FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Inflation and the state pension
Inflation and the state pension
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *abio OP Man
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
With all the things regarding inflation at the moment, rishi has confirmed that pensioners will get the full increase next year… so whatever the inflation rate is in October that is what it will go up by next April
Also remember that pensioners will also get 1000 pounds for their heating (400 plus 300 plus winter fuel allowance)
So… bearing in mind that pensioners are more likely to vote.. and vote conservative… is this pandering to your most loyal crowd |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
I’d say it is both.
Doubt many would argue against looking after pensioners, as Costa says, they have paid their dues (and many are vulnerable financially still so help is good and right).
The knock on effect/benefit to the Tories is also true but on this occasion it doesn’t make it wrong. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ostafunMan
over a year ago
near ipswich |
"I’d say it is both.
Doubt many would argue against looking after pensioners, as Costa says, they have paid their dues (and many are vulnerable financially still so help is good and right).
The knock on effect/benefit to the Tories is also true but on this occasion it doesn’t make it wrong."
exactly otherwise you could argue that anything a government does that helps anyone is done to win votes when all a government is doing is what it’s voted in for. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No it’s looking after the people who have put into society all their lives and need help. I can’t believe that someone is trying to make looking after the elderly a Tory ploy to get voters  "
I generally agree. Although it is bizarre to see the Tories doing something FOR British people. I think we're so used to them serving the needs of their backers and corporate sponsors that it feels weird to see this. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No it’s looking after the people who have put into society all their lives and need help. I can’t believe that someone is trying to make looking after the elderly a Tory ploy to get voters
I generally agree. Although it is bizarre to see the Tories doing something FOR British people. I think we're so used to them serving the needs of their backers and corporate sponsors that it feels weird to see this.  are BRITISH people not getting the extra payments to help ease the crisis didn’t any of them get furlough throughout the pandemic your bias is unbelievable "
Look, I was actually agreeing with you, and you still try to pick an argument.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No it’s looking after the people who have put into society all their lives and need help. I can’t believe that someone is trying to make looking after the elderly a Tory ploy to get voters "
Agreed. Don’t worry, it’s just the rabid socialist worker losers. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"No it’s looking after the people who have put into society all their lives and need help. I can’t believe that someone is trying to make looking after the elderly a Tory ploy to get voters "
I cannot believe, after all this time, people believe Tories do not have their own agenda. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"No it’s looking after the people who have put into society all their lives and need help. I can’t believe that someone is trying to make looking after the elderly a Tory ploy to get voters
I generally agree. Although it is bizarre to see the Tories doing something FOR British people. I think we're so used to them serving the needs of their backers and corporate sponsors that it feels weird to see this. are BRITISH people not getting the extra payments to help ease the crisis didn’t any of them get furlough throughout the pandemic your bias is unbelievable I agree the British people where well looked after through the pandemic "
Correction - SOME/MANY people were well looked after. There were approx 3-4 million self employed and small Ltd Co Directors who did not get a penny. Nada. Zilch. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"No it’s looking after the people who have put into society all their lives and need help. I can’t believe that someone is trying to make looking after the elderly a Tory ploy to get voters
I generally agree. Although it is bizarre to see the Tories doing something FOR British people. I think we're so used to them serving the needs of their backers and corporate sponsors that it feels weird to see this. are BRITISH people not getting the extra payments to help ease the crisis didn’t any of them get furlough throughout the pandemic your bias is unbelievable "
Fuel gains to the govt total approx 50% and the chancellor oh so generously gave us 5p off. Since that has occurred the govt has got triple that back - Oh. So. Generous. 
If fuel remains high or continues to increase, it'll be a voting winner . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Sticking to the agreed approach doesn't feel like pandering.
However the Tories do need to square off saying yes to this with their approach elsewhere.
While pensions don't feed directly into prices, they need to be funded. That will either bleed through as price increases ... Or create greater cost of livings as ppl get taxes more.
I also do subscribe to the simple "they paid their dues" argument. The demographic have changed and so they were supporting fewer pensioners with a lower life expectancy. If there is an intergenerational promise, it needs to be fairer ... Which likely leads to immigration to plump up the workforce. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rFunBoyMan
over a year ago
Longridge |
"With all the things regarding inflation at the moment, rishi has confirmed that pensioners will get the full increase next year… so whatever the inflation rate is in October that is what it will go up by next April
Also remember that pensioners will also get 1000 pounds for their heating (400 plus 300 plus winter fuel allowance)
So… bearing in mind that pensioners are more likely to vote.. and vote conservative… is this pandering to your most loyal crowd "
11 million pensioners, aroubd 2 million struggling. Should have frozen as 9 million 'are doing ok' and living mortgage free.
Money saved could have been given as Credits to those struggling and the rest to the families unable to feed their kids.
As already said - buying votes by protecting the ones Thatcher made wealthy, further enhanced with generous Public Sector pensions.
Wish I was 20 years older, I'd be on easy street.
Nurses were absolutely shafted 4 years ago, let's see what they get offered this time around. Won't be anything like inflation or the bankers bonuses they are about to allow as it seems the damage they did in 2007 has now been forgiven!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"With all the things regarding inflation at the moment, rishi has confirmed that pensioners will get the full increase next year… so whatever the inflation rate is in October that is what it will go up by next April
Also remember that pensioners will also get 1000 pounds for their heating (400 plus 300 plus winter fuel allowance)
So… bearing in mind that pensioners are more likely to vote.. and vote conservative… is this pandering to your most loyal crowd
11 million pensioners, aroubd 2 million struggling. Should have frozen as 9 million 'are doing ok' and living mortgage free.
Money saved could have been given as Credits to those struggling and the rest to the families unable to feed their kids.
As already said - buying votes by protecting the ones Thatcher made wealthy, further enhanced with generous Public Sector pensions.
Wish I was 20 years older, I'd be on easy street.
Nurses were absolutely shafted 4 years ago, let's see what they get offered this time around. Won't be anything like inflation or the bankers bonuses they are about to allow as it seems the damage they did in 2007 has now been forgiven!!"
Do you know how much (or little) the state pension is? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Sticking to the agreed approach doesn't feel like pandering.
However the Tories do need to square off saying yes to this with their approach elsewhere.
While pensions don't feed directly into prices, they need to be funded. That will either bleed through as price increases ... Or create greater cost of livings as ppl get taxes more.
I also do subscribe to the simple "they paid their dues" argument. The demographic have changed and so they were supporting fewer pensioners with a lower life expectancy. If there is an intergenerational promise, it needs to be fairer ... Which likely leads to immigration to plump up the workforce. "
We have already immigration to plump up the workforce. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"No it’s looking after the people who have put into society all their lives and need help. I can’t believe that someone is trying to make looking after the elderly a Tory ploy to get voters
I generally agree. Although it is bizarre to see the Tories doing something FOR British people. I think we're so used to them serving the needs of their backers and corporate sponsors that it feels weird to see this. are BRITISH people not getting the extra payments to help ease the crisis didn’t any of them get furlough throughout the pandemic your bias is unbelievable I agree the British people where well looked after through the pandemic
Correction - SOME/MANY people were well looked after. There were approx 3-4 million self employed and small Ltd Co Directors who did not get a penny. Nada. Zilch."
sorry yes most did but some where left fucked |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Sticking to the agreed approach doesn't feel like pandering.
However the Tories do need to square off saying yes to this with their approach elsewhere.
While pensions don't feed directly into prices, they need to be funded. That will either bleed through as price increases ... Or create greater cost of livings as ppl get taxes more.
I also do subscribe to the simple "they paid their dues" argument. The demographic have changed and so they were supporting fewer pensioners with a lower life expectancy. If there is an intergenerational promise, it needs to be fairer ... Which likely leads to immigration to plump up the workforce.
We have already immigration to plump up the workforce."
and we will need more as time goes on in order to keep both sides of the deal fair.
Imagine how costly the state pension would be per Brit if we didn't have immigration!!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
State pensions are basically a pyramid (Ponzi?) scheme that depends on having enough young workers paying tax to support the retired population.
Many/most first world countries have a crisis with generally negative native population growth and an increasingly older population (people living longer and therefore drawing a pension for longer).
Unpopular as it is with some people, that is one of the reasons Govts have encouraged/welcomed immigration, to ensure there are enough young people entering the workforce to pay for the pensions of, ironically, the old people who in many cases are anti immigrants (not just asylum seekers crossing the channel). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"State pensions are basically a pyramid (Ponzi?) scheme that depends on having enough young workers paying tax to support the retired population.
Many/most first world countries have a crisis with generally negative native population growth and an increasingly older population (people living longer and therefore drawing a pension for longer).
Unpopular as it is with some people, that is one of the reasons Govts have encouraged/welcomed immigration, to ensure there are enough young people entering the workforce to pay for the pensions of, ironically, the old people who in many cases are anti immigrants (not just asylum seekers crossing the channel)."
I’ve never met anyone that’s anti immigration. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
I’ve just looked this up and the perception that pensions are all financially vulnerable is not true.
Out of 11million pensioners between one and two million are classed as living in relative poverty which means they only have the state pension. Shows you how bad that is then.
Of those a third to a half are black or Asian which also shows the imbalance and should upset the rabid racists that they are getting anything.
So to say yes they all deserve it isn’t strictly true.
It’s the image of old and frail that comes through every time. Those golf clubs are not full of 90 year old ladies with walking frames.
I would give it on a means tested basis as a lot of pensioners are very wealthy and workers are taking pay cuts to subsidise them all.
Im not saying don’t help pensioners. I’m saying it’s not a case of they all need it. Some definitely do.
Similar to NHS workers . By all means give the cleaners the nurses doctors and general staff but any senior manager or director can afford less of an increase to enable more to be given to the lower paid. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
So, if you go through life doing all the good things- behave and learn at school, get a good job and work hard, follow a decent diet, no drinking to excess, no drugs, not obese. Have a family and raise them with good values, pay tax and NI all your working life, to be told you can’t have your pension - you should have pissed it up a wall, become a burden to the NHS etc.
sounds fair. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"State pensions are basically a pyramid (Ponzi?) scheme that depends on having enough young workers paying tax to support the retired population.
Many/most first world countries have a crisis with generally negative native population growth and an increasingly older population (people living longer and therefore drawing a pension for longer).
Unpopular as it is with some people, that is one of the reasons Govts have encouraged/welcomed immigration, to ensure there are enough young people entering the workforce to pay for the pensions of, ironically, the old people who in many cases are anti immigrants (not just asylum seekers crossing the channel).
I’ve never met anyone that’s anti immigration. "
There are at least 3 people on the forums who hate immigrants (granted they might just be trolls though ) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"State pensions are basically a pyramid (Ponzi?) scheme that depends on having enough young workers paying tax to support the retired population.
Many/most first world countries have a crisis with generally negative native population growth and an increasingly older population (people living longer and therefore drawing a pension for longer).
Unpopular as it is with some people, that is one of the reasons Govts have encouraged/welcomed immigration, to ensure there are enough young people entering the workforce to pay for the pensions of, ironically, the old people who in many cases are anti immigrants (not just asylum seekers crossing the channel).
I’ve never met anyone that’s anti immigration. "
I have. Plenty in fact. Generally, though not always, in the baby boomer crowd, ie those whose state pension relies on sufficient younger tax payers to fund. People saying things like “doesn’t feel like England anymore” or “nobody is speaking English on the bus” and such. There are plenty of opinion polls to back that up too and show the age split for opinions. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"State pensions are basically a pyramid (Ponzi?) scheme that depends on having enough young workers paying tax to support the retired population.
Many/most first world countries have a crisis with generally negative native population growth and an increasingly older population (people living longer and therefore drawing a pension for longer).
Unpopular as it is with some people, that is one of the reasons Govts have encouraged/welcomed immigration, to ensure there are enough young people entering the workforce to pay for the pensions of, ironically, the old people who in many cases are anti immigrants (not just asylum seekers crossing the channel).
I’ve never met anyone that’s anti immigration.
I have. Plenty in fact. Generally, though not always, in the baby boomer crowd, ie those whose state pension relies on sufficient younger tax payers to fund. People saying things like “doesn’t feel like England anymore” or “nobody is speaking English on the bus” and such. There are plenty of opinion polls to back that up too and show the age split for opinions."
Wow, real hate crimes listed there then. It’s in our national make up to whinge and moan - I do accept this increases as you get older. Got to keep you kids on your toes. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"State pensions are basically a pyramid (Ponzi?) scheme that depends on having enough young workers paying tax to support the retired population.
Many/most first world countries have a crisis with generally negative native population growth and an increasingly older population (people living longer and therefore drawing a pension for longer).
Unpopular as it is with some people, that is one of the reasons Govts have encouraged/welcomed immigration, to ensure there are enough young people entering the workforce to pay for the pensions of, ironically, the old people who in many cases are anti immigrants (not just asylum seekers crossing the channel).
I’ve never met anyone that’s anti immigration.
I have. Plenty in fact. Generally, though not always, in the baby boomer crowd, ie those whose state pension relies on sufficient younger tax payers to fund. People saying things like “doesn’t feel like England anymore” or “nobody is speaking English on the bus” and such. There are plenty of opinion polls to back that up too and show the age split for opinions.
Wow, real hate crimes listed there then. It’s in our national make up to whinge and moan - I do accept this increases as you get older. Got to keep you kids on your toes."
Race hate crimes are at an all time high |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"State pensions are basically a pyramid (Ponzi?) scheme that depends on having enough young workers paying tax to support the retired population.
Many/most first world countries have a crisis with generally negative native population growth and an increasingly older population (people living longer and therefore drawing a pension for longer).
Unpopular as it is with some people, that is one of the reasons Govts have encouraged/welcomed immigration, to ensure there are enough young people entering the workforce to pay for the pensions of, ironically, the old people who in many cases are anti immigrants (not just asylum seekers crossing the channel).
I’ve never met anyone that’s anti immigration.
I have. Plenty in fact. Generally, though not always, in the baby boomer crowd, ie those whose state pension relies on sufficient younger tax payers to fund. People saying things like “doesn’t feel like England anymore” or “nobody is speaking English on the bus” and such. There are plenty of opinion polls to back that up too and show the age split for opinions."
Isn't there a touch of irony in talking about the 'baby boomer crowd' criticising them for comments like 'nobody is speaking English on the bus'? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"State pensions are basically a pyramid (Ponzi?) scheme that depends on having enough young workers paying tax to support the retired population.
Many/most first world countries have a crisis with generally negative native population growth and an increasingly older population (people living longer and therefore drawing a pension for longer).
Unpopular as it is with some people, that is one of the reasons Govts have encouraged/welcomed immigration, to ensure there are enough young people entering the workforce to pay for the pensions of, ironically, the old people who in many cases are anti immigrants (not just asylum seekers crossing the channel).
I’ve never met anyone that’s anti immigration.
I have. Plenty in fact. Generally, though not always, in the baby boomer crowd, ie those whose state pension relies on sufficient younger tax payers to fund. People saying things like “doesn’t feel like England anymore” or “nobody is speaking English on the bus” and such. There are plenty of opinion polls to back that up too and show the age split for opinions.
Isn't there a touch of irony in talking about the 'baby boomer crowd' criticising them for comments like 'nobody is speaking English on the bus'?"
it’s just because immigration as been to rapid for them to get used to it nothing wrong in that |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"State pensions are basically a pyramid (Ponzi?) scheme that depends on having enough young workers paying tax to support the retired population.
Many/most first world countries have a crisis with generally negative native population growth and an increasingly older population (people living longer and therefore drawing a pension for longer).
Unpopular as it is with some people, that is one of the reasons Govts have encouraged/welcomed immigration, to ensure there are enough young people entering the workforce to pay for the pensions of, ironically, the old people who in many cases are anti immigrants (not just asylum seekers crossing the channel).
I’ve never met anyone that’s anti immigration.
I have. Plenty in fact. Generally, though not always, in the baby boomer crowd, ie those whose state pension relies on sufficient younger tax payers to fund. People saying things like “doesn’t feel like England anymore” or “nobody is speaking English on the bus” and such. There are plenty of opinion polls to back that up too and show the age split for opinions.
Isn't there a touch of irony in talking about the 'baby boomer crowd' criticising them for comments like 'nobody is speaking English on the bus'?it’s just because immigration as been to rapid for them to get used to it nothing wrong in that "
Immigration isn't a recent thing. Us baby boomers are well used to it. In fact one of us is the child of immigrants. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"State pensions are basically a pyramid (Ponzi?) scheme that depends on having enough young workers paying tax to support the retired population.
Many/most first world countries have a crisis with generally negative native population growth and an increasingly older population (people living longer and therefore drawing a pension for longer).
Unpopular as it is with some people, that is one of the reasons Govts have encouraged/welcomed immigration, to ensure there are enough young people entering the workforce to pay for the pensions of, ironically, the old people who in many cases are anti immigrants (not just asylum seekers crossing the channel).
I’ve never met anyone that’s anti immigration.
I have. Plenty in fact. Generally, though not always, in the baby boomer crowd, ie those whose state pension relies on sufficient younger tax payers to fund. People saying things like “doesn’t feel like England anymore” or “nobody is speaking English on the bus” and such. There are plenty of opinion polls to back that up too and show the age split for opinions.
Isn't there a touch of irony in talking about the 'baby boomer crowd' criticising them for comments like 'nobody is speaking English on the bus'?it’s just because immigration as been to rapid for them to get used to it nothing wrong in that
Immigration isn't a recent thing. Us baby boomers are well used to it. In fact one of us is the child of immigrants. "
but it is too fast for some older people |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"State pensions are basically a pyramid (Ponzi?) scheme that depends on having enough young workers paying tax to support the retired population.
Many/most first world countries have a crisis with generally negative native population growth and an increasingly older population (people living longer and therefore drawing a pension for longer).
Unpopular as it is with some people, that is one of the reasons Govts have encouraged/welcomed immigration, to ensure there are enough young people entering the workforce to pay for the pensions of, ironically, the old people who in many cases are anti immigrants (not just asylum seekers crossing the channel).
I’ve never met anyone that’s anti immigration.
I have. Plenty in fact. Generally, though not always, in the baby boomer crowd, ie those whose state pension relies on sufficient younger tax payers to fund. People saying things like “doesn’t feel like England anymore” or “nobody is speaking English on the bus” and such. There are plenty of opinion polls to back that up too and show the age split for opinions.
