opinions4u Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 (edited) What I would be doing personally is start means testing a lot of OAP benefits. If you have nothing you get support... If you have a lot you get less or nothing So you would be saying to a younger population .... "piss your money away now and we'll look after you later; save your money for when you need it in later life and we'll reward those who didn't and give you nothing"? Edited March 25, 2012 by opinions4u Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 So you would be saying to a younger population .... "piss your money away now and we'll look after you later; save your money for when you need it in later life and we'll reward those who didn't"? That is the current situation... Coming in next year is a requirement for companies to start paying into their employers pension pots, 3% for a 5% employee contribution ... I would make this mandatory for a start... I don't think anyone aspires to sit on any form of benefits alone... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 That is the current situation... Not with pensions it isn't. Apologies but I've edited my previous post as it wasn't totally clear. At present everybody gets the same from the state regardless what other provision they have (subject to a few anomolies of the NI system). Changing to a system that rewards those who don't make their own arrangements for retirement and penalises those who do simply incentivises doing the minimum possible to prepare for retirement. We've already had 30 years of pensions stupidity from successive governments - taxing fund surpluses, taxing dividend reinvestment (the final nail in the coffin of final salary schemes), delaying increasing the state retirement age despite clear demographic shifts that double the amount of time people are retired for, the crazy non-funded NI system and the even crazier non-funded state sector schemes that make the national debt look tiny. Coming in next year is a requirement for companies to start paying into their employers pension pots, 3% for a 5% employee contribution ... I would make this mandatory for a start... Not only mandatory, but you also need to consider how to get the figures up to 25% plus of income being saved for retirement. Do it in one go and many individuals will be goosed and the whole economy would sink due to a cesation of consumption. But the reality is 8% of income being saved for retirement isn't going to be bothering the tax thresholds that are currently causing so much concern to senior citizens. I don't think anyone aspires to sit on any form of benefits alone... Most don't. But incentivise doing nothing (or next to nothing) to fund your own retirement and people will do exactly that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bossrocks Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 For universal benefits ? Well the biggest and easiest one to defend is the NHS... The right to be treated no matter what your financial position... I mean thats a no brainer to me... Unless you want a two track NHS and so (which we are getting)... But I guess you are more on about Child Benefit in particular ?... Which is much harder to defend... Along the same lines as its hard to defend winter fuel payments for everyone... I am not being drawn into that argument because ultimately I think its right that we withdraw it while the country is in a mess. Yes the NHS is great but what justification can you give for wealthy people being entitled to state-funded health care? Why's it a no-brainer? Yes I was referring more to cash payments and freebies such as winter fuel allowance, TV licences, concessionary bus travel and child benefits. The only justification for those I can think of would be if the cost of determining eligibility was greater the cost of giving benefit to all. (I'm playing devil's advocate to some extent). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Yes the NHS is great but what justification can you give for wealthy people being entitled to state-funded health care? Why's it a no-brainer? Yes I was referring more to cash payments and freebies such as winter fuel allowance, TV licences, concessionary bus travel and child benefits. The only justification for those I can think of would be if the cost of determining eligibility was greater the cost of giving benefit to all. (I'm playing devil's advocate to some extent). Because its more cost-efficient. One Healthcare provider means one set of administrators, managers, doctors (including juniors), nurses etc. The US spends significantly more of its GDP on healthcare than us, not for better quality (which it probably is) but because of instead of having one nurse etc. they have 4 doing the same work because the paymaster is different. This is one of the many reasons why I'm against the new health care bill- as it will create jobs in large NHS trusts and other organisations which don't need to exist in order to improve patient care. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 Because its more cost-efficient. One Healthcare provider means one set of administrators, managers, doctors (including juniors), nurses etc. That's also why the Soviet Union had better supermarkets and cars than we had in the West. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bossrocks Posted March 25, 2012 Share Posted March 25, 2012 That's also why the Soviet Union had better supermarkets and cars than we had in the West. Bingo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 No you haven't, you've just made a cheap soundbite "The young are being mugged by the old and it can't continue" You haven't explained how a basic state pension of £102.15 is mugging the young. How exactly ? How low would you like it to go to ? As for preaching to the converted, you assume quite a lot there. So pardon me for assuming that people would like to see tax loopholes for the wealthy closed and companies such as Vodafone pay their tax liability of 6 billion pounds before taking money off OAP's. Yes, the welfare bill is too high, what do you expect when employers pay their staff minimun wage and the state picks up the bill via tax credits ? Osborne has just reduced the 50p tax rate under the bizarre assumption that the rich who avoided paying tax at 50p will now be quite willing to pay at 45p. The man's in cloud cuckoo land, or more likely he just wants to dole out more dosh to his rich chums. We do face very hard choices but hitting out at the most vulnerable in society isn't the answer. To qualify that, the poor are not all vunerable, in fact on average the OECD recognises that older peoples income rises faster than that of the young. The old also have great sway over politics, why, because they vote. The Chief Exec of MORI stated last week that you can do what you want to the young, because they don't bother to vote you out if you do. At the end of the day, the budget did bugger all for all those unemployed youngsters out there and what do we here, the well organsised pressure groups representing the Old shouting there