen nearly ten fold, including due to an increasingly aging population. Well for a start the post office screwed over the workers on their pensions,and that's before it was sold off.
always a Norwood boy, where ever I live. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| becky over the moon 09 May 18 3.58pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
Quite so. I find the argument that people have a right to free NHS treatment when retired - as they contributed all of their lives - risible. The calculation is complex but let's say they mostly paid in - in today's money - around £2,000 to £2,500 per annum. Currently the NHS spend is around £2,200 per person. 31.5m people are in work of a population totaling 66.5m. So the amount each working person would need to contribute per year to cover current needs is over £4,600. Alternatively an individual that lives for 80 years and works for 50 would need to pay in £3,520 per annum to have 'banked' enough to pay for their inclusion in the system. It's a well rehearsed point that our current retirees - if they have pensions - probably have defined benefit ones. These are crippling businesses like British Airways, BT and Royal Mail and allowing competitors to overtake them. Why shouldn't such people contribute for the increasing costs of their healthcare. The cost per head when the NHS started up was approx £230 in today's money. So in real terms it has risen nearly ten fold, including due to an increasingly aging population. So, by your criteria, if contributions made do not permit retirees to free healthcare after retirement, I would ask where you stand on those who have NEVER made ANY contribution to the welfare system? Non-working spouses, benefit claimants & children - after all if one's contributions do not cover one's own costs why, by your precedent, should your children's be entitled either? Where do you draw the line on eligibility over contribution?
A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.