Isn't there a touch of irony in talking about the 'baby boomer crowd' criticising them for comments like 'nobody is speaking English on the bus'?it’s just because immigration as been to rapid for them to get used to it nothing wrong in that
Immigration isn't a recent thing. Us baby boomers are well used to it. In fact one of us is the child of immigrants. but it is too fast for some older people "
So you seem to think. I’m happy that the UK is not a racist infested shit hole. Far from it, one of the most tolerant nations on earth. We should be proud. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"With all the things regarding inflation at the moment, rishi has confirmed that pensioners will get the full increase next year… so whatever the inflation rate is in October that is what it will go up by next April
Also remember that pensioners will also get 1000 pounds for their heating (400 plus 300 plus winter fuel allowance)
So… bearing in mind that pensioners are more likely to vote.. and vote conservative… is this pandering to your most loyal crowd
11 million pensioners, aroubd 2 million struggling. Should have frozen as 9 million 'are doing ok' and living mortgage free.
Money saved could have been given as Credits to those struggling and the rest to the families unable to feed their kids.
As already said - buying votes by protecting the ones Thatcher made wealthy, further enhanced with generous Public Sector pensions.
Wish I was 20 years older, I'd be on easy street.
Nurses were absolutely shafted 4 years ago, let's see what they get offered this time around. Won't be anything like inflation or the bankers bonuses they are about to allow as it seems the damage they did in 2007 has now been forgiven!!
Do you know how much (or little) the state pension is?"
just shy of £10kp. Which you will get on average for 20 years. So c200k
Ignoring interest, you'd need to pay 4.4k pa from 20 to 65 to cover that. If that was paid from NI (at 13.25pc) you'd need to earn 33k pa for your NI to cover your pension.
Since 1960 the number of 20-65 versus 65+ has dropped from 5 to 1 to 3 to 1. Eg for every OAP a worker on 1960 was covering, a 2020 worker is covering almost double. The generational deal is "I paid for my grandfathers retirement, so its only fair you pay for mine and your grandmother's".
(I realise this isn't all your point, but the system is crap and the while point of state pension has been lost. It's stopped being a backstop in the last fews of life (if your reached 65 in 1980 your life expectancy was 25pc less than it is today. I'd imagine 1960 was even lower) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"So, if you go through life doing all the good things- behave and learn at school, get a good job and work hard, follow a decent diet, no drinking to excess, no drugs, not obese. Have a family and raise them with good values, pay tax and NI all your working life, to be told you can’t have your pension - you should have pissed it up a wall, become a burden to the NHS etc.
sounds fair."
Your missing the point.
Firstly what if the pensioner was a single care worker all her life and so wasn’t a lazy shirker she’s just manage to survive.
The government says there’s not enough money to pay everyone working for the government an increase in line with inflation.
So those who are in most need not overpaid vice chancellors in universities or NHS directors should get it.
My father paid supertax in his day and so he’s well due his pension but he also doesn’t need the state pension. He puts it into an account for his grandchildren.
Will he be upset if he got £500 and his neighbour got £1000? No because they need it more than he does. The state is there to help and provide a safety net not give you extra if you don’t need it.
A lot of those pensioners who have earnings related pensions had those paid by the low earning tax payer and did not contribute the full amount themselves so why should they benefit twice.
The same principal by this government says it’s ok for my dad to pay for my mothers care home in full but in the room next door could be a woman fully paid by the state.
It’s affordability not whether it’s morally right or not. We are either looking after people who need it or we’re not.
The fact that we pay tax credits to workers who are working full time shows you how bad and low workers pay is getting.
Btw there are scrounging lazy bums in all shapes and sizes. Politicians paying their wives to not work so do you want the same benefit?
Maybe you want to have your cash tax free like the owner of the daily Mail? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"I am a pensioner , widower . I get state pension. Plus others. Which apart from one are company pensions. The other a private which I paid out my my wages. On my private / company pensions. I am taxed. All pensions added together before tax go over the required limit for any other benefits. The inference by another poster that pensioners are well off apart from a couple of million means they have not got a clue what they are on about . "
That would be me
I didn’t say they were well off I said they are not all poor. Look at my age and ask yourself, has he thought about pensions?
I’ve employed a lot of people and had to know a fair bit about pensions so you are incorrect.
Also I think all pension contributions should be far more generously treated in relation to tax allowance as they were in the seventies. I’m in favour of unearned wealth being taxed higher such as property.
I want you to keep your pension not pay tax twice. Dividends then yes you pay tax.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rFunBoyMan
over a year ago
Longridge |
"With all the things regarding inflation at the moment, rishi has confirmed that pensioners will get the full increase next year… so whatever the inflation rate is in October that is what it will go up by next April
Also remember that pensioners will also get 1000 pounds for their heating (400 plus 300 plus winter fuel allowance)
So… bearing in mind that pensioners are more likely to vote.. and vote conservative… is this pandering to your most loyal crowd
11 million pensioners, aroubd 2 million struggling. Should have frozen as 9 million 'are doing ok' and living mortgage free.
Money saved could have been given as Credits to those struggling and the rest to the families unable to feed their kids.
As already said - buying votes by protecting the ones Thatcher made wealthy, further enhanced with generous Public Sector pensions.
Wish I was 20 years older, I'd be on easy street.
Nurses were absolutely shafted 4 years ago, let's see what they get offered this time around. Won't be anything like inflation or the bankers bonuses they are about to allow as it seems the damage they did in 2007 has now been forgiven!!
Do you know how much (or little) the state pension is?"
If you read my reply carefully and in the context it was written before jumping the gun.
Yes, and pound for pound, I also know how 'relatively poorer' many families are too..
So why blanket raise state pension for those with secondary pensions a d incomes.
I never said don't give those struggling extra, but many millions don't actually need it. A relative of mine is living in a £450k valued house, £180k in savings and nearly £1500 per month totalled up in pensions.
Does she need an increase when it's being stuffed into ISAs as it arrives. She does NOT need a rise as is the case for many others.
Government cash is not infinite, made worse by government squandering. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"With all the things regarding inflation at the moment, rishi has confirmed that pensioners will get the full increase next year… so whatever the inflation rate is in October that is what it will go up by next April
Also remember that pensioners will also get 1000 pounds for their heating (400 plus 300 plus winter fuel allowance)
So… bearing in mind that pensioners are more likely to vote.. and vote conservative… is this pandering to your most loyal crowd "
What would have been the response if they were not to get this rise. Proof if needed that whatever decisions are made, people will complain. This government has got many things wrong and lost my vote in the process, but when they occasionally get something right then surely that's good news |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"With all the things regarding inflation at the moment, rishi has confirmed that pensioners will get the full increase next year… so whatever the inflation rate is in October that is what it will go up by next April
Also remember that pensioners will also get 1000 pounds for their heating (400 plus 300 plus winter fuel allowance)
So… bearing in mind that pensioners are more likely to vote.. and vote conservative… is this pandering to your most loyal crowd
What would have been the response if they were not to get this rise. Proof if needed that whatever decisions are made, people will complain. This government has got many things wrong and lost my vote in the process, but when they occasionally get something right then surely that's good news"
It’s not right when millions more are becoming much worse off.
Give the pensioners a rise . Give them 20% if you like as we do have one of the worst state pensions in the west but only if we have the cash. Otherwise it’s means tested.
Imagine if the government hadn’t blown £37 billion on track and trace . That’s £3363 for each pensioner. Then add the tens of billions on PPE or the £11b on bond interest lost because of Sunaks stupidity. . That’s more than Gordon Brown lost selling our gold reserves. Throw in the hundreds of billions we’re losing over Brexit and there’s your issue.
The country is in a mess because of who’s in charge . The poor always end up picking up the tab. It’s why the richest 1% have become even more obscenely wealthy. Our government is the problem along with our tax system. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"With all the things regarding inflation at the moment, rishi has confirmed that pensioners will get the full increase next year… so whatever the inflation rate is in October that is what it will go up by next April
Also remember that pensioners will also get 1000 pounds for their heating (400 plus 300 plus winter fuel allowance)
So… bearing in mind that pensioners are more likely to vote.. and vote conservative… is this pandering to your most loyal crowd
What would have been the response if they were not to get this rise. Proof if needed that whatever decisions are made, people will complain. This government has got many things wrong and lost my vote in the process, but when they occasionally get something right then surely that's good news
It’s not right when millions more are becoming much worse off.
Give the pensioners a rise . Give them 20% if you like as we do have one of the worst state pensions in the west but only if we have the cash. Otherwise it’s means tested.
Imagine if the government hadn’t blown £37 billion on track and trace . That’s £3363 for each pensioner. Then add the tens of billions on PPE or the £11b on bond interest lost because of Sunaks stupidity. . That’s more than Gordon Brown lost selling our gold reserves. Throw in the hundreds of billions we’re losing over Brexit and there’s your issue.
The country is in a mess because of who’s in charge . The poor always end up picking up the tab. It’s why the richest 1% have become even more obscenely wealthy. Our government is the problem along with our tax system. "
Are you saying you agree giving pensioners the rise or disagree |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"With all the things regarding inflation at the moment, rishi has confirmed that pensioners will get the full increase next year… so whatever the inflation rate is in October that is what it will go up by next April
Also remember that pensioners will also get 1000 pounds for their heating (400 plus 300 plus winter fuel allowance)
So… bearing in mind that pensioners are more likely to vote.. and vote conservative… is this pandering to your most loyal crowd
What would have been the response if they were not to get this rise. Proof if needed that whatever decisions are made, people will complain. This government has got many things wrong and lost my vote in the process, but when they occasionally get something right then surely that's good news
It’s not right when millions more are becoming much worse off.
Give the pensioners a rise . Give them 20% if you like as we do have one of the worst state pensions in the west but only if we have the cash. Otherwise it’s means tested.
Imagine if the government hadn’t blown £37 billion on track and trace . That’s £3363 for each pensioner. Then add the tens of billions on PPE or the £11b on bond interest lost because of Sunaks stupidity. . That’s more than Gordon Brown lost selling our gold reserves. Throw in the hundreds of billions we’re losing over Brexit and there’s your issue.
The country is in a mess because of who’s in charge . The poor always end up picking up the tab. It’s why the richest 1% have become even more obscenely wealthy. Our government is the problem along with our tax system.
Are you saying you agree giving pensioners the rise or disagree"
I’ll quote my post again
“It’s not right when millions more are becoming much worse off.
Give the pensioners a rise . Give them 20% if you like as we do have one of the worst state pensions in the west but only if we have the cash. Otherwise it’s means tested.”
I “want” them all to get it but if the government can’t afford to give hospital cleaners more then why should a wealthier pensioner be given more when they don’t need it?
Remember a hospital cleaner can’t put great chunks of cash into a private pension because the pay is so poor.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"With all the things regarding inflation at the moment, rishi has confirmed that pensioners will get the full increase next year… so whatever the inflation rate is in October that is what it will go up by next April
Also remember that pensioners will also get 1000 pounds for their heating (400 plus 300 plus winter fuel allowance)
So… bearing in mind that pensioners are more likely to vote.. and vote conservative… is this pandering to your most loyal crowd
What would have been the response if they were not to get this rise. Proof if needed that whatever decisions are made, people will complain. This government has got many things wrong and lost my vote in the process, but when they occasionally get something right then surely that's good news
It’s not right when millions more are becoming much worse off.
Give the pensioners a rise . Give them 20% if you like as we do have one of the worst state pensions in the west but only if we have the cash. Otherwise it’s means tested.
Imagine if the government hadn’t blown £37 billion on track and trace . That’s £3363 for each pensioner. Then add the tens of billions on PPE or the £11b on bond interest lost because of Sunaks stupidity. . That’s more than Gordon Brown lost selling our gold reserves. Throw in the hundreds of billions we’re losing over Brexit and there’s your issue.
The country is in a mess because of who’s in charge . The poor always end up picking up the tab. It’s why the richest 1% have become even more obscenely wealthy. Our government is the problem along with our tax system.
Are you saying you agree giving pensioners the rise or disagree
I’ll quote my post again
“It’s not right when millions more are becoming much worse off.
Give the pensioners a rise . Give them 20% if you like as we do have one of the worst state pensions in the west but only if we have the cash. Otherwise it’s means tested.”
I “want” them all to get it but if the government can’t afford to give hospital cleaners more then why should a wealthier pensioner be given more when they don’t need it?
Remember a hospital cleaner can’t put great chunks of cash into a private pension because the pay is so poor.
"
That's a no from you then. Thanks. I personally think it's good but it's good to hear other views even if we disagree |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"With all the things regarding inflation at the moment, rishi has confirmed that pensioners will get the full increase next year… so whatever the inflation rate is in October that is what it will go up by next April
Also remember that pensioners will also get 1000 pounds for their heating (400 plus 300 plus winter fuel allowance)
So… bearing in mind that pensioners are more likely to vote.. and vote conservative… is this pandering to your most loyal crowd
What would have been the response if they were not to get this rise. Proof if needed that whatever decisions are made, people will complain. This government has got many things wrong and lost my vote in the process, but when they occasionally get something right then surely that's good news
It’s not right when millions more are becoming much worse off.
Give the pensioners a rise . Give them 20% if you like as we do have one of the worst state pensions in the west but only if we have the cash. Otherwise it’s means tested.
Imagine if the government hadn’t blown £37 billion on track and trace . That’s £3363 for each pensioner. Then add the tens of billions on PPE or the £11b on bond interest lost because of Sunaks stupidity. . That’s more than Gordon Brown lost selling our gold reserves. Throw in the hundreds of billions we’re losing over Brexit and there’s your issue.
The country is in a mess because of who’s in charge . The poor always end up picking up the tab. It’s why the richest 1% have become even more obscenely wealthy. Our government is the problem along with our tax system.
Are you saying you agree giving pensioners the rise or disagree
I’ll quote my post again
“It’s not right when millions more are becoming much worse off.
Give the pensioners a rise . Give them 20% if you like as we do have one of the worst state pensions in the west but only if we have the cash. Otherwise it’s means tested.”
I “want” them all to get it but if the government can’t afford to give hospital cleaners more then why should a wealthier pensioner be given more when they don’t need it?
Remember a hospital cleaner can’t put great chunks of cash into a private pension because the pay is so poor.
That's a no from you then. Thanks. I personally think it's good but it's good to hear other views even if we disagree"
Ha ha did you actually read it or did you think you read it?
Read it again |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abio OP Man
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"
Do you know how much (or little) the state pension is?"
£185.15 per week if they get get the maximum…
Let’s just use the BOE worst case estimate for inflation… if it’s 11% in October… that means the pension would basically go up by 20 pounds a week….
I am just trying to work out how the government square the circle between offering one group of people 11%… but then offering a nurse or a teacher for example 3%
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Do you know how much (or little) the state pension is?
£185.15 per week if they get get the maximum…
Let’s just use the BOE worst case estimate for inflation… if it’s 11% in October… that means the pension would basically go up by 20 pounds a week….
I am just trying to work out how the government square the circle between offering one group of people 11%… but then offering a nurse or a teacher for example 3%
"
Pensioners deserve the most as they have put in the most throughout their lifetime, and should get the most. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *JB1954Man
over a year ago
Reading |
"
Do you know how much (or little) the state pension is?
£185.15 per week if they get get the maximum…
Let’s just use the BOE worst case estimate for inflation… if it’s 11% in October… that means the pension would basically go up by 20 pounds a week….
I am just trying to work out how the government square the circle between offering one group of people 11%… but then offering a nurse or a teacher for example 3%
Pensioners deserve the most as they have put in the most throughout their lifetime, and should get the most. "
I get more than the average. £894 every four weeks. This is because of SERPS . As I said in my earlier post. Add all my pensions together , before tax, just over £1600. I do have some savings . I was earning a very good wage before retirement , long 12 hour shifts ,including nights and weekends. Then to go from my working income to pension is a shock. Yes have no mortgage and get discount on council tax. All other bills still need to be paid. Now what I have had to do is cut down on my social life . Which again other pensioners like myself have also done. Yes lucky because have private pensions to top up government one . But again money I would be spending socially is not helping say the businesses . Keeping them going and say employing people . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
If only there was a way to make sure the UK had more money in the bank to pay for stuff! I mean it’s not as if many of those big corporates register their HQ in tax havens and charge IP fees to their “subsidiaries” or very wealthy individuals syphon their riches into offshore shell companies and multiple trusts to avoid tax now is it...oh |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ercuryMan
over a year ago
Grantham |
"
Do you know how much (or little) the state pension is?
£185.15 per week if they get get the maximum…
Let’s just use the BOE worst case estimate for inflation… if it’s 11% in October… that means the pension would basically go up by 20 pounds a week….
I am just trying to work out how the government square the circle between offering one group of people 11%… but then offering a nurse or a teacher for example 3%
"
Do you think that they should scrap the triple lock rules, just because the high inflation rate is very inconvenient?
Just as next year when rail fares are calculated. July RPI + 1%. Going to be a hefty increase, and hardly a vote winner.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
Do you know how much (or little) the state pension is?
£185.15 per week if they get get the maximum…
Let’s just use the BOE worst case estimate for inflation… if it’s 11% in October… that means the pension would basically go up by 20 pounds a week….
I am just trying to work out how the government square the circle between offering one group of people 11%… but then offering a nurse or a teacher for example 3%
Do you think that they should scrap the triple lock rules, just because the high inflation rate is very inconvenient?
Just as next year when rail fares are calculated. July RPI + 1%. Going to be a hefty increase, and hardly a vote winner.
"
I don't think they are saying no to 10pc but asking why 10pc for some and 3pc for others.
Especially as (I'm guessing) the others will be hit by the trains increases. And have to find the 10pc of pensioners. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"With all the things regarding inflation at the moment, rishi has confirmed that pensioners will get the full increase next year… so whatever the inflation rate is in October that is what it will go up by next April
Also remember that pensioners will also get 1000 pounds for their heating (400 plus 300 plus winter fuel allowance)
So… bearing in mind that pensioners are more likely to vote.. and vote conservative… is this pandering to your most loyal crowd
What would have been the response if they were not to get this rise. Proof if needed that whatever decisions are made, people will complain. This government has got many things wrong and lost my vote in the process, but when they occasionally get something right then surely that's good news
It’s not right when millions more are becoming much worse off.
Give the pensioners a rise . Give them 20% if you like as we do have one of the worst state pensions in the west but only if we have the cash. Otherwise it’s means tested.
Imagine if the government hadn’t blown £37 billion on track and trace . That’s £3363 for each pensioner. Then add the tens of billions on PPE or the £11b on bond interest lost because of Sunaks stupidity. . That’s more than Gordon Brown lost selling our gold reserves. Throw in the hundreds of billions we’re losing over Brexit and there’s your issue.
The country is in a mess because of who’s in charge . The poor always end up picking up the tab. It’s why the richest 1% have become even more obscenely wealthy. Our government is the problem along with our tax system.
Are you saying you agree giving pensioners the rise or disagree
I’ll quote my post again
“It’s not right when millions more are becoming much worse off.