say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Yes the NHS is great but what justification can you give for wealthy people being entitled to state-funded health care? Why's it a no-brainer? Yes I was referring more to cash payments and freebies such as winter fuel allowance, TV licences, concessionary bus travel and child benefits. The only justification for those I can think of would be if the cost of determining eligibility was greater the cost of giving benefit to all. (I'm playing devil's advocate to some extent). The wealthy pay more in taxes than others, so it makes complete sense that they should be entitled to state-funded health care. If you don't allow them to use, why should they pay for it? Which would then lead to a two tier system anyway where they would just buy the health care they need and the NHS would have less funding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 the budget did bugger all for all those unemployed youngsters out there I suppose the theory is that lowering Corporation Tax will encourage businesses to trade here and employ people here. It will take 18-24 months to start impacting the unemployment figures though. During which time the state will be cutting back on it's employee numbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beag_teeets Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 I suppose the theory is that lowering Corporation Tax will encourage businesses to trade here and employ people here. It will take 18-24 months to start impacting the unemployment figures though. During which time the state will be cutting back on it's employee numbers. I struggle with the tory thinking here, business are not going to employ more people if there is no demand for their goods and services. Businesses are laying off people as there is no demand, until people start spending there won't be demand, tax cuts to the top isn't going to stimulate demand, putting cash in the hands of the people much lower down will see them spending. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 putting cash in the hands of the people much lower down will see them spending. Which the acceleration of the increase in tax thresholds does. Unless you're knocking on a bit . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beag_teeets Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Which the acceleration of the increase in tax thresholds does. Unless you're knocking on a bit . That increase will put about £200 a year in our sweaty mitts. Better than a kick in the teeth but isn't going to make me splash out and do something reckless like fill my car up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimsleftfoot Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 I suppose the theory is that lowering Corporation Tax will encourage businesses to trade here and employ people here. It will take 18-24 months to start impacting the unemployment figures though. During which time the state will be cutting back on it's employee numbers. I would agree that by reducing costs, it could make it easier in the future for businesses to employ young people. Just not in Greggs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 I would agree that by reducing costs, it could make it easier in the future for businesses to employ young people. Just not in Greggs. Pasties at 2 for £1 in Oldham, £1.20ish in London - hence why it's crazy that the national pay rates the Government offer have to go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Not really, I am all for people understanding that they will have to take care of themselves in the future, but I do feel a great deal of sympathy for people who believed the great lie that they were paying into a system that would take care of them and for whom it's too late to make alternative arrangements. Can everyone just get one fact straight please? The Budget is an annual account. What comes in from taxes in that one year goes out in that one year. The difference is made up in that one year by Government borrowing. No one "pays in" to a state pension in that sense. This year's taxes pay for this year's pensions. Just because you paid in this year doesn't mean you're entitled to something next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobOAFC Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 I struggle with the tory thinking here, business are not going to employ more people if there is no demand for their goods and services. Businesses are laying off people as there is no demand, until people start spending there won't be demand, tax cuts to the top isn't going to stimulate demand, putting cash in the hands of the people much lower down will see them spending. Depends what industry they are in and whether the good/service is a necessity or not, price elastic/ inelastic etc.. But I do agree with your post, but with the current uncertainty in the economy, cash in the hands of the people much lower down may not see an increase in spending, or a large enough increase in spending to make an impact on the economy as they are more likely to keep it saved whilst the economy is uncertain, even if the the rate of interest is low. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leeslover Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Can everyone just get one fact straight please? The Budget is an annual account. What comes in from taxes in that one year goes out in that one year. The difference is made up in that one year by Government borrowing. No one "pays in" to a state pension in that sense. This year's taxes pay for this year's pensions. Just because you paid in this year doesn't mean you're entitled to something next year. This is true - but that's not what people were given to understand. There must be a reason that NI was called what it was rather than, "Tax deducted from your salary for immediate consumption. When I'm being (especially) pedantic I refused to describe things such as the 45p change as a tax cut. It is a tax raise - the Chancellor came to present his Budget and decided that he was going to raise a 45p in the pound taxation against income over a certain level. He didn't have to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peanuts Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 That increase will put about £200 a year in our sweaty mitts. Better than a kick in the teeth but isn't going to make me splash out and do something reckless like FILL MY CAR UP . think you need to tanker drivers going on strike for a day "panic buy " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Ritchie Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Greggs tax. Cigs tax. Booze tax. Regional pay. Redundancies No employment initiatives The Tories hate the north. The Tories hate the poor. But boy do they love homosexual exploration at private schools. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaticsPete Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 "Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of motives, will somehow work for the benefit of all". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.