Give the pensioners a rise . Give them 20% if you like as we do have one of the worst state pensions in the west but only if we have the cash. Otherwise it’s means tested.”
I “want” them all to get it but if the government can’t afford to give hospital cleaners more then why should a wealthier pensioner be given more when they don’t need it?
Remember a hospital cleaner can’t put great chunks of cash into a private pension because the pay is so poor.
That's a no from you then. Thanks. I personally think it's good but it's good to hear other views even if we disagree
Ha ha did you actually read it or did you think you read it?
Read it again "
I'm still not sure then as your first words were its not right when millions are becoming much worse off. I know means testing has it's purpose but I feel with pensions it should be across the board |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
Quite happy for pensions to rise at the rate of the cost of living.
Not happy for government to simultaneously say that workers should exercise pay restraint lest it cause higher inflation.
Be consistent.
Certainly not happy that public sector employees (of which I am not one) should receive under inflation pay rises in good times and bad.
Even less happy that they are contemplating removing any controls on directors pay. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *rFunBoyMan
over a year ago
Longridge |
"
Do you know how much (or little) the state pension is?
£185.15 per week if they get get the maximum…
Let’s just use the BOE worst case estimate for inflation… if it’s 11% in October… that means the pension would basically go up by 20 pounds a week….
I am just trying to work out how the government square the circle between offering one group of people 11%… but then offering a nurse or a teacher for example 3%
Pensioners deserve the most as they have put in the most throughout their lifetime, and should get the most. "
Not all if them, some remaining on the dole and hand outs most of their lives. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I'm all for the pensions increasing with inflation. That should be the norm and goes without saying. But how can at the same time wages be suppressed. This seems madness. Who funds the pensions if wages don't increase at a similar rate. Surely that just means more borrowing. Also at least in the public sector. We will reach a point where those who have retired. Who have an index linked final or career average pension. Will very soon be taking more in pension than those who are still working and paying in.
That looks to me like a very perverse and broken economy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"With all the things regarding inflation at the moment, rishi has confirmed that pensioners will get the full increase next year… so whatever the inflation rate is in October that is what it will go up by next April
Also remember that pensioners will also get 1000 pounds for their heating (400 plus 300 plus winter fuel allowance)
So… bearing in mind that pensioners are more likely to vote.. and vote conservative… is this pandering to your most loyal crowd
What would have been the response if they were not to get this rise. Proof if needed that whatever decisions are made, people will complain. This government has got many things wrong and lost my vote in the process, but when they occasionally get something right then surely that's good news
It’s not right when millions more are becoming much worse off.
Give the pensioners a rise . Give them 20% if you like as we do have one of the worst state pensions in the west but only if we have the cash. Otherwise it’s means tested.
Imagine if the government hadn’t blown £37 billion on track and trace . That’s £3363 for each pensioner. Then add the tens of billions on PPE or the £11b on bond interest lost because of Sunaks stupidity. . That’s more than Gordon Brown lost selling our gold reserves. Throw in the hundreds of billions we’re losing over Brexit and there’s your issue.
The country is in a mess because of who’s in charge . The poor always end up picking up the tab. It’s why the richest 1% have become even more obscenely wealthy. Our government is the problem along with our tax system.
Are you saying you agree giving pensioners the rise or disagree
I’ll quote my post again
“It’s not right when millions more are becoming much worse off.
Give the pensioners a rise . Give them 20% if you like as we do have one of the worst state pensions in the west but only if we have the cash. Otherwise it’s means tested.”
I “want” them all to get it but if the government can’t afford to give hospital cleaners more then why should a wealthier pensioner be given more when they don’t need it?
Remember a hospital cleaner can’t put great chunks of cash into a private pension because the pay is so poor.
That's a no from you then. Thanks. I personally think it's good but it's good to hear other views even if we disagree
Ha ha did you actually read it or did you think you read it?
Read it again
I'm still not sure then as your first words were its not right when millions are becoming much worse off. I know means testing has it's purpose but I feel with pensions it should be across the board"
Yes that’s the point
The government are saying they can’t pay the workers 10% but they can pay pensioners 10% .
Not all workers some Directors for example need a 10% pay rise and in the same vain not all pensioners need a 10% pay rise.
My wish would be for all pensioners to get the same too but if the pot is to small then it’s too small.
Maybe if as another lister pointed out the race rules for giving money offshore legally was stopped then there would be enough to go around.
How can a company pay dividends to investors from profits but at the same time allow their workers to be forced to take a pay cut? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *I TwoCouple
over a year ago
PDI 12-26th Nov 24 |
"
Do you know how much (or little) the state pension is?
£185.15 per week if they get get the maximum…
Let’s just use the BOE worst case estimate for inflation… if it’s 11% in October… that means the pension would basically go up by 20 pounds a week….
I am just trying to work out how the government square the circle between offering one group of people 11%… but then offering a nurse or a teacher for example 3%
Pensioners deserve the most as they have put in the most throughout their lifetime, and should get the most.
Not all if them, some remaining on the dole and hand outs most of their lives."
Pension payments are related to NI contributions so career dolesters won't get a full pension but they will probably still get more in benefits...
It's not pensioners you should be concerned about loading the economy |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
Do you know how much (or little) the state pension is?
£185.15 per week if they get get the maximum…
Let’s just use the BOE worst case estimate for inflation… if it’s 11% in October… that means the pension would basically go up by 20 pounds a week….
I am just trying to work out how the government square the circle between offering one group of people 11%… but then offering a nurse or a teacher for example 3%
Pensioners deserve the most as they have put in the most throughout their lifetime, and should get the most.
Not all if them, some remaining on the dole and hand outs most of their lives.
Pension payments are related to NI contributions so career dolesters won't get a full pension but they will probably still get more in benefits...
It's not pensioners you should be concerned about loading the economy "
Some on here seem to begrudge paying anything to pensioners as they wrongly assume they all read the Daily Mail and vote conservative. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"
Do you know how much (or little) the state pension is?
£185.15 per week if they get get the maximum…
Let’s just use the BOE worst case estimate for inflation… if it’s 11% in October… that means the pension would basically go up by 20 pounds a week….
I am just trying to work out how the government square the circle between offering one group of people 11%… but then offering a nurse or a teacher for example 3%
Pensioners deserve the most as they have put in the most throughout their lifetime, and should get the most.
Not all if them, some remaining on the dole and hand outs most of their lives.
Pension payments are related to NI contributions so career dolesters won't get a full pension but they will probably still get more in benefits...
It's not pensioners you should be concerned about loading the economy
Some on here seem to begrudge paying anything to pensioners as they wrongly assume they all read the Daily Mail and vote conservative. "
Hmmm nice hot take but patently wrong I would say having read this thread and others. Nobody wants pensioners to be worse off, the issues are far wider than that.
The issue is:
1. State pension rising in line with inflation is a good thing.
2. Workers/taxpayers who fund the state pension are being told they should have pay restraint and not demand pay rises in line with inflation.
3. At the same time the govt has also removed any restrictions on bankers and senior exec pay which inevitably means that extra money won’t actually benefit the economy as much will be offshored.
4. Mere weeks ago Johnson was boasting about how he wants to create a high wage high growth economy.
None of this squares the circle and it is all contradictory. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Over the course of my life I have found that the closer one gets to pension age the more sympathetic one is to pensioners.
Don't believe the Saga adverts kids, we're not all dashing about on exotic holidays and doing yoga. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
Sorry my last paragraph made no sense .
Maybe if, as another poster pointed out the tax rules for squirrelling money offshore legally were changed then there would be enough to go around.
Also how can a company pay dividends to investors from profits but at the same time allow their workers to be forced to take a pay cut?
Maybe the rules on dividends need changing too. Maybe no more than 10% of profits to be paid in dividends. That way the money would go back into the business or pay better wages . Especially if the CEO’s pay was linked to a max multiple of the average worker.
Yes I know small plumbers etc pay themselves dividends but it’s all tax evasion of one sort or another. I’m hypocritical as I’ve paid myself dividends over the years but I’m in reality just avoiding tax.
We have the most complicated tax system in the world. It’s needs simplifying.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *JB1954Man
over a year ago
Reading |
"Over the course of my life I have found that the closer one gets to pension age the more sympathetic one is to pensioners.
Don't believe the Saga adverts kids, we're not all dashing about on exotic holidays and doing yoga. "
My previous post above. Tried to make the point. I think a poster said about pensioners on golf courses. Again a generalisation. Near me there are six or seven pensioners. I am the youngest. Yes all own the houses. None are out playing golf or go away on exotic holidays. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"Over the course of my life I have found that the closer one gets to pension age the more sympathetic one is to pensioners.
Don't believe the Saga adverts kids, we're not all dashing about on exotic holidays and doing yoga.
My previous post above. Tried to make the point. I think a poster said about pensioners on golf courses. Again a generalisation. Near me there are six or seven pensioners. I am the youngest. Yes all own the houses. None are out playing golf or go away on exotic holidays. "
Well my local golf course is full of them so area maybe matters .
Here is the average income of a pensioner after housing and tax . It equates to £304 per week
Compare that to a worker on minimum wage or even £25-30k who will have tax and housing to pay and it puts it in perspective .
https://www.unbiased.co.uk/life/pensions-retirement/what-is-the-average-uk-retirement-income
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Over the course of my life I have found that the closer one gets to pension age the more sympathetic one is to pensioners.
Don't believe the Saga adverts kids, we're not all dashing about on exotic holidays and doing yoga.
My previous post above. Tried to make the point. I think a poster said about pensioners on golf courses. Again a generalisation. Near me there are six or seven pensioners. I am the youngest. Yes all own the houses. None are out playing golf or go away on exotic holidays.
Well my local golf course is full of them so area maybe matters .
Here is the average income of a pensioner after housing and tax . It equates to £304 per week
Compare that to a worker on minimum wage or even £25-30k who will have tax and housing to pay and it puts it in perspective .
https://www.unbiased.co.uk/life/pensions-retirement/what-is-the-average-uk-retirement-income
"
Is that average for all pensioners? ie it includes all those in receipt of private/company pensions as well as the state pension?
I see HUGE differences in the “wealth” of pensioners. We live in a very affluent area and the pensioners around here are loaded. However, a few miles down the road there is clear poverty on display.
It’s a tough one (in my eyes) to decide how best to support our elderly in retirement.
One option is to means test but the counter argument is “I have paid in like everyone else so why penalise me for also having private/company pension provision”
You could argue that you should get out what you have paid in - ie the higher your income while working the higher tax contributions you have made but the counter argument is “Shouldn’t we help support those who, for whatever reason, were not able to make a larger tax contribution”
Then again perhaps we need radical pension reform going forward. Maybe reduce the reliance on the pyramid scheme, ahem I mean social contract, and have a two tier approach where some of what you pay in tax is indeed ringfenced and paid into a pension pot while the rest pays for the current pensions? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"With all the things regarding inflation at the moment, rishi has confirmed that pensioners will get the full increase next year… so whatever the inflation rate is in October that is what it will go up by next April
Also remember that pensioners will also get 1000 pounds for their heating (400 plus 300 plus winter fuel allowance)
So… bearing in mind that pensioners are more likely to vote.. and vote conservative… is this pandering to your most loyal crowd
What would have been the response if they were not to get this rise. Proof if needed that whatever decisions are made, people will complain. This government has got many things wrong and lost my vote in the process, but when they occasionally get something right then surely that's good news
It’s not right when millions more are becoming much worse off.
Give the pensioners a rise . Give them 20% if you like as we do have one of the worst state pensions in the west but only if we have the cash. Otherwise it’s means tested.
Imagine if the government hadn’t blown £37 billion on track and trace . That’s £3363 for each pensioner. Then add the tens of billions on PPE or the £11b on bond interest lost because of Sunaks stupidity. . That’s more than Gordon Brown lost selling our gold reserves. Throw in the hundreds of billions we’re losing over Brexit and there’s your issue.
The country is in a mess because of who’s in charge . The poor always end up picking up the tab. It’s why the richest 1% have become even more obscenely wealthy. Our government is the problem along with our tax system.
Are you saying you agree giving pensioners the rise or disagree
I’ll quote my post again
“It’s not right when millions more are becoming much worse off.
Give the pensioners a rise . Give them 20% if you like as we do have one of the worst state pensions in the west but only if we have the cash. Otherwise it’s means tested.”
I “want” them all to get it but if the government can’t afford to give hospital cleaners more then why should a wealthier pensioner be given more when they don’t need it?
Remember a hospital cleaner can’t put great chunks of cash into a private pension because the pay is so poor.
That's a no from you then. Thanks. I personally think it's good but it's good to hear other views even if we disagree
Ha ha did you actually read it or did you think you read it?
Read it again
I'm still not sure then as your first words were its not right when millions are becoming much worse off. I know means testing has it's purpose but I feel with pensions it should be across the board
Yes that’s the point
The government are saying they can’t pay the workers 10% but they can pay pensioners 10% .
Not all workers some Directors for example need a 10% pay rise and in the same vain not all pensioners need a 10% pay rise.
My wish would be for all pensioners to get the same too but if the pot is to small then it’s too small.
Maybe if as another lister pointed out the race rules for giving money offshore legally was stopped then there would be enough to go around.
How can a company pay dividends to investors from profits but at the same time allow their workers to be forced to take a pay cut? "
I don't know why they pay dividends to investors, I assume it's their choice. Maybe they should be limited on what they can pay investors as you mention though possibly it would hinder attracting future investors but that's a guess. I was not aware of pay cuts, I thought it was just not matching inflation. I know in real terms it means going backwards but the wages are still rising. I'm not a fan of means testing though maybe the pay rises should be means tested to give the most to the lowest paid and little to the higher paid |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"With all the things regarding inflation at the moment, rishi has confirmed that pensioners will get the full increase next year… so whatever the inflation rate is in October that is what it will go up by next April
Also remember that pensioners will also get 1000 pounds for their heating (400 plus 300 plus winter fuel allowance)
So… bearing in mind that pensioners are more likely to vote.. and vote conservative… is this pandering to your most loyal crowd
What would have been the response if they were not to get this rise. Proof if needed that whatever decisions are made, people will complain. This government has got many things wrong and lost my vote in the process, but when they occasionally get something right then surely that's good news
It’s not right when millions more are becoming much worse off.
Give the pensioners a rise . Give them 20% if you like as we do have one of the worst state pensions in the west but only if we have the cash. Otherwise it’s means tested.
Imagine if the government hadn’t blown £37 billion on track and trace . That’s £3363 for each pensioner. Then add the tens of billions on PPE or the £11b on bond interest lost because of Sunaks stupidity. . That’s more than Gordon Brown lost selling our gold reserves. Throw in the hundreds of billions we’re losing over Brexit and there’s your issue.
The country is in a mess because of who’s in charge . The poor always end up picking up the tab. It’s why the richest 1% have become even more obscenely wealthy. Our government is the problem along with our tax system.
Are you saying you agree giving pensioners the rise or disagree
I’ll quote my post again
“It’s not right when millions more are becoming much worse off.
Give the pensioners a rise . Give them 20% if you like as we do have one of the worst state pensions in the west but only if we have the cash. Otherwise it’s means tested.”
I “want” them all to get it but if the government can’t afford to give hospital cleaners more then why should a wealthier pensioner be given more when they don’t need it?
Remember a hospital cleaner can’t put great chunks of cash into a private pension because the pay is so poor.
That's a no from you then. Thanks. I personally think it's good but it's good to hear other views even if we disagree
Ha ha did you actually read it or did you think you read it?
Read it again
I'm still not sure then as your first words were its not right when millions are becoming much worse off. I know means testing has it's purpose but I feel with pensions it should be across the board
Yes that’s the point
The government are saying they can’t pay the workers 10% but they can pay pensioners 10% .
Not all workers some Directors for example need a 10% pay rise and in the same vain not all pensioners need a 10% pay rise.
My wish would be for all pensioners to get the same too but if the pot is to small then it’s too small.
Maybe if as another poster pointed out the tax rules for hiving money offshore legally was stopped then there would be enough to go around.
How can a company pay dividends to investors from profits but at the same time allow their workers to be forced to take a pay cut?
I don't know why they pay dividends to investors, I assume it's their choice. Maybe they should be limited on what they can pay investors as you mention though possibly it would hinder attracting future investors but that's a guess. I was not aware of pay cuts, I thought it was just not matching inflation. I know in real terms it means going backwards but the wages are still rising. I'm not a fan of means testing though maybe the pay rises should be means tested to give the most to the lowest paid and little to the higher paid"
Maybe inflation wages guaranteed before dividends otherwise workers lose but investors win. Nonprofit no index linking wages or dividends.
Yes you’re right if an increase doesn’t match inflation which many workers have been forced to accept then it’s a cut.
I don’t like the means testing for pensioners either. As others have mentioned on here everyone’s paid in their fair share. However if someone is low paid then maybe if they were better paid they also could have paid more into a pension,
Also how is it acceptable for some in state employed roles to get golden handshakes and some can retire after 20 years while those such as a cleaner or social carer have to work until 70?
I’m not sure if index linking or if final salary still exists for some but not others? Anyone know?
The system is biased against the lower paid much like tax.
Those who earn more get better tax breaks such as ISAs .
If you keep digging you see it’s all out of kilter.
I don’t have answers but as I said before if right now the government has less cash then I personally would provide more for less wealthy pensioners and the less paid workers.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *I TwoCouple
over a year ago
PDI 12-26th Nov 24 |
If it weren't for rich people then poor people would be even poorer
You can rob the rich to feed the poor
Dividends must be paid to allow companies to survive, Why would I risk investing my hard earned money in a company for any other reason than financial return ? If I could get a better return from a savings account then I would.
The bankers that get big bonuses make billions for the investors and for the chancellor enabling the government to provide handouts to those in need
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"If it weren't for rich people then poor people would be even poorer
You can rob the rich to feed the poor
Dividends must be paid to allow companies to survive, Why would I risk investing my hard earned money in a company for any other reason than financial return ? If I could get a better return from a savings account then I would.
The bankers that get big bonuses make billions for the investors and for the chancellor enabling the government to provide handouts to those in need
"
The discussion is about balancing wealth and that includes looking at the economy as a whole.
The rich don’t become rich without the efforts of the less well paid. Where do you think all that investment money comes from? It’s not the banks it’s earned through profits made in companies or through loans to businesses who employ people.
They wasn’t one day where God said ok you lot are rich and you lot are poor. The original tax was by kings on the poor serfs then the enclosures act enabled any assets the poor had to be taken off them.
Being a serial investor from the age of 19 I know very well how it works but I also know how totally unfair it can be. Many poorly paid people work very hard for very little reward or opportunity. Also some very rich people don’t work at all and yet get richer still. Don’t assume rich is always through hard work or endeavour it isn’t. If an average worker was given tax free wages as many rich are then I’m sure they would be much better off and contribute more to the economy via spending.
As for dividends I agree they should be paid but a government owned business should not pay dividends whilst cutting the wages of the workers. Also why should dividends be taxed at a lower rate than income tax? Unearned income should be taxed at the same rates as earned. Otherwise yet again there is a favourable bias towards wealthier people. I’m a hypocrite here as I’m made a lot of money from dividends but even I can see if the poor are getting poorer despite working hard then somethings need to change.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *JB1954Man
over a year ago
Reading |
"Over the course of my life I have found that the closer one gets to pension age the more sympathetic one is to pensioners.
Don't believe the Saga adverts kids, we're not all dashing about on exotic holidays and doing yoga.
My previous post above. Tried to make the point. I think a poster said about pensioners on golf courses. Again a generalisation. Near me there are six or seven pensioners. I am the youngest. Yes all own the houses. None are out playing golf or go away on exotic holidays.
Well my local golf course is full of them so area maybe matters .
Here is the average income of a pensioner after housing and tax . It equates to £304 per week
Compare that to a worker on minimum wage or even £25-30k who will have tax and housing to pay and it puts it in perspective .
https://www.unbiased.co.uk/life/pensions-retirement/what-is-the-average-uk-retirement-income
Is that average for all pensioners? ie it includes all those in receipt of private/company pensions as well as the state pension?
I see HUGE differences in the “wealth” of pensioners. We live in a very affluent area and the pensioners around here are loaded. However, a few miles down the road there is clear poverty on display.
It’s a tough one (in my eyes) to decide how best to support our elderly in retirement.
One option is to means test but the counter argument is “I have paid in like everyone else so why penalise me for also having private/company pension provision”
You could argue that you should get out what you have paid in - ie the higher your income while working the higher tax contributions you have made but the counter argument is “Shouldn’t we help support those who, for whatever reason, were not able to make a larger tax contribution”
Then again perhaps we need radical pension reform going forward. Maybe reduce the reliance on the pyramid scheme, ahem I mean social contract, and have a two tier approach where some of what you pay in tax is indeed ringfenced and paid into a pension pot while the rest pays for the current pensions?"
I did a quick check. This to compare three average council tax payments. In Reading it is about £1900,
In Brighton about £1800 . Manchester about £1400. Now I pay with 25% discount per month £143. If in Manchester my calculation works out about £90. So a saving of £53 a month . Goes a long way to buy food ? As replying to this thread. Also within three miles of me . Yes very well off area with above average pensioners . Again go in another area near me . Very poor area . With pensioners also. I was brought up on a council estate , in council house until age 28. Since then living in house which was privately built . Yet I can walk to where brought up in ten minutes. The twenty years before retirement . I worked 12 hour continental shifts. This was in a four week month seven days and seven nights . Which included weekends. Plus covering sick days and holidays. I yes earned good money. My point again is I am better off than some pensioners as I have private pensions , but paid out of my wages for them. Yes company made contribution. I cannot claim any benefits other than 25% discount on council tax. So pay same for food , fuel , gas, electricity etc. I will say then one thing I have always disliked. Note I was a shop steward for years. Is percentage pay and pension increases. This because pay differential will increase if percentage is given to all. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"If it weren't for rich people then poor people would be even poorer
You can rob the rich to feed the poor
Dividends must be paid to allow companies to survive, Why would I risk investing my hard earned money in a company for any other reason than financial return ? If I could get a better return from a savings account then I would.
The bankers that get big bonuses make billions for the investors and for the chancellor enabling the government to provide handouts to those in need
The discussion is about balancing wealth and that includes looking at the economy as a whole.
The rich don’t become rich without the efforts of the less well paid. Where do you think all that investment money comes from? It’s not the banks it’s earned through profits made in companies or through loans to businesses who employ people.
They wasn’t one day where God said ok you lot are rich and you lot are poor. The original tax was by kings on the poor serfs then the enclosures act enabled any assets the poor had to be taken off them.
Being a serial investor from the age of 19 I know very well how it works but I also know how totally unfair it can be. Many poorly paid people work very hard for very little reward or opportunity. Also some very rich people don’t work at all and yet get richer still. Don’t assume rich is always through hard work or endeavour it isn’t. If an average worker was given tax free wages as many rich are then I’m sure they would be much better off and contribute more to the economy via spending.
As for dividends I agree they should be paid but a government owned business should not pay dividends whilst cutting the wages of the workers. Also why should dividends be taxed at a lower rate than income tax? Unearned income should be taxed at the same rates as earned. Otherwise yet again there is a favourable bias towards wealthier people. I’m a hypocrite here as I’m made a lot of money from dividends but even I can see if the poor are getting poorer despite working hard then somethings need to change.
"
Can’t agree on dividends being taxed at same rate as “earned income” for two simple reasons...
1. The money used to buy the shares is taken from net post taxed income already.
2. Dividends are a reward for taking a risk and making an investment that could lose you all your money. That is not the same as being paid a wage in return for labour. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"If it weren't for rich people then poor people would be even poorer
You can rob the rich to feed the poor
Dividends must be paid to allow companies to survive, Why would I risk investing my hard earned money in a company for any other reason than financial return ? If I could get a better return from a savings account then I would.
The bankers that get big bonuses make billions for the investors and for the chancellor enabling the government to provide handouts to those in need
The discussion is about balancing wealth and that includes looking at the economy as a whole.
The rich don’t become rich without the efforts of the less well paid. Where do you think all that investment money comes from? It’s not the banks it’s earned through profits made in companies or through loans to businesses who employ people.
They wasn’t one day where God said ok you lot are rich and you lot are poor. The original tax was by kings on the poor serfs then the enclosures act enabled any assets the poor had to be taken off them.
Being a serial investor from the age of 19 I know very well how it works but I also know how totally unfair it can be. Many poorly paid people work very hard for very little reward or opportunity. Also some very rich people don’t work at all and yet get richer still. Don’t assume rich is always through hard work or endeavour it isn’t. If an average worker was given tax free wages as many rich are then I’m sure they would be much better off and contribute more to the economy via spending.
As for dividends I agree they should be paid but a government owned business should not pay dividends whilst cutting the wages of the workers. Also why should dividends be taxed at a lower rate than income tax? Unearned income should be taxed at the same rates as earned. Otherwise yet again there is a favourable bias towards wealthier people. I’m a hypocrite here as I’m made a lot of money from dividends but even I can see if the poor are getting poorer despite working hard then somethings need to change.
Can’t agree on dividends being taxed at same rate as “earned income” for two simple reasons...
1. The money used to buy the shares is taken from net post taxed income already.
2. Dividends are a reward for taking a risk and making an investment that could lose you all your money. That is not the same as being paid a wage in return for labour."
With reasoning one should pensioners be taxed on their pensions over £12k?
Also if your money is sourced through offshore investments away from any prior tax you have not paid tax on the money. You’re focusing on individuals investing. The reward should be in the dividend itself. In effect you make a profit. With a bit of luck your share value has increased too. To discount dividends favours the wealthier.
The risk is known so what you need to ask is can you afford to lose your money by investing. If you can’t then you shouldn’t be playing on a large scale.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If it weren't for rich people then poor people would be even poorer
You can rob the rich to feed the poor
Dividends must be paid to allow companies to survive, Why would I risk investing my hard earned money in a company for any other reason than financial return ? If I could get a better return from a savings account then I would.
The bankers that get big bonuses make billions for the investors and for the chancellor enabling the government to provide handouts to those in need
The discussion is about balancing wealth and that includes looking at the economy as a whole.
The rich don’t become rich without the efforts of the less well paid. Where do you think all that investment money comes from? It’s not the banks it’s earned through profits made in companies or through loans to businesses who employ people.
They wasn’t one day where God said ok you lot are rich and you lot are poor. The original tax was by kings on the poor serfs then the enclosures act enabled any assets the poor had to be taken off them.
Being a serial investor from the age of 19 I know very well how it works but I also know how totally unfair it can be. Many poorly paid people work very hard for very little reward or opportunity. Also some very rich people don’t work at all and yet get richer still. Don’t assume rich is always through hard work or endeavour it isn’t. If an average worker was given tax free wages as many rich are then I’m sure they would be much better off and contribute more to the economy via spending.
As for dividends I agree they should be paid but a government owned business should not pay dividends whilst cutting the wages of the workers. Also why should dividends be taxed at a lower rate than income tax? Unearned income should be taxed at the same rates as earned. Otherwise yet again there is a favourable bias towards wealthier people. I’m a hypocrite here as I’m made a lot of money from dividends but even I can see if the poor are getting poorer despite working hard then somethings need to change.
Can’t agree on dividends being taxed at same rate as “earned income” for two simple reasons...
1. The money used to buy the shares is taken from net post taxed income already.
2. Dividends are a reward for taking a risk and making an investment that could lose you all your money. That is not the same as being paid a wage in return for labour.
With reasoning one should pensioners be taxed on their pensions over £12k?
Also if your money is sourced through offshore investments away from any prior tax you have not paid tax on the money. You’re focusing on individuals investing. The reward should be in the dividend itself. In effect you make a profit. With a bit of luck your share value has increased too. To discount dividends favours the wealthier.
The risk is known so what you need to ask is can you afford to lose your money by investing. If you can’t then you shouldn’t be playing on a large scale.
"
most pensions are tax deferred. They haven't aoid income tax on the way in.
Shares are odd. If you buy secondary shares you're not really helping the company. But it's the secondary market that makes buying new shares that more attractive so allows companies to sell shares for more and so get more capital eaiser... And that's important for driving new growth.
As a shareholder you take a lot of downside risk. And employees have a degree of protections here. It may be seen as being unbalanced to then give employees the first tranche of upside.
(That's me looking for the counter argument here)
I suspect the more that is mandated, the more other parts of an employment package will be reduced to offset it. That may be right for fairness as it's probably the higher earners who get the bonuses and perks.
My overall view is until we care about companies doing the right thing, we won't get anywhere. Be this how they treat staff, esg etc. We forget we aren't stuck in traffic. We are the traffic. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *I TwoCouple
over a year ago
PDI 12-26th Nov 24 |
"If it weren't for rich people then poor people would be even poorer
You can rob the rich to feed the poor
Dividends must be paid to allow companies to survive, Why would I risk investing my hard earned money in a company for any other reason than financial return ? If I could get a better return from a savings account then I would.
The bankers that get big bonuses make billions for the investors and for the chancellor enabling the government to provide handouts to those in need
The discussion is about balancing wealth and that includes looking at the economy as a whole.
The rich don’t become rich without the efforts of the less well paid. Where do you think all that investment money comes from? It’s not the banks it’s earned through profits made in companies or through loans to businesses who employ people.
They wasn’t one day where God said ok you lot are rich and you lot are poor. The original tax was by kings on the poor serfs then the enclosures act enabled any assets the poor had to be taken off them.
Being a serial investor from the age of 19 I know very well how it works but I also know how totally unfair it can be. Many poorly paid people work very hard for very little reward or opportunity. Also some very rich people don’t work at all and yet get richer still. Don’t assume rich is always through hard work or endeavour it isn’t. If an average worker was given tax free wages as many rich are then I’m sure they would be much better off and contribute more to the economy via spending.
As for dividends I agree they should be paid but a government owned business should not pay dividends whilst cutting the wages of the workers. Also why should dividends be taxed at a lower rate than income tax? Unearned income should be taxed at the same rates as earned. Otherwise yet again there is a favourable bias towards wealthier people. I’m a hypocrite here as I’m made a lot of money from dividends but even I can see if the poor are getting poorer despite working hard then somethings need to change.
"
There is nothing stopping poor people becoming rich people other than motivation.
Many well off people I know weren't born with a silver spoon in their mouths, they worked hard, took occasional risks and weren't afraid to invest in their future.
We chose to invest in our retirement at the expense of spending money when we were younger, it's a personal choice and most can't afford to burn the candle at both ends so they get jealous when they see others enjoying retirement when they probably could have done the same |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"If it weren't for rich people then poor people would be even poorer
You can rob the rich to feed the poor
Dividends must be paid to allow companies to survive, Why would I risk investing my hard earned money in a company for any other reason than financial return ? If I could get a better return from a savings account then I would.
The bankers that get big bonuses make billions for the investors and for the chancellor enabling the government to provide handouts to those in need
The discussion is about balancing wealth and that includes looking at the economy as a whole.
The rich don’t become rich without the efforts of the less well paid. Where do you think all that investment money comes from? It’s not the banks it’s earned through profits made in companies or through loans to businesses who employ people.
They wasn’t one day where God said ok you lot are rich and you lot are poor. The original tax was by kings on the poor serfs then the enclosures act enabled any assets the poor had to be taken off them.
Being a serial investor from the age of 19 I know very well how it works but I also know how totally unfair it can be. Many poorly paid people work very hard for very little reward or opportunity. Also some very rich people don’t work at all and yet get richer still. Don’t assume rich is always through hard work or endeavour it isn’t. If an average worker was given tax free wages as many rich are then I’m sure they would be much better off and contribute more to the economy via spending.
As for dividends I agree they should be paid but a government owned business should not pay dividends whilst cutting the wages of the workers. Also why should dividends be taxed at a lower rate than income tax? Unearned income should be taxed at the same rates as earned. Otherwise yet again there is a favourable bias towards wealthier people. I’m a hypocrite here as I’m made a lot of money from dividends but even I can see if the poor are getting poorer despite working hard then somethings need to change.
Can’t agree on dividends being taxed at same rate as “earned income” for two simple reasons...
1. The money used to buy the shares is taken from net post taxed income already.
2. Dividends are a reward for taking a risk and making an investment that could lose you all your money. That is not the same as being paid a wage in return for labour.
With reasoning one should pensioners be taxed on their pensions over £12k?
Also if your money is sourced through offshore investments away from any prior tax you have not paid tax on the money. You’re focusing on individuals investing. The reward should be in the dividend itself. In effect you make a profit. With a bit of luck your share value has increased too. To discount dividends favours the wealthier.
The risk is known so what you need to ask is can you afford to lose your money by investing. If you can’t then you shouldn’t be playing on a large scale.
most pensions are tax deferred. They haven't aoid income tax on the way in.
Shares are odd. If you buy secondary shares you're not really helping the company. But it's the secondary market that makes buying new shares that more attractive so allows companies to sell shares for more and so get more capital eaiser... And that's important for driving new growth.
As a shareholder you take a lot of downside risk. And employees have a degree of protections here. It may be seen as being unbalanced to then give employees the first tranche of upside.
(That's me looking for the counter argument here)
I suspect the more that is mandated, the more other parts of an employment package will be reduced to offset it. That may be right for fairness as it's probably the higher earners who get the bonuses and perks.
My overall view is until we care about companies doing the right thing, we won't get anywhere. Be this how they treat staff, esg etc. We forget we aren't stuck in traffic. We are the traffic. "
Firstly good post 
I think it’s our long held bias towards the belief of tax avoidance is ok by rich people, by investors or even by the self employed plumber up the road. But if you’re PAYE then tough.
One of Greece’s biggest contributing factors to their financial meltdown was the national sport of not paying tax.
I’m not suggesting we bring in draconian taxes but a fair simplified tax regime across the board should result in better public health services and hopefully result in a more level approach to long term investment. Push back on the quick return and make investors consider the long term by maybe rewarding such approaches .
I’m not a tax expert in any way but our present system is a complicated mess which only helps the richest keep their money and in fact make more.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"If it weren't for rich people then poor people would be even poorer
You can rob the rich to feed the poor
Dividends must be paid to allow companies to survive, Why would I risk investing my hard earned money in a company for any other reason than financial return ? If I could get a better return from a savings account then I would.
The bankers that get big bonuses make billions for the investors and for the chancellor enabling the government to provide handouts to those in need
The discussion is about balancing wealth and that includes looking at the economy as a whole.
The rich don’t become rich without the efforts of the less well paid. Where do you think all that investment money comes from? It’s not the banks it’s earned through profits made in companies or through loans to businesses who employ people.
They wasn’t one day where God said ok you lot are rich and you lot are poor. The original tax was by kings on the poor serfs then the enclosures act enabled any assets the poor had to be taken off them.
Being a serial investor from the age of 19 I know very well how it works but I also know how totally unfair it can be. Many poorly paid people work very hard for very little reward or opportunity. Also some very rich people don’t work at all and yet get richer still. Don’t assume rich is always through hard work or endeavour it isn’t. If an average worker was given tax free wages as many rich are then I’m sure they would be much better off and contribute more to the economy via spending.
As for dividends I agree they should be paid but a government owned business should not pay dividends whilst cutting the wages of the workers. Also why should dividends be taxed at a lower rate than income tax? Unearned income should be taxed at the same rates as earned. Otherwise yet again there is a favourable bias towards wealthier people. I’m a hypocrite here as I’m made a lot of money from dividends but even I can see if the poor are getting poorer despite working hard then somethings need to change.
Can’t agree on dividends being taxed at same rate as “earned income” for two simple reasons...
1. The money used to buy the shares is taken from net post taxed income already.
2. Dividends are a reward for taking a risk and making an investment that could lose you all your money. That is not the same as being paid a wage in return for labour.
With reasoning one should pensioners be taxed on their pensions over £12k?
Also if your money is sourced through offshore investments away from any prior tax you have not paid tax on the money. You’re focusing on individuals investing. The reward should be in the dividend itself. In effect you make a profit. With a bit of luck your share value has increased too. To discount dividends favours the wealthier.
The risk is known so what you need to ask is can you afford to lose your money by investing. If you can’t then you shouldn’t be playing on a large scale.
most pensions are tax deferred. They haven't aoid income tax on the way in.
Shares are odd. If you buy secondary shares you're not really helping the company. But it's the secondary market that makes buying new shares that more attractive so allows companies to sell shares for more and so get more capital eaiser... And that's important for driving new growth.
As a shareholder you take a lot of downside risk. And employees have a degree of protections here. It may be seen as being unbalanced to then give employees the first tranche of upside.
(That's me looking for the counter argument here)
I suspect the more that is mandated, the more other parts of an employment package will be reduced to offset it. That may be right for fairness as it's probably the higher earners who get the bonuses and perks.
My overall view is until we care about companies doing the right thing, we won't get anywhere. Be this how they treat staff, esg etc. We forget we aren't stuck in traffic. We are the traffic.
Firstly good post
I think it’s our long held bias towards the belief of tax avoidance is ok by rich people, by investors or even by the self employed plumber up the road. But if you’re PAYE then tough.
One of Greece’s biggest contributing factors to their financial meltdown was the national sport of not paying tax.
I’m not suggesting we bring in draconian taxes but a fair simplified tax regime across the board should result in better public health services and hopefully result in a more level approach to long term investment. Push back on the quick return and make investors consider the long term by maybe rewarding such approaches .
I’m not a tax expert in any way but our present system is a complicated mess which only helps the richest keep their money and in fact make more.
"
totally agree the tax system is a mess. Or at least it's inconsistent with principals.
Step 1 is accepting that tax has to be raised. And that everyone should pay it. Wealthy or not
Step 2 is probably agreeing the role of the state versua personal responsibility.
Step 3 we can ignore for now. Step 1 and 2 will keep us busy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
Not quoting as getting too long bu @Jackel you won’t convince me (sure you don’t care) that dividends should be taxed like earned income. I maintain they are totally different due to shares being bought out of post tax income.
You jump to “offshore funds” which is highly emotive and I agree, distasteful, but not reflective of the majority with their modest share “portfolio” or small company Directors who rely on net company profits to pay themselves.
You raise point on pension income being taxed and another poster rightly points out that the tax is in effect deferred during working life (ie contributions taken off gross before income tax applied). As you know, that is to encourage people to save for retirement. So as pension contributions are not funded from net/post tax income, then taxing them as income seems appropriate.
There are similar arguments around some calling for a “wealth tax”. I categorically oppose anything that applies to someone’s primary home. The days of mortgage tax relief are a distant memory. Again people pay their mortgages from net/post tax income. Their primary home should NEVER be subject to further tax. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"If it weren't for rich people then poor people would be even poorer
You can rob the rich to feed the poor
Dividends must be paid to allow companies to survive, Why would I risk investing my hard earned money in a company for any other reason than financial return ? If I could get a better return from a savings account then I would.
The bankers that get big bonuses make billions for the investors and for the chancellor enabling the government to provide handouts to those in need
The discussion is about balancing wealth and that includes looking at the economy as a whole.
The rich don’t become rich without the efforts of the less well paid. Where do you think all that investment money comes from? It’s not the banks it’s earned through profits made in companies or through loans to businesses who employ people.
They wasn’t one day where God said ok you lot are rich and you lot are poor. The original tax was by kings on the poor serfs then the enclosures act enabled any assets the poor had to be taken off them.
Being a serial investor from the age of 19 I know very well how it works but I also know how totally unfair it can be. Many poorly paid people work very hard for very little reward or opportunity. Also some very rich people don’t work at all and yet get richer still. Don’t assume rich is always through hard work or endeavour it isn’t. If an average worker was given tax free wages as many rich are then I’m sure they would be much better off and contribute more to the economy via spending.
As for dividends I agree they should be paid but a government owned business should not pay dividends whilst cutting the wages of the workers. Also why should dividends be taxed at a lower rate than income tax? Unearned income should be taxed at the same rates as earned. Otherwise yet again there is a favourable bias towards wealthier people. I’m a hypocrite here as I’m made a lot of money from dividends but even I can see if the poor are getting poorer despite working hard then somethings need to change.
There is nothing stopping poor people becoming rich people other than motivation.
Many well off people I know weren't born with a silver spoon in their mouths, they worked hard, took occasional risks and weren't afraid to invest in their future.
We chose to invest in our retirement at the expense of spending money when we were younger, it's a personal choice and most can't afford to burn the candle at both ends so they get jealous when they see others enjoying retirement when they probably could have done the same"
That’s simply not true.
Anyone who has done well has been helped at sone point. Whether that’s an interview for a job or an introduction for a business deal . Sone people who grow up surrounded by other poor people with no helpful leverage are simply unaware of their opportunities . Our state education system does not develop people to be entrepreneurs it teaches them how to write a cv not how to start a business.
I’ve employed people who’s parents didn’t give a shit and they were just kicked out of their homes. Some of those people were very smart indeed and very hard workers but no education and no idea how to get on.
Just being a hard worker doesn’t make you successful.
Yes the quote “Everyone says I’m lucky but the harder I work, the luckier I seem to get” is a favourite to trot out. Without contacts and assistance in some small way you are stuck no matter how hard you work.
People who chose not to work should have the minimum to survive and not have a lifestyle on the dole as I am not happy about that either.
This right to buy is a load of nonsense to announce as I know someone who’s done this already. He knows very well to not mention it to me as I will give him a hard time. He hasn’t worked for over twenty five years but has bought a house with his benefits . How is that possible or allowed?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Not quoting as getting too long bu @Jackel you won’t convince me (sure you don’t care) that dividends should be taxed like earned income. I maintain they are totally different due to shares being bought out of post tax income.
You jump to “offshore funds” which is highly emotive and I agree, distasteful, but not reflective of the majority with their modest share “portfolio” or small company Directors who rely on net company profits to pay themselves.
You raise point on pension income being taxed and another poster rightly points out that the tax is in effect deferred during working life (ie contributions taken off gross before income tax applied). As you know, that is to encourage people to save for retirement. So as pension contributions are not funded from net/post tax income, then taxing them as income seems appropriate.
There are similar arguments around some calling for a “wealth tax”. I categorically oppose anything that applies to someone’s primary home. The days of mortgage tax relief are a distant memory. Again people pay their mortgages from net/post tax income. Their primary home should NEVER be subject to further tax. "
agreed... Other than IHT (imo, iht is a fairer tax... It hits wealth, not income, and the payer doesn't feel it ... ) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"Not quoting as getting too long bu @Jackel you won’t convince me (sure you don’t care) that dividends should be taxed like earned income. I maintain they are totally different due to shares being bought out of post tax income.
You jump to “offshore funds” which is highly emotive and I agree, distasteful, but not reflective of the majority with their modest share “portfolio” or small company Directors who rely on net company profits to pay themselves.
You raise point on pension income being taxed and another poster rightly points out that the tax is in effect deferred during working life (ie contributions taken off gross before income tax applied). As you know, that is to encourage people to save for retirement. So as pension contributions are not funded from net/post tax income, then taxing them as income seems appropriate.
There are similar arguments around some calling for a “wealth tax”. I categorically oppose anything that applies to someone’s primary home. The days of mortgage tax relief are a distant memory. Again people pay their mortgages from net/post tax income. Their primary home should NEVER be subject to further tax. "
I do care honest
In regards to dividends they are in effect a gamble and it’s your decision to invest or not as it is a mall business owner. As an investor and business owner I admit I’m being hypocritical as I’ve benefited for years from such schemes including dividends , business investment schemes and some of my employees have benefited from EMI shares but again they only benefit if your company is a success or you make enough profits to pay dividends.
A small company owner shouldn’t have to rely on dividends he should be able to pay himself a decent wage and his reward is his after tax profits to himself or sell shares in his company .
If dividends were not factored in on a business plan from the start then that would make no difference in the long run. Again it should be open for discussion.
Dividends on the small scale such as a plumber or very small business are like the large scale offshore schemes just tax avoidance in another form. Again I’m a hypocrite.
We have always done it this way is not an answer to moving forward .
If people had a better state pension as a result of better tax collection then they wouldn’t need to be so careful in their savings or offset pension contributions. We would have a pensioner population with a far more healthy income. I’m not against saving just again throwing it out there for discussion.
As for your last point I have mixed views as people invest in their homes and should benefit but until the shortage of housing is addressed this yet again penalises the poorer in society by artificially keeping prices too high.
It’s definitely unearned income so a tax on capitol gains should be considered on sale. A sales tax restricted to a capitol gain would encompass all and tax would be paid based on your unearned profit. Controversial I know. It may have a downside but as far as I can see it will only lead to lower prices.
Our economy is far too reliant on house prices and that has to stop as it’s a false impression that things are going well, when for a large majority they are not and a lot of people are left behind. Especially true for the younger generation who’s multiples to earnings on affordability are getting ridiculous .
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Not quoting as getting too long bu @Jackel you won’t convince me (sure you don’t care) that dividends should be taxed like earned income. I maintain they are totally different due to shares being bought out of post tax income.
You jump to “offshore funds” which is highly emotive and I agree, distasteful, but not reflective of the majority with their modest share “portfolio” or small company Directors who rely on net company profits to pay themselves.
You raise point on pension income being taxed and another poster rightly points out that the tax is in effect deferred during working life (ie contributions taken off gross before income tax applied). As you know, that is to encourage people to save for retirement. So as pension contributions are not funded from net/post tax income, then taxing them as income seems appropriate.
There are similar arguments around some calling for a “wealth tax”. I categorically oppose anything that applies to someone’s primary home. The days of mortgage tax relief are a distant memory. Again people pay their mortgages from net/post tax income. Their primary home should NEVER be subject to further tax. agreed... Other than IHT (imo, iht is a fairer tax... It hits wealth, not income, and the payer doesn't feel it ... )"
Exactly. When you die, if your estate is above the threshold then there is Inheritance Tax to pay. But a wealth tax that is applied to someone’s primary HOME is, for me, poll tax level unrest and protest. A home is not an investment, it is a necessity. If an individual has made financial sacrifices to pay a mortgage (from net income) then the Govt can fuck off! There are so many asset rich cash poor people in the UK due to escalating house prices. Why should anyone be forced to get into debt (borrow) or sell their HOME to pay a wealth tax because house prices rise?
Different argument when looking at capital gains on housing portfolios (investments) but I would be prepared to take up arms against a wealth tax on my home!
Anyway...that went nicely off topic. Way to go me! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"Not quoting as getting too long bu @Jackel you won’t convince me (sure you don’t care) that dividends should be taxed like earned income. I maintain they are totally different due to shares being bought out of post tax income.
You jump to “offshore funds” which is highly emotive and I agree, distasteful, but not reflective of the majority with their modest share “portfolio” or small company Directors who rely on net company profits to pay themselves.
You raise point on pension income being taxed and another poster rightly points out that the tax is in effect deferred during working life (ie contributions taken off gross before income tax applied). As you know, that is to encourage people to save for retirement. So as pension contributions are not funded from net/post tax income, then taxing them as income seems appropriate.
There are similar arguments around some calling for a “wealth tax”. I categorically oppose anything that applies to someone’s primary home. The days of mortgage tax relief are a distant memory. Again people pay their mortgages from net/post tax income. Their primary home should NEVER be subject to further tax. agreed... Other than IHT (imo, iht is a fairer tax... It hits wealth, not income, and the payer doesn't feel it ... )
Exactly. When you die, if your estate is above the threshold then there is Inheritance Tax to pay. But a wealth tax that is applied to someone’s primary HOME is, for me, poll tax level unrest and protest. A home is not an investment, it is a necessity. If an individual has made financial sacrifices to pay a mortgage (from net income) then the Govt can fuck off! There are so many asset rich cash poor people in the UK due to escalating house prices. Why should anyone be forced to get into debt (borrow) or sell their HOME to pay a wealth tax because house prices rise?
Different argument when looking at capital gains on housing portfolios (investments) but I would be prepared to take up arms against a wealth tax on my home!
Anyway...that went nicely off topic. Way to go me! "
I don’t think you’ve gone to far off topic .
Our system today doesn’t work and it needs fixing. To fix it we need to look at everything and not ring fence any previous accepted practices. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Not quoting as getting too long bu @Jackel you won’t convince me (sure you don’t care) that dividends should be taxed like earned income. I maintain they are totally different due to shares being bought out of post tax income.
You jump to “offshore funds” which is highly emotive and I agree, distasteful, but not reflective of the majority with their modest share “portfolio” or small company Directors who rely on net company profits to pay themselves.
You raise point on pension income being taxed and another poster rightly points out that the tax is in effect deferred during working life (ie contributions taken off gross before income tax applied). As you know, that is to encourage people to save for retirement. So as pension contributions are not funded from net/post tax income, then taxing them as income seems appropriate.
There are similar arguments around some calling for a “wealth tax”. I categorically oppose anything that applies to someone’s primary home. The days of mortgage tax relief are a distant memory. Again people pay their mortgages from net/post tax income. Their primary home should NEVER be subject to further tax. agreed... Other than IHT (imo, iht is a fairer tax... It hits wealth, not income, and the payer doesn't feel it ... )
Exactly. When you die, if your estate is above the threshold then there is Inheritance Tax to pay. But a wealth tax that is applied to someone’s primary HOME is, for me, poll tax level unrest and protest. A home is not an investment, it is a necessity. If an individual has made financial sacrifices to pay a mortgage (from net income) then the Govt can fuck off! There are so many asset rich cash poor people in the UK due to escalating house prices. Why should anyone be forced to get into debt (borrow) or sell their HOME to pay a wealth tax because house prices rise?
Different argument when looking at capital gains on housing portfolios (investments) but I would be prepared to take up arms against a wealth tax on my home!
Anyway...that went nicely off topic. Way to go me! "
we were well off topic to start with ....  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Not quoting as getting too long bu @Jackel you won’t convince me (sure you don’t care) that dividends should be taxed like earned income. I maintain they are totally different due to shares being bought out of post tax income.
You jump to “offshore funds” which is highly emotive and I agree, distasteful, but not reflective of the majority with their modest share “portfolio” or small company Directors who rely on net company profits to pay themselves.
You raise point on pension income being taxed and another poster rightly points out that the tax is in effect deferred during working life (ie contributions taken off gross before income tax applied). As you know, that is to encourage people to save for retirement. So as pension contributions are not funded from net/post tax income, then taxing them as income seems appropriate.
There are similar arguments around some calling for a “wealth tax”. I categorically oppose anything that applies to someone’s primary home. The days of mortgage tax relief are a distant memory. Again people pay their mortgages from net/post tax income. Their primary home should NEVER be subject to further tax.
I do care honest
In regards to dividends they are in effect a gamble and it’s your decision to invest or not as it is a mall business owner. As an investor and business owner I admit I’m being hypocritical as I’ve benefited for years from such schemes including dividends , business investment schemes and some of my employees have benefited from EMI shares but again they only benefit if your company is a success or you make enough profits to pay dividends.
A small company owner shouldn’t have to rely on dividends he should be able to pay himself a decent wage and his reward is his after tax profits to himself or sell shares in his company .
If dividends were not factored in on a business plan from the start then that would make no difference in the long run. Again it should be open for discussion.
Dividends on the small scale such as a plumber or very small business are like the large scale offshore schemes just tax avoidance in another form. Again I’m a hypocrite.
We have always done it this way is not an answer to moving forward .
If people had a better state pension as a result of better tax collection then they wouldn’t need to be so careful in their savings or offset pension contributions. We would have a pensioner population with a far more healthy income. I’m not against saving just again throwing it out there for discussion.
As for your last point I have mixed views as people invest in their homes and should benefit but until the shortage of housing is addressed this yet again penalises the poorer in society by artificially keeping prices too high.
It’s definitely unearned income so a tax on capitol gains should be considered on sale. A sales tax restricted to a capitol gain would encompass all and tax would be paid based on your unearned profit. Controversial I know. It may have a downside but as far as I can see it will only lead to lower prices.
Our economy is far too reliant on house prices and that has to stop as it’s a false impression that things are going well, when for a large majority they are not and a lot of people are left behind. Especially true for the younger generation who’s multiples to earnings on affordability are getting ridiculous .
"
As per my last post, I simply cannot agree.
As a business owner you clearly know profits can rise or fall. You therefore pay yourself a small but sustainable salary and top that up in the good years with dividends taking a hit in the bad years with less/no dividends. If you set your salary too high, in a low/no profit year you could bankrupt your own company! That is risk v reward of owning a business right?
Some people say that is tax avoidance (perfectly legal as not evasion) but others would say necessary due to fluctuating business income and profits.
On the primary home thing...no no no! Will fight anyone on this (joke - more a robust stirring of my tea). The only tax due on primary home should be when I die and it is subject to IHT. I have already paid my mortgage and interest charges from my post tax net income. Similarly the stamp duty when I bought it. I should not have to pay a penny more on my home. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Not quoting as getting too long bu @Jackel you won’t convince me (sure you don’t care) that dividends should be taxed like earned income. I maintain they are totally different due to shares being bought out of post tax income.
You jump to “offshore funds” which is highly emotive and I agree, distasteful, but not reflective of the majority with their modest share “portfolio” or small company Directors who rely on net company profits to pay themselves.
You raise point on pension income being taxed and another poster rightly points out that the tax is in effect deferred during working life (ie contributions taken off gross before income tax applied). As you know, that is to encourage people to save for retirement. So as pension contributions are not funded from net/post tax income, then taxing them as income seems appropriate.
There are similar arguments around some calling for a “wealth tax”. I categorically oppose anything that applies to someone’s primary home. The days of mortgage tax relief are a distant memory. Again people pay their mortgages from net/post tax income. Their primary home should NEVER be subject to further tax.
I do care honest
In regards to dividends they are in effect a gamble and it’s your decision to invest or not as it is a mall business owner. As an investor and business owner I admit I’m being hypocritical as I’ve benefited for years from such schemes including dividends , business investment schemes and some of my employees have benefited from EMI shares but again they only benefit if your company is a success or you make enough profits to pay dividends.
A small company owner shouldn’t have to rely on dividends he should be able to pay himself a decent wage and his reward is his after tax profits to himself or sell shares in his company .
If dividends were not factored in on a business plan from the start then that would make no difference in the long run. Again it should be open for discussion.
Dividends on the small scale such as a plumber or very small business are like the large scale offshore schemes just tax avoidance in another form. Again I’m a hypocrite.
We have always done it this way is not an answer to moving forward .
If people had a better state pension as a result of better tax collection then they wouldn’t need to be so careful in their savings or offset pension contributions. We would have a pensioner population with a far more healthy income. I’m not against saving just again throwing it out there for discussion.
As for your last point I have mixed views as people invest in their homes and should benefit but until the shortage of housing is addressed this yet again penalises the poorer in society by artificially keeping prices too high.
It’s definitely unearned income so a tax on capitol gains should be considered on sale. A sales tax restricted to a capitol gain would encompass all and tax would be paid based on your unearned profit. Controversial I know. It may have a downside but as far as I can see it will only lead to lower prices.
Our economy is far too reliant on house prices and that has to stop as it’s a false impression that things are going well, when for a large majority they are not and a lot of people are left behind. Especially true for the younger generation who’s multiples to earnings on affordability are getting ridiculous .
As per my last post, I simply cannot agree.
As a business owner you clearly know profits can rise or fall. You therefore pay yourself a small but sustainable salary and top that up in the good years with dividends taking a hit in the bad years with less/no dividends. If you set your salary too high, in a low/no profit year you could bankrupt your own company! That is risk v reward of owning a business right?
Some people say that is tax avoidance (perfectly legal as not evasion) but others would say necessary due to fluctuating business income and profits.
On the primary home thing...no no no! Will fight anyone on this (joke - more a robust stirring of my tea). The only tax due on primary home should be when I die and it is subject to IHT. I have already paid my mortgage and interest charges from my post tax net income. Similarly the stamp duty when I bought it. I should not have to pay a penny more on my home."
A wealth tax on houses causes no end of issues without the morality issues.
I buy a house for £100k. Prices double. Do I pay a tax while I'm still in the house (how do I get the money?).
Or when I sell?
But then I'm selling a 200k house and buying a 200k house. I again have to find the tax bill.
Or I have to look at a 190k house. But that means I'm down grading for no reason. So I don't move.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"Not quoting as getting too long bu @Jackel you won’t convince me (sure you don’t care) that dividends should be taxed like earned income. I maintain they are totally different due to shares being bought out of post tax income.
You jump to “offshore funds” which is highly emotive and I agree, distasteful, but not reflective of the majority with their modest share “portfolio” or small company Directors who rely on net company profits to pay themselves.
You raise point on pension income being taxed and another poster rightly points out that the tax is in effect deferred during working life (ie contributions taken off gross before income tax applied). As you know, that is to encourage people to save for retirement. So as pension contributions are not funded from net/post tax income, then taxing them as income seems appropriate.
There are similar arguments around some calling for a “wealth tax”. I categorically oppose anything that applies to someone’s primary home. The days of mortgage tax relief are a distant memory. Again people pay their mortgages from net/post tax income. Their primary home should NEVER be subject to further tax.
I do care honest
In regards to dividends they are in effect a gamble and it’s your decision to invest or not as it is a mall business owner. As an investor and business owner I admit I’m being hypocritical as I’ve benefited for years from such schemes including dividends , business investment schemes and some of my employees have benefited from EMI shares but again they only benefit if your company is a success or you make enough profits to pay dividends.
A small company owner shouldn’t have to rely on dividends he should be able to pay himself a decent wage and his reward is his after tax profits to himself or sell shares in his company .
If dividends were not factored in on a business plan from the start then that would make no difference in the long run. Again it should be open for discussion.
Dividends on the small scale such as a plumber or very small business are like the large scale offshore schemes just tax avoidance in another form. Again I’m a hypocrite.
We have always done it this way is not an answer to moving forward .
If people had a better state pension as a result of better tax collection then they wouldn’t need to be so careful in their savings or offset pension contributions. We would have a pensioner population with a far more healthy income. I’m not against saving just again throwing it out there for discussion.
As for your last point I have mixed views as people invest in their homes and should benefit but until the shortage of housing is addressed this yet again penalises the poorer in society by artificially keeping prices too high.
It’s definitely unearned income so a tax on capitol gains should be considered on sale. A sales tax restricted to a capitol gain would encompass all and tax would be paid based on your unearned profit. Controversial I know. It may have a downside but as far as I can see it will only lead to lower prices.
Our economy is far too reliant on house prices and that has to stop as it’s a false impression that things are going well, when for a large majority they are not and a lot of people are left behind. Especially true for the younger generation who’s multiples to earnings on affordability are getting ridiculous .
As per my last post, I simply cannot agree.
As a business owner you clearly know profits can rise or fall. You therefore pay yourself a small but sustainable salary and top that up in the good years with dividends taking a hit in the bad years with less/no dividends. If you set your salary too high, in a low/no profit year you could bankrupt your own company! That is risk v reward of owning a business right?
Some people say that is tax avoidance (perfectly legal as not evasion) but others would say necessary due to fluctuating business income and profits.
On the primary home thing...no no no! Will fight anyone on this (joke - more a robust stirring of my tea). The only tax due on primary home should be when I die and it is subject to IHT. I have already paid my mortgage and interest charges from my post tax net income. Similarly the stamp duty when I bought it. I should not have to pay a penny more on my home."
Yes as a business owner I know exactly what you mean and it does fluctuate but that’s part of business and you save for poor years and invest in good years . If your survival depends on dividends not being taxed higher then your business is probably weak and needs sorting.
Remember you can only pay dividends after a profit is made so you in theory aren’t struggling .
As for tax on property yes you’ve paid for it yes you’ve earned that money and paid tax all through but have you earned the increase in value or is that just good luck?
Take two employees working for the same company on that same salary . One lives in say Cambridge the other in Doncaster .
They both thirty years ago paid the same price for their house but Cambridge city had huge investment whereas Doncaster didn’t . Fault was the house in Cambridge has quadrupoles in value but the one in Doncaster has only doubled .
Who’s worked harder or paid more in tax? They have paid the same. Who’s got the most unearned wealth?
I’m suggesting the tax is paid on either the sale or death not an annual fee and only on the capitol growth.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"Not quoting as getting too long bu @Jackel you won’t convince me (sure you don’t care) that dividends should be taxed like earned income. I maintain they are totally different due to shares being bought out of post tax income.
You jump to “offshore funds” which is highly emotive and I agree, distasteful, but not reflective of the majority with their modest share “portfolio” or small company Directors who rely on net company profits to pay themselves.
You raise point on pension income being taxed and another poster rightly points out that the tax is in effect deferred during working life (ie contributions taken off gross before income tax applied). As you know, that is to encourage people to save for retirement. So as pension contributions are not funded from net/post tax income, then taxing them as income seems appropriate.
There are similar arguments around some calling for a “wealth tax”. I categorically oppose anything that applies to someone’s primary home. The days of mortgage tax relief are a distant memory. Again people pay their mortgages from net/post tax income. Their primary home should NEVER be subject to further tax.
I do care honest
In regards to dividends they are in effect a gamble and it’s your decision to invest or not as it is a mall business owner. As an investor and business owner I admit I’m being hypocritical as I’ve benefited for years from such schemes including dividends , business investment schemes and some of my employees have benefited from EMI shares but again they only benefit if your company is a success or you make enough profits to pay dividends.
A small company owner shouldn’t have to rely on dividends he should be able to pay himself a decent wage and his reward is his after tax profits to himself or sell shares in his company .
If dividends were not factored in on a business plan from the start then that would make no difference in the long run. Again it should be open for discussion.
Dividends on the small scale such as a plumber or very small business are like the large scale offshore schemes just tax avoidance in another form. Again I’m a hypocrite.
We have always done it this way is not an answer to moving forward .
If people had a better state pension as a result of better tax collection then they wouldn’t need to be so careful in their savings or offset pension contributions. We would have a pensioner population with a far more healthy income. I’m not against saving just again throwing it out there for discussion.
As for your last point I have mixed views as people invest in their homes and should benefit but until the shortage of housing is addressed this yet again penalises the poorer in society by artificially keeping prices too high.
It’s definitely unearned income so a tax on capitol gains should be considered on sale. A sales tax restricted to a capitol gain would encompass all and tax would be paid based on your unearned profit. Controversial I know. It may have a downside but as far as I can see it will only lead to lower prices.
Our economy is far too reliant on house prices and that has to stop as it’s a false impression that things are going well, when for a large majority they are not and a lot of people are left behind. Especially true for the younger generation who’s multiples to earnings on affordability are getting ridiculous .
As per my last post, I simply cannot agree.
As a business owner you clearly know profits can rise or fall. You therefore pay yourself a small but sustainable salary and top that up in the good years with dividends taking a hit in the bad years with less/no dividends. If you set your salary too high, in a low/no profit year you could bankrupt your own company! That is risk v reward of owning a business right?
Some people say that is tax avoidance (perfectly legal as not evasion) but others would say necessary due to fluctuating business income and profits.
On the primary home thing...no no no! Will fight anyone on this (joke - more a robust stirring of my tea). The only tax due on primary home should be when I die and it is subject to IHT. I have already paid my mortgage and interest charges from my post tax net income. Similarly the stamp duty when I bought it. I should not have to pay a penny more on my home.
A wealth tax on houses causes no end of issues without the morality issues.
I buy a house for £100k. Prices double. Do I pay a tax while I'm still in the house (how do I get the money?).
Or when I sell?
But then I'm selling a 200k house and buying a 200k house. I again have to find the tax bill.
Or I have to look at a 190k house. But that means I'm down grading for no reason. So I don't move.
"
It also doesn’t feed into house prices growing out of reach so if you don’t move they don’t sell. They reduce the price Would you buy then? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
If the argument is that a wealth tax on primary home will ultimately reduce (or crash) the housing market then that is highly punitive on people who have worked hard and been judicious with their net income.
The real solution is:
1. Stop the right to buy nonsense - we should NEVER deplete our social housing stock.
2. Build more social housing.
3. Build more houses/flats per se.
4. Stop landowners from holding onto development sites for too long to artificially increase land value and house prices through lack of stock.
5. Stop even considering punishing people retrospectively for their choices on how they spent their net income in line with the Govt tax policy of the day! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Not quoting as getting too long bu @Jackel you won’t convince me (sure you don’t care) that dividends should be taxed like earned income. I maintain they are totally different due to shares being bought out of post tax income.
You jump to “offshore funds” which is highly emotive and I agree, distasteful, but not reflective of the majority with their modest share “portfolio” or small company Directors who rely on net company profits to pay themselves.
You raise point on pension income being taxed and another poster rightly points out that the tax is in effect deferred during working life (ie contributions taken off gross before income tax applied). As you know, that is to encourage people to save for retirement. So as pension contributions are not funded from net/post tax income, then taxing them as income seems appropriate.
There are similar arguments around some calling for a “wealth tax”. I categorically oppose anything that applies to someone’s primary home. The days of mortgage tax relief are a distant memory. Again people pay their mortgages from net/post tax income. Their primary home should NEVER be subject to further tax.
I do care honest
In regards to dividends they are in effect a gamble and it’s your decision to invest or not as it is a mall business owner. As an investor and business owner I admit I’m being hypocritical as I’ve benefited for years from such schemes including dividends , business investment schemes and some of my employees have benefited from EMI shares but again they only benefit if your company is a success or you make enough profits to pay dividends.
A small company owner shouldn’t have to rely on dividends he should be able to pay himself a decent wage and his reward is his after tax profits to himself or sell shares in his company .
If dividends were not factored in on a business plan from the start then that would make no difference in the long run. Again it should be open for discussion.
Dividends on the small scale such as a plumber or very small business are like the large scale offshore schemes just tax avoidance in another form. Again I’m a hypocrite.
We have always done it this way is not an answer to moving forward .
If people had a better state pension as a result of better tax collection then they wouldn’t need to be so careful in their savings or offset pension contributions. We would have a pensioner population with a far more healthy income. I’m not against saving just again throwing it out there for discussion.
As for your last point I have mixed views as people invest in their homes and should benefit but until the shortage of housing is addressed this yet again penalises the poorer in society by artificially keeping prices too high.
It’s definitely unearned income so a tax on capitol gains should be considered on sale. A sales tax restricted to a capitol gain would encompass all and tax would be paid based on your unearned profit. Controversial I know. It may have a downside but as far as I can see it will only lead to lower prices.
Our economy is far too reliant on house prices and that has to stop as it’s a false impression that things are going well, when for a large majority they are not and a lot of people are left behind. Especially true for the younger generation who’s multiples to earnings on affordability are getting ridiculous .
As per my last post, I simply cannot agree.
As a business owner you clearly know profits can rise or fall. You therefore pay yourself a small but sustainable salary and top that up in the good years with dividends taking a hit in the bad years with less/no dividends. If you set your salary too high, in a low/no profit year you could bankrupt your own company! That is risk v reward of owning a business right?
Some people say that is tax avoidance (perfectly legal as not evasion) but others would say necessary due to fluctuating business income and profits.
On the primary home thing...no no no! Will fight anyone on this (joke - more a robust stirring of my tea). The only tax due on primary home should be when I die and it is subject to IHT. I have already paid my mortgage and interest charges from my post tax net income. Similarly the stamp duty when I bought it. I should not have to pay a penny more on my home.
Yes as a business owner I know exactly what you mean and it does fluctuate but that’s part of business and you save for poor years and invest in good years . If your survival depends on dividends not being taxed higher then your business is probably weak and needs sorting.
Remember you can only pay dividends after a profit is made so you in theory aren’t struggling .
As for tax on property yes you’ve paid for it yes you’ve earned that money and paid tax all through but have you earned the increase in value or is that just good luck?
Take two employees working for the same company on that same salary . One lives in say Cambridge the other in Doncaster .
They both thirty years ago paid the same price for their house but Cambridge city had huge investment whereas Doncaster didn’t . Fault was the house in Cambridge has quadrupoles in value but the one in Doncaster has only doubled .
Who’s worked harder or paid more in tax? They have paid the same. Who’s got the most unearned wealth?
I’m suggesting the tax is paid on either the sale or death not an annual fee and only on the capitol growth.
"
And if house prices crash and the chap in Cambridge has negative equity will he be able to claim a tax rebate? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Not quoting as getting too long bu @Jackel you won’t convince me (sure you don’t care) that dividends should be taxed like earned income. I maintain they are totally different due to shares being bought out of post tax income.
You jump to “offshore funds” which is highly emotive and I agree, distasteful, but not reflective of the majority with their modest share “portfolio” or small company Directors who rely on net company profits to pay themselves.
You raise point on pension income being taxed and another poster rightly points out that the tax is in effect deferred during working life (ie contributions taken off gross before income tax applied). As you know, that is to encourage people to save for retirement. So as pension contributions are not funded from net/post tax income, then taxing them as income seems appropriate.
There are similar arguments around some calling for a “wealth tax”. I categorically oppose anything that applies to someone’s primary home. The days of mortgage tax relief are a distant memory. Again people pay their mortgages from net/post tax income. Their primary home should NEVER be subject to further tax.
I do care honest
In regards to dividends they are in effect a gamble and it’s your decision to invest or not as it is a mall business owner. As an investor and business owner I admit I’m being hypocritical as I’ve benefited for years from such schemes including dividends , business investment schemes and some of my employees have benefited from EMI shares but again they only benefit if your company is a success or you make enough profits to pay dividends.
A small company owner shouldn’t have to rely on dividends he should be able to pay himself a decent wage and his reward is his after tax profits to himself or sell shares in his company .
If dividends were not factored in on a business plan from the start then that would make no difference in the long run. Again it should be open for discussion.
Dividends on the small scale such as a plumber or very small business are like the large scale offshore schemes just tax avoidance in another form. Again I’m a hypocrite.
We have always done it this way is not an answer to moving forward .
If people had a better state pension as a result of better tax collection then they wouldn’t need to be so careful in their savings or offset pension contributions. We would have a pensioner population with a far more healthy income. I’m not against saving just again throwing it out there for discussion.
As for your last point I have mixed views as people invest in their homes and should benefit but until the shortage of housing is addressed this yet again penalises the poorer in society by artificially keeping prices too high.
It’s definitely unearned income so a tax on capitol gains should be considered on sale. A sales tax restricted to a capitol gain would encompass all and tax would be paid based on your unearned profit. Controversial I know. It may have a downside but as far as I can see it will only lead to lower prices.
Our economy is far too reliant on house prices and that has to stop as it’s a false impression that things are going well, when for a large majority they are not and a lot of people are left behind. Especially true for the younger generation who’s multiples to earnings on affordability are getting ridiculous .
As per my last post, I simply cannot agree.
As a business owner you clearly know profits can rise or fall. You therefore pay yourself a small but sustainable salary and top that up in the good years with dividends taking a hit in the bad years with less/no dividends. If you set your salary too high, in a low/no profit year you could bankrupt your own company! That is risk v reward of owning a business right?
Some people say that is tax avoidance (perfectly legal as not evasion) but others would say necessary due to fluctuating business income and profits.
On the primary home thing...no no no! Will fight anyone on this (joke - more a robust stirring of my tea). The only tax due on primary home should be when I die and it is subject to IHT. I have already paid my mortgage and interest charges from my post tax net income. Similarly the stamp duty when I bought it. I should not have to pay a penny more on my home.
A wealth tax on houses causes no end of issues without the morality issues.
I buy a house for £100k. Prices double. Do I pay a tax while I'm still in the house (how do I get the money?).
Or when I sell?
But then I'm selling a 200k house and buying a 200k house. I again have to find the tax bill.
Or I have to look at a 190k house. But that means I'm down grading for no reason. So I don't move.
It also doesn’t feed into house prices growing out of reach so if you don’t move they don’t sell. They reduce the price Would you buy then? "
assumption here is ppl have to move so have to sell.
Imo decreasing supply isn't a great plan, even if that also decreases demand. Better ways of dealing with housing than decreasing the liquidity in the market. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"Not quoting as getting too long bu @Jackel you won’t convince me (sure you don’t care) that dividends should be taxed like earned income. I maintain they are totally different due to shares being bought out of post tax income.
You jump to “offshore funds” which is highly emotive and I agree, distasteful, but not reflective of the majority with their modest share “portfolio” or small company Directors who rely on net company profits to pay themselves.
You raise point on pension income being taxed and another poster rightly points out that the tax is in effect deferred during working life (ie contributions taken off gross before income tax applied). As you know, that is to encourage people to save for retirement. So as pension contributions are not funded from net/post tax income, then taxing them as income seems appropriate.
There are similar arguments around some calling for a “wealth tax”. I categorically oppose anything that applies to someone’s primary home. The days of mortgage tax relief are a distant memory. Again people pay their mortgages from net/post tax income. Their primary home should NEVER be subject to further tax.
I do care honest
In regards to dividends they are in effect a gamble and it’s your decision to invest or not as it is a mall business owner. As an investor and business owner I admit I’m being hypocritical as I’ve benefited for years from such schemes including dividends , business investment schemes and some of my employees have benefited from EMI shares but again they only benefit if your company is a success or you make enough profits to pay dividends.
A small company owner shouldn’t have to rely on dividends he should be able to pay himself a decent wage and his reward is his after tax profits to himself or sell shares in his company .
If dividends were not factored in on a business plan from the start then that would make no difference in the long run. Again it should be open for discussion.
Dividends on the small scale such as a plumber or very small business are like the large scale offshore schemes just tax avoidance in another form. Again I’m a hypocrite.
We have always done it this way is not an answer to moving forward .
If people had a better state pension as a result of better tax collection then they wouldn’t need to be so careful in their savings or offset pension contributions. We would have a pensioner population with a far more healthy income. I’m not against saving just again throwing it out there for discussion.
As for your last point I have mixed views as people invest in their homes and should benefit but until the shortage of housing is addressed this yet again penalises the poorer in society by artificially keeping prices too high.
It’s definitely unearned income so a tax on capitol gains should be considered on sale. A sales tax restricted to a capitol gain would encompass all and tax would be paid based on your unearned profit. Controversial I know. It may have a downside but as far as I can see it will only lead to lower prices.
Our economy is far too reliant on house prices and that has to stop as it’s a false impression that things are going well, when for a large majority they are not and a lot of people are left behind. Especially true for the younger generation who’s multiples to earnings on affordability are getting ridiculous .
As per my last post, I simply cannot agree.
As a business owner you clearly know profits can rise or fall. You therefore pay yourself a small but sustainable salary and top that up in the good years with dividends taking a hit in the bad years with less/no dividends. If you set your salary too high, in a low/no profit year you could bankrupt your own company! That is risk v reward of owning a business right?
Some people say that is tax avoidance (perfectly legal as not evasion) but others would say necessary due to fluctuating business income and profits.
On the primary home thing...no no no! Will fight anyone on this (joke - more a robust stirring of my tea). The only tax due on primary home should be when I die and it is subject to IHT. I have already paid my mortgage and interest charges from my post tax net income. Similarly the stamp duty when I bought it. I should not have to pay a penny more on my home.
Yes as a business owner I know exactly what you mean and it does fluctuate but that’s part of business and you save for poor years and invest in good years . If your survival depends on dividends not being taxed higher then your business is probably weak and needs sorting.
Remember you can only pay dividends after a profit is made so you in theory aren’t struggling .
As for tax on property yes you’ve paid for it yes you’ve earned that money and paid tax all through but have you earned the increase in value or is that just good luck?
Take two employees working for the same company on that same salary . One lives in say Cambridge the other in Doncaster .
They both thirty years ago paid the same price for their house but Cambridge city had huge investment whereas Doncaster didn’t . Fault was the house in Cambridge has quadrupoles in value but the one in Doncaster has only doubled .
Who’s worked harder or paid more in tax? They have paid the same. Who’s got the most unearned wealth?
I’m suggesting the tax is paid on either the sale or death not an annual fee and only on the capitol growth.
And if house prices crash and the chap in Cambridge has negative equity will he be able to claim a tax rebate?"
No just as you can’t claim tax on your PAYE income. Would you be so keen to pay over the odds going forwards? Btw you only lose money if you sell otherwise the value is irrelevant, |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"If the argument is that a wealth tax on primary home will ultimately reduce (or crash) the housing market then that is highly punitive on people who have worked hard and been judicious with their net income.
The real solution is:
1. Stop the right to buy nonsense - we should NEVER deplete our social housing stock.
2. Build more social housing.
3. Build more houses/flats per se.
4. Stop landowners from holding onto development sites for too long to artificially increase land value and house prices through lack of stock.
5. Stop even considering punishing people retrospectively for their choices on how they spent their net income in line with the Govt tax policy of the day!"
Good points mostly and I do agree . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Not quoting as getting too long bu @Jackel you won’t convince me (sure you don’t care) that dividends should be taxed like earned income. I maintain they are totally different due to shares being bought out of post tax income.
You jump to “offshore funds” which is highly emotive and I agree, distasteful, but not reflective of the majority with their modest share “portfolio” or small company Directors who rely on net company profits to pay themselves.
You raise point on pension income being taxed and another poster rightly points out that the tax is in effect deferred during working life (ie contributions taken off gross before income tax applied). As you know, that is to encourage people to save for retirement. So as pension contributions are not funded from net/post tax income, then taxing them as income seems appropriate.
There are similar arguments around some calling for a “wealth tax”. I categorically oppose anything that applies to someone’s primary home. The days of mortgage tax relief are a distant memory. Again people pay their mortgages from net/post tax income. Their primary home should NEVER be subject to further tax.
I do care honest
In regards to dividends they are in effect a gamble and it’s your decision to invest or not as it is a mall business owner. As an investor and business owner I admit I’m being hypocritical as I’ve benefited for years from such schemes including dividends , business investment schemes and some of my employees have benefited from EMI shares but again they only benefit if your company is a success or you make enough profits to pay dividends.
A small company owner shouldn’t have to rely on dividends he should be able to pay himself a decent wage and his reward is his after tax profits to himself or sell shares in his company .
If dividends were not factored in on a business plan from the start then that would make no difference in the long run. Again it should be open for discussion.
Dividends on the small scale such as a plumber or very small business are like the large scale offshore schemes just tax avoidance in another form. Again I’m a hypocrite.
We have always done it this way is not an answer to moving forward .
If people had a better state pension as a result of better tax collection then they wouldn’t need to be so careful in their savings or offset pension contributions. We would have a pensioner population with a far more healthy income. I’m not against saving just again throwing it out there for discussion.
As for your last point I have mixed views as people invest in their homes and should benefit but until the shortage of housing is addressed this yet again penalises the poorer in society by artificially keeping prices too high.
It’s definitely unearned income so a tax on capitol gains should be considered on sale. A sales tax restricted to a capitol gain would encompass all and tax would be paid based on your unearned profit. Controversial I know. It may have a downside but as far as I can see it will only lead to lower prices.
Our economy is far too reliant on house prices and that has to stop as it’s a false impression that things are going well, when for a large majority they are not and a lot of people are left behind. Especially true for the younger generation who’s multiples to earnings on affordability are getting ridiculous .
As per my last post, I simply cannot agree.
As a business owner you clearly know profits can rise or fall. You therefore pay yourself a small but sustainable salary and top that up in the good years with dividends taking a hit in the bad years with less/no dividends. If you set your salary too high, in a low/no profit year you could bankrupt your own company! That is risk v reward of owning a business right?
Some people say that is tax avoidance (perfectly legal as not evasion) but others would say necessary due to fluctuating business income and profits.
On the primary home thing...no no no! Will fight anyone on this (joke - more a robust stirring of my tea). The only tax due on primary home should be when I die and it is subject to IHT. I have already paid my mortgage and interest charges from my post tax net income. Similarly the stamp duty when I bought it. I should not have to pay a penny more on my home.
Yes as a business owner I know exactly what you mean and it does fluctuate but that’s part of business and you save for poor years and invest in good years . If your survival depends on dividends not being taxed higher then your business is probably weak and needs sorting.
Remember you can only pay dividends after a profit is made so you in theory aren’t struggling .
As for tax on property yes you’ve paid for it yes you’ve earned that money and paid tax all through but have you earned the increase in value or is that just good luck?
Take two employees working for the same company on that same salary . One lives in say Cambridge the other in Doncaster .
They both thirty years ago paid the same price for their house but Cambridge city had huge investment whereas Doncaster didn’t . Fault was the house in Cambridge has quadrupoles in value but the one in Doncaster has only doubled .
Who’s worked harder or paid more in tax? They have paid the same. Who’s got the most unearned wealth?
I’m suggesting the tax is paid on either the sale or death not an annual fee and only on the capitol growth.
And if house prices crash and the chap in Cambridge has negative equity will he be able to claim a tax rebate?"
To add...
Luck rarely has something to do with it. People either tend to live where they are from or where they can get work. The reason London salaries are higher is because house prices/rent/cost of living is higher. The Cambridge/Doncaster comparison is therefore rather a moot point as luck doesn’t really play that much of a factor.
I just cannot get beyond how punitive it would be to apply wealth tax to a primary home. Would this be retrospective or would it only apply to increase in value from the point in time when the legislation is enacted?
If retrospective then what about old people who have lived in a house since the 1960s bought for around £3k in shitty islington that are now worth £2m+. How will that work? Why can’t that just be part of IHT? Why do we NEED a wealth tax?
Instead let’s properly collect the right amount of tax now! Stop companies offshoring their HQ to low tax regimes and then charging IP royalties to their operations in the UK (causing them to make a loss). Tackle EVASION rather than AVOIDANCE. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"Not quoting as getting too long bu @Jackel you won’t convince me (sure you don’t care) that dividends should be taxed like earned income. I maintain they are totally different due to shares being bought out of post tax income.
You jump to “offshore funds” which is highly emotive and I agree, distasteful, but not reflective of the majority with their modest share “portfolio” or small company Directors who rely on net company profits to pay themselves.
You raise point on pension income being taxed and another poster rightly points out that the tax is in effect deferred during working life (ie contributions taken off gross before income tax applied). As you know, that is to encourage people to save for retirement. So as pension contributions are not funded from net/post tax income, then taxing them as income seems appropriate.
There are similar arguments around some calling for a “wealth tax”. I categorically oppose anything that applies to someone’s primary home. The days of mortgage tax relief are a distant memory. Again people pay their mortgages from net/post tax income. Their primary home should NEVER be subject to further tax.
I do care honest
In regards to dividends they are in effect a gamble and it’s your decision to invest or not as it is a mall business owner. As an investor and business owner I admit I’m being hypocritical as I’ve benefited for years from such schemes including dividends , business investment schemes and some of my employees have benefited from EMI shares but again they only benefit if your company is a success or you make enough profits to pay dividends.
A small company owner shouldn’t have to rely on dividends he should be able to pay himself a decent wage and his reward is his after tax profits to himself or sell shares in his company .
If dividends were not factored in on a business plan from the start then that would make no difference in the long run. Again it should be open for discussion.
Dividends on the small scale such as a plumber or very small business are like the large scale offshore schemes just tax avoidance in another form. Again I’m a hypocrite.
We have always done it this way is not an answer to moving forward .
If people had a better state pension as a result of better tax collection then they wouldn’t need to be so careful in their savings or offset pension contributions. We would have a pensioner population with a far more healthy income. I’m not against saving just again throwing it out there for discussion.
As for your last point I have mixed views as people invest in their homes and should benefit but until the shortage of housing is addressed this yet again penalises the poorer in society by artificially keeping prices too high.
It’s definitely unearned income so a tax on capitol gains should be considered on sale. A sales tax restricted to a capitol gain would encompass all and tax would be paid based on your unearned profit. Controversial I know. It may have a downside but as far as I can see it will only lead to lower prices.
Our economy is far too reliant on house prices and that has to stop as it’s a false impression that things are going well, when for a large majority they are not and a lot of people are left behind. Especially true for the younger generation who’s multiples to earnings on affordability are getting ridiculous .
As per my last post, I simply cannot agree.
As a business owner you clearly know profits can rise or fall. You therefore pay yourself a small but sustainable salary and top that up in the good years with dividends taking a hit in the bad years with less/no dividends. If you set your salary too high, in a low/no profit year you could bankrupt your own company! That is risk v reward of owning a business right?
Some people say that is tax avoidance (perfectly legal as not evasion) but others would say necessary due to fluctuating business income and profits.
On the primary home thing...no no no! Will fight anyone on this (joke - more a robust stirring of my tea). The only tax due on primary home should be when I die and it is subject to IHT. I have already paid my mortgage and interest charges from my post tax net income. Similarly the stamp duty when I bought it. I should not have to pay a penny more on my home.
A wealth tax on houses causes no end of issues without the morality issues.
I buy a house for £100k. Prices double. Do I pay a tax while I'm still in the house (how do I get the money?).
Or when I sell?
But then I'm selling a 200k house and buying a 200k house. I again have to find the tax bill.
Or I have to look at a 190k house. But that means I'm down grading for no reason. So I don't move.
It also doesn’t feed into house prices growing out of reach so if you don’t move they don’t sell. They reduce the price Would you buy then? assumption here is ppl have to move so have to sell.
Imo decreasing supply isn't a great plan, even if that also decreases demand. Better ways of dealing with housing than decreasing the liquidity in the market. "
25% of the Tory party funders are property developers . During Covid stamp duty was dramatically reduced. Why? The builders were furloughed so it didn’t protect jobs.
It was to keep the prices up it’s that simple. Land values and profits would be hit if prices fell . Buyers would benefit but developers as above wouldn’t. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Not quoting as getting too long bu @Jackel you won’t convince me (sure you don’t care) that dividends should be taxed like earned income. I maintain they are totally different due to shares being bought out of post tax income.
You jump to “offshore funds” which is highly emotive and I agree, distasteful, but not reflective of the majority with their modest share “portfolio” or small company Directors who rely on net company profits to pay themselves.
You raise point on pension income being taxed and another poster rightly points out that the tax is in effect deferred during working life (ie contributions taken off gross before income tax applied). As you know, that is to encourage people to save for retirement. So as pension contributions are not funded from net/post tax income, then taxing them as income seems appropriate.
There are similar arguments around some calling for a “wealth tax”. I categorically oppose anything that applies to someone’s primary home. The days of mortgage tax relief are a distant memory. Again people pay their mortgages from net/post tax income. Their primary home should NEVER be subject to further tax.
I do care honest
In regards to dividends they are in effect a gamble and it’s your decision to invest or not as it is a mall business owner. As an investor and business owner I admit I’m being hypocritical as I’ve benefited for years from such schemes including dividends , business investment schemes and some of my employees have benefited from EMI shares but again they only benefit if your company is a success or you make enough profits to pay dividends.
A small company owner shouldn’t have to rely on dividends he should be able to pay himself a decent wage and his reward is his after tax profits to himself or sell shares in his company .
If dividends were not factored in on a business plan from the start then that would make no difference in the long run. Again it should be open for discussion.
Dividends on the small scale such as a plumber or very small business are like the large scale offshore schemes just tax avoidance in another form. Again I’m a hypocrite.
We have always done it this way is not an answer to moving forward .
If people had a better state pension as a result of better tax collection then they wouldn’t need to be so careful in their savings or offset pension contributions. We would have a pensioner population with a far more healthy income. I’m not against saving just again throwing it out there for discussion.
As for your last point I have mixed views as people invest in their homes and should benefit but until the shortage of housing is addressed this yet again penalises the poorer in society by artificially keeping prices too high.
It’s definitely unearned income so a tax on capitol gains should be considered on sale. A sales tax restricted to a capitol gain would encompass all and tax would be paid based on your unearned profit. Controversial I know. It may have a downside but as far as I can see it will only lead to lower prices.
Our economy is far too reliant on house prices and that has to stop as it’s a false impression that things are going well, when for a large majority they are not and a lot of people are left behind. Especially true for the younger generation who’s multiples to earnings on affordability are getting ridiculous .
As per my last post, I simply cannot agree.
As a business owner you clearly know profits can rise or fall. You therefore pay yourself a small but sustainable salary and top that up in the good years with dividends taking a hit in the bad years with less/no dividends. If you set your salary too high, in a low/no profit year you could bankrupt your own company! That is risk v reward of owning a business right?
Some people say that is tax avoidance (perfectly legal as not evasion) but others would say necessary due to fluctuating business income and profits.
On the primary home thing...no no no! Will fight anyone on this (joke - more a robust stirring of my tea). The only tax due on primary home should be when I die and it is subject to IHT. I have already paid my mortgage and interest charges from my post tax net income. Similarly the stamp duty when I bought it. I should not have to pay a penny more on my home.
Yes as a business owner I know exactly what you mean and it does fluctuate but that’s part of business and you save for poor years and invest in good years . If your survival depends on dividends not being taxed higher then your business is probably weak and needs sorting.
Remember you can only pay dividends after a profit is made so you in theory aren’t struggling .
As for tax on property yes you’ve paid for it yes you’ve earned that money and paid tax all through but have you earned the increase in value or is that just good luck?
Take two employees working for the same company on that same salary . One lives in say Cambridge the other in Doncaster .
They both thirty years ago paid the same price for their house but Cambridge city had huge investment whereas Doncaster didn’t . Fault was the house in Cambridge has quadrupoles in value but the one in Doncaster has only doubled .
Who’s worked harder or paid more in tax? They have paid the same. Who’s got the most unearned wealth?
I’m suggesting the tax is paid on either the sale or death not an annual fee and only on the capitol growth.
And if house prices crash and the chap in Cambridge has negative equity will he be able to claim a tax rebate?
No just as you can’t claim tax on your PAYE income. Would you be so keen to pay over the odds going forwards? Btw you only lose money if you sell otherwise the value is irrelevant, "
So someone makes financial sacrifices to buy a home with a mortgage paid for from post tax net income that does go up in value and you tax them again on that but if they but at the top of the market and they lose money it is tough shit you took a gamble! Seems fair! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Not quoting as getting too long bu @Jackel you won’t convince me (sure you don’t care) that dividends should be taxed like earned income. I maintain they are totally different due to shares being bought out of post tax income.
You jump to “offshore funds” which is highly emotive and I agree, distasteful, but not reflective of the majority with their modest share “portfolio” or small company Directors who rely on net company profits to pay themselves.
You raise point on pension income being taxed and another poster rightly points out that the tax is in effect deferred during working life (ie contributions taken off gross before income tax applied). As you know, that is to encourage people to save for retirement. So as pension contributions are not funded from net/post tax income, then taxing them as income seems appropriate.
There are similar arguments around some calling for a “wealth tax”. I categorically oppose anything that applies to someone’s primary home. The days of mortgage tax relief are a distant memory. Again people pay their mortgages from net/post tax income. Their primary home should NEVER be subject to further tax.
I do care honest
In regards to dividends they are in effect a gamble and it’s your decision to invest or not as it is a mall business owner. As an investor and business owner I admit I’m being hypocritical as I’ve benefited for years from such schemes including dividends , business investment schemes and some of my employees have benefited from EMI shares but again they only benefit if your company is a success or you make enough profits to pay dividends.
A small company owner shouldn’t have to rely on dividends he should be able to pay himself a decent wage and his reward is his after tax profits to himself or sell shares in his company .
If dividends were not factored in on a business plan from the start then that would make no difference in the long run. Again it should be open for discussion.
Dividends on the small scale such as a plumber or very small business are like the large scale offshore schemes just tax avoidance in another form. Again I’m a hypocrite.
We have always done it this way is not an answer to moving forward .
If people had a better state pension as a result of better tax collection then they wouldn’t need to be so careful in their savings or offset pension contributions. We would have a pensioner population with a far more healthy income. I’m not against saving just again throwing it out there for discussion.
As for your last point I have mixed views as people invest in their homes and should benefit but until the shortage of housing is addressed this yet again penalises the poorer in society by artificially keeping prices too high.
It’s definitely unearned income so a tax on capitol gains should be considered on sale. A sales tax restricted to a capitol gain would encompass all and tax would be paid based on your unearned profit. Controversial I know. It may have a downside but as far as I can see it will only lead to lower prices.
Our economy is far too reliant on house prices and that has to stop as it’s a false impression that things are going well, when for a large majority they are not and a lot of people are left behind. Especially true for the younger generation who’s multiples to earnings on affordability are getting ridiculous .
As per my last post, I simply cannot agree.
As a business owner you clearly know profits can rise or fall. You therefore pay yourself a small but sustainable salary and top that up in the good years with dividends taking a hit in the bad years with less/no dividends. If you set your salary too high, in a low/no profit year you could bankrupt your own company! That is risk v reward of owning a business right?
Some people say that is tax avoidance (perfectly legal as not evasion) but others would say necessary due to fluctuating business income and profits.
On the primary home thing...no no no! Will fight anyone on this (joke - more a robust stirring of my tea). The only tax due on primary home should be when I die and it is subject to IHT. I have already paid my mortgage and interest charges from my post tax net income. Similarly the stamp duty when I bought it. I should not have to pay a penny more on my home.
Yes as a business owner I know exactly what you mean and it does fluctuate but that’s part of business and you save for poor years and invest in good years . If your survival depends on dividends not being taxed higher then your business is probably weak and needs sorting.
Remember you can only pay dividends after a profit is made so you in theory aren’t struggling .
As for tax on property yes you’ve paid for it yes you’ve earned that money and paid tax all through but have you earned the increase in value or is that just good luck?
Take two employees working for the same company on that same salary . One lives in say Cambridge the other in Doncaster .
They both thirty years ago paid the same price for their house but Cambridge city had huge investment whereas Doncaster didn’t . Fault was the house in Cambridge has quadrupoles in value but the one in Doncaster has only doubled .
Who’s worked harder or paid more in tax? They have paid the same. Who’s got the most unearned wealth?
I’m suggesting the tax is paid on either the sale or death not an annual fee and only on the capitol growth.
And if house prices crash and the chap in Cambridge has negative equity will he be able to claim a tax rebate?
No just as you can’t claim tax on your PAYE income. Would you be so keen to pay over the odds going forwards? Btw you only lose money if you sell otherwise the value is irrelevant,
So someone makes financial sacrifices to buy a home with a mortgage paid for from post tax net income that does go up in value and you tax them again on that but if they but at the top of the market and they lose money it is tough shit you took a gamble! Seems fair! "
and it would mean a different treatment to your house than equites. That would help reduce BTL... Harsh when it's your own house. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"Not quoting as getting too long bu @Jackel you won’t convince me (sure you don’t care) that dividends should be taxed like earned income. I maintain they are totally different due to shares being bought out of post tax income.
You jump to “offshore funds” which is highly emotive and I agree, distasteful, but not reflective of the majority with their modest share “portfolio” or small company Directors who rely on net company profits to pay themselves.
You raise point on pension income being taxed and another poster rightly points out that the tax is in effect deferred during working life (ie contributions taken off gross before income tax applied). As you know, that is to encourage people to save for retirement. So as pension contributions are not funded from net/post tax income, then taxing them as income seems appropriate.
There are similar arguments around some calling for a “wealth tax”. I categorically oppose anything that applies to someone’s primary home. The days of mortgage tax relief are a distant memory. Again people pay their mortgages from net/post tax income. Their primary home should NEVER be subject to further tax.
I do care honest
In regards to dividends they are in effect a gamble and it’s your decision to invest or not as it is a mall business owner. As an investor and business owner I admit I’m being hypocritical as I’ve benefited for years from such schemes including dividends , business investment schemes and some of my employees have benefited from EMI shares but again they only benefit if your company is a success or you make enough profits to pay dividends.
A small company owner shouldn’t have to rely on dividends he should be able to pay himself a decent wage and his reward is his after tax profits to himself or sell shares in his company .
If dividends were not factored in on a business plan from the start then that would make no difference in the long run. Again it should be open for discussion.
Dividends on the small scale such as a plumber or very small business are like the large scale offshore schemes just tax avoidance in another form. Again I’m a hypocrite.
We have always done it this way is not an answer to moving forward .
If people had a better state pension as a result of better tax collection then they wouldn’t need to be so careful in their savings or offset pension contributions. We would have a pensioner population with a far more healthy income. I’m not against saving just again throwing it out there for discussion.
As for your last point I have mixed views as people invest in their homes and should benefit but until the shortage of housing is addressed this yet again penalises the poorer in society by artificially keeping prices too high.
It’s definitely unearned income so a tax on capitol gains should be considered on sale. A sales tax restricted to a capitol gain would encompass all and tax would be paid based on your unearned profit. Controversial I know. It may have a downside but as far as I can see it will only lead to lower prices.
Our economy is far too reliant on house prices and that has to stop as it’s a false impression that things are going well, when for a large majority they are not and a lot of people are left behind. Especially true for the younger generation who’s multiples to earnings on affordability are getting ridiculous .
As per my last post, I simply cannot agree.
As a business owner you clearly know profits can rise or fall. You therefore pay yourself a small but sustainable salary and top that up in the good years with dividends taking a hit in the bad years with less/no dividends. If you set your salary too high, in a low/no profit year you could bankrupt your own company! That is risk v reward of owning a business right?
Some people say that is tax avoidance (perfectly legal as not evasion) but others would say necessary due to fluctuating business income and profits.
On the primary home thing...no no no! Will fight anyone on this (joke - more a robust stirring of my tea). The only tax due on primary home should be when I die and it is subject to IHT. I have already paid my mortgage and interest charges from my post tax net income. Similarly the stamp duty when I bought it. I should not have to pay a penny more on my home.
Yes as a business owner I know exactly what you mean and it does fluctuate but that’s part of business and you save for poor years and invest in good years . If your survival depends on dividends not being taxed higher then your business is probably weak and needs sorting.
Remember you can only pay dividends after a profit is made so you in theory aren’t struggling .
As for tax on property yes you’ve paid for it yes you’ve earned that money and paid tax all through but have you earned the increase in value or is that just good luck?
Take two employees working for the same company on that same salary . One lives in say Cambridge the other in Doncaster .
They both thirty years ago paid the same price for their house but Cambridge city had huge investment whereas Doncaster didn’t . Fault was the house in Cambridge has quadrupoles in value but the one in Doncaster has only doubled .
Who’s worked harder or paid more in tax? They have paid the same. Who’s got the most unearned wealth?
I’m suggesting the tax is paid on either the sale or death not an annual fee and only on the capitol growth.
And if house prices crash and the chap in Cambridge has negative equity will he be able to claim a tax rebate?
To add...
Luck rarely has something to do with it. People either tend to live where they are from or where they can get work. The reason London salaries are higher is because house prices/rent/cost of living is higher. The Cambridge/Doncaster comparison is therefore rather a moot point as luck doesn’t really play that much of a factor.
I just cannot get beyond how punitive it would be to apply wealth tax to a primary home. Would this be retrospective or would it only apply to increase in value from the point in time when the legislation is enacted?
If retrospective then what about old people who have lived in a house since the 1960s bought for around £3k in shitty islington that are now worth £2m+. How will that work? Why can’t that just be part of IHT? Why do we NEED a wealth tax?
Instead let’s properly collect the right amount of tax now! Stop companies offshoring their HQ to low tax regimes and then charging IP royalties to their operations in the UK (causing them to make a loss). Tackle EVASION rather than AVOIDANCE. "
Again all good points but if you allow for inflation using CPI then the gain is relative. So the granny would have a huge allowance to offset.
The avoidance is the problem as it’s perfectly legal to keep hundreds of billions in known funds away from the governments where those funds are generated. That charging across is perfectly legal under avoidance. It’s our laws which allow it.
Evasion could then be chased by a well funded tax investigation unit.
The highest estimates are around £465b per year is known to avoid tax globally. Of which 65% goes through the U.K. banks. This is according to the world bank. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"Not quoting as getting too long bu @Jackel you won’t convince me (sure you don’t care) that dividends should be taxed like earned income. I maintain they are totally different due to shares being bought out of post tax income.
You jump to “offshore funds” which is highly emotive and I agree, distasteful, but not reflective of the majority with their modest share “portfolio” or small company Directors who rely on net company profits to pay themselves.
You raise point on pension income being taxed and another poster rightly points out that the tax is in effect deferred during working life (ie contributions taken off gross before income tax applied). As you know, that is to encourage people to save for retirement. So as pension contributions are not funded from net/post tax income, then taxing them as income seems appropriate.
There are similar arguments around some calling for a “wealth tax”. I categorically oppose anything that applies to someone’s primary home. The days of mortgage tax relief are a distant memory. Again people pay their mortgages from net/post tax income. Their primary home should NEVER be subject to further tax.
I do care honest
In regards to dividends they are in effect a gamble and it’s your decision to invest or not as it is a mall business owner. As an investor and business owner I admit I’m being hypocritical as I’ve benefited for years from such schemes including dividends , business investment schemes and some of my employees have benefited from EMI shares but again they only benefit if your company is a success or you make enough profits to pay dividends.
A small company owner shouldn’t have to rely on dividends he should be able to pay himself a decent wage and his reward is his after tax profits to himself or sell shares in his company .
If dividends were not factored in on a business plan from the start then that would make no difference in the long run. Again it should be open for discussion.
Dividends on the small scale such as a plumber or very small business are like the large scale offshore schemes just tax avoidance in another form. Again I’m a hypocrite.
We have always done it this way is not an answer to moving forward .
If people had a better state pension as a result of better tax collection then they wouldn’t need to be so careful in their savings or offset pension contributions. We would have a pensioner population with a far more healthy income. I’m not against saving just again throwing it out there for discussion.
As for your last point I have mixed views as people invest in their homes and should benefit but until the shortage of housing is addressed this yet again penalises the poorer in society by artificially keeping prices too high.
It’s definitely unearned income so a tax on capitol gains should be considered on sale. A sales tax restricted to a capitol gain would encompass all and tax would be paid based on your unearned profit. Controversial I know. It may have a downside but as far as I can see it will only lead to lower prices.
Our economy is far too reliant on house prices and that has to stop as it’s a false impression that things are going well, when for a large majority they are not and a lot of people are left behind. Especially true for the younger generation who’s multiples to earnings on affordability are getting ridiculous .
As per my last post, I simply cannot agree.
As a business owner you clearly know profits can rise or fall. You therefore pay yourself a small but sustainable salary and top that up in the good years with dividends taking a hit in the bad years with less/no dividends. If you set your salary too high, in a low/no profit year you could bankrupt your own company! That is risk v reward of owning a business right?
Some people say that is tax avoidance (perfectly legal as not evasion) but others would say necessary due to fluctuating business income and profits.
On the primary home thing...no no no! Will fight anyone on this (joke - more a robust stirring of my tea). The only tax due on primary home should be when I die and it is subject to IHT. I have already paid my mortgage and interest charges from my post tax net income. Similarly the stamp duty when I bought it. I should not have to pay a penny more on my home.
Yes as a business owner I know exactly what you mean and it does fluctuate but that’s part of business and you save for poor years and invest in good years . If your survival depends on dividends not being taxed higher then your business is probably weak and needs sorting.
Remember you can only pay dividends after a profit is made so you in theory aren’t struggling .
As for tax on property yes you’ve paid for it yes you’ve earned that money and paid tax all through but have you earned the increase in value or is that just good luck?
Take two employees working for the same company on that same salary . One lives in say Cambridge the other in Doncaster .
They both thirty years ago paid the same price for their house but Cambridge city had huge investment whereas Doncaster didn’t . Fault was the house in Cambridge has quadrupoles in value but the one in Doncaster has only doubled .
Who’s worked harder or paid more in tax? They have paid the same. Who’s got the most unearned wealth?
I’m suggesting the tax is paid on either the sale or death not an annual fee and only on the capitol growth.
And if house prices crash and the chap in Cambridge has negative equity will he be able to claim a tax rebate?
No just as you can’t claim tax on your PAYE income. Would you be so keen to pay over the odds going forwards? Btw you only lose money if you sell otherwise the value is irrelevant,
So someone makes financial sacrifices to buy a home with a mortgage paid for from post tax net income that does go up in value and you tax them again on that but if they but at the top of the market and they lose money it is tough shit you took a gamble! Seems fair! "
Is it fair because you bought a house 20 years ago someone on the same salary priests can’t afford the same or a similar house because they have gone up so much,
Orphans are going to be well fucked without ingetitancexarent they.
Property is always going to keep and grow an intrinsic value due the human desire to own or rent their own hone. So whilst prices won’t charge up they will increase but more likely they will be closer to wage increases. So more stable affordability. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Not quoting as getting too long bu @Jackel you won’t convince me (sure you don’t care) that dividends should be taxed like earned income. I maintain they are totally different due to shares being bought out of post tax income.
You jump to “offshore funds” which is highly emotive and I agree, distasteful, but not reflective of the majority with their modest share “portfolio” or small company Directors who rely on net company profits to pay themselves.
You raise point on pension income being taxed and another poster rightly points out that the tax is in effect deferred during working life (ie contributions taken off gross before income tax applied). As you know, that is to encourage people to save for retirement. So as pension contributions are not funded from net/post tax income, then taxing them as income seems appropriate.
There are similar arguments around some calling for a “wealth tax”. I categorically oppose anything that applies to someone’s primary home. The days of mortgage tax relief are a distant memory. Again people pay their mortgages from net/post tax income. Their primary home should NEVER be subject to further tax.
I do care honest
In regards to dividends they are in effect a gamble and it’s your decision to invest or not as it is a mall business owner. As an investor and business owner I admit I’m being hypocritical as I’ve benefited for years from such schemes including dividends , business investment schemes and some of my employees have benefited from EMI shares but again they only benefit if your company is a success or you make enough profits to pay dividends.
A small company owner shouldn’t have to rely on dividends he should be able to pay himself a decent wage and his reward is his after tax profits to himself or sell shares in his company .
If dividends were not factored in on a business plan from the start then that would make no difference in the long run. Again it should be open for discussion.
Dividends on the small scale such as a plumber or very small business are like the large scale offshore schemes just tax avoidance in another form. Again I’m a hypocrite.
We have always done it this way is not an answer to moving forward .
If people had a better state pension as a result of better tax collection then they wouldn’t need to be so careful in their savings or offset pension contributions. We would have a pensioner population with a far more healthy income. I’m not against saving just again throwing it out there for discussion.
As for your last point I have mixed views as people invest in their homes and should benefit but until the shortage of housing is addressed this yet again penalises the poorer in society by artificially keeping prices too high.
It’s definitely unearned income so a tax on capitol gains should be considered on sale. A sales tax restricted to a capitol gain would encompass all and tax would be paid based on your unearned profit. Controversial I know. It may have a downside but as far as I can see it will only lead to lower prices.
Our economy is far too reliant on house prices and that has to stop as it’s a false impression that things are going well, when for a large majority they are not and a lot of people are left behind. Especially true for the younger generation who’s multiples to earnings on affordability are getting ridiculous .
As per my last post, I simply cannot agree.
As a business owner you clearly know profits can rise or fall. You therefore pay yourself a small but sustainable salary and top that up in the good years with dividends taking a hit in the bad years with less/no dividends. If you set your salary too high, in a low/no profit year you could bankrupt your own company! That is risk v reward of owning a business right?
Some people say that is tax avoidance (perfectly legal as not evasion) but others would say necessary due to fluctuating business income and profits.
On the primary home thing...no no no! Will fight anyone on this (joke - more a robust stirring of my tea). The only tax due on primary home should be when I die and it is subject to IHT. I have already paid my mortgage and interest charges from my post tax net income. Similarly the stamp duty when I bought it. I should not have to pay a penny more on my home.
Yes as a business owner I know exactly what you mean and it does fluctuate but that’s part of business and you save for poor years and invest in good years . If your survival depends on dividends not being taxed higher then your business is probably weak and needs sorting.
Remember you can only pay dividends after a profit is made so you in theory aren’t struggling .
As for tax on property yes you’ve paid for it yes you’ve earned that money and paid tax all through but have you earned the increase in value or is that just good luck?
Take two employees working for the same company on that same salary . One lives in say Cambridge the other in Doncaster .
They both thirty years ago paid the same price for their house but Cambridge city had huge investment whereas Doncaster didn’t . Fault was the house in Cambridge has quadrupoles in value but the one in Doncaster has only doubled .
Who’s worked harder or paid more in tax? They have paid the same. Who’s got the most unearned wealth?
I’m suggesting the tax is paid on either the sale or death not an annual fee and only on the capitol growth.
And if house prices crash and the chap in Cambridge has negative equity will he be able to claim a tax rebate?
No just as you can’t claim tax on your PAYE income. Would you be so keen to pay over the odds going forwards? Btw you only lose money if you sell otherwise the value is irrelevant,
So someone makes financial sacrifices to buy a home with a mortgage paid for from post tax net income that does go up in value and you tax them again on that but if they but at the top of the market and they lose money it is tough shit you took a gamble! Seems fair!
Is it fair because you bought a house 20 years ago someone on the same salary priests can’t afford the same or a similar house because they have gone up so much,
Orphans are going to be well fucked without ingetitancexarent they.
Property is always going to keep and grow an intrinsic value due the human desire to own or rent their own hone. So whilst prices won’t charge up they will increase but more likely they will be closer to wage increases. So more stable affordability. "
1) cap mortgages. That will cool the market while creating fairness
2) iht doesn't destroy all wealth. Easy enough to have a dependent carve out the same way as we have spousal. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
Here’s a genuine question @Jackel @Hovis (not a gotcha as I honestly don’t know)...
I sometimes watch the Antiques Roadshow (yeah I know). People come on there with sometimes hideous knick knacks that most of us would throw in a skip, yet they picked it up for a few £ in a shop or at a car boot sale.
Turns out they have a collectors item that at auction could fetch tens or hundreds of thousands of £. Lucky them huh?
Do they have to pay tax on the proceeds if selling the item they owned? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ercuryMan
over a year ago
Grantham |
"Here’s a genuine question @Jackel @Hovis (not a gotcha as I honestly don’t know)...
I sometimes watch the Antiques Roadshow (yeah I know). People come on there with sometimes hideous knick knacks that most of us would throw in a skip, yet they picked it up for a few £ in a shop or at a car boot sale.
Turns out they have a collectors item that at auction could fetch tens or hundreds of thousands of £. Lucky them huh?
Do they have to pay tax on the proceeds if selling the item they owned? "
No, the only tax that is payable,is the vat on the buyers premium.(what the auction house charges the buyer to sell the item) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Here’s a genuine question @Jackel @Hovis (not a gotcha as I honestly don’t know)...
I sometimes watch the Antiques Roadshow (yeah I know). People come on there with sometimes hideous knick knacks that most of us would throw in a skip, yet they picked it up for a few £ in a shop or at a car boot sale.
Turns out they have a collectors item that at auction could fetch tens or hundreds of thousands of £. Lucky them huh?
Do they have to pay tax on the proceeds if selling the item they owned? "
belive so, yes, CGT. There are a few exceptions there, and would also need you to be over your CGT limit. (so have realsied a load of other gains)
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *I TwoCouple
over a year ago
PDI 12-26th Nov 24 |
"If it weren't for rich people then poor people would be even poorer
You can rob the rich to feed the poor
Dividends must be paid to allow companies to survive, Why would I risk investing my hard earned money in a company for any other reason than financial return ? If I could get a better return from a savings account then I would.
The bankers that get big bonuses make billions for the investors and for the chancellor enabling the government to provide handouts to those in need
The discussion is about balancing wealth and that includes looking at the economy as a whole.
The rich don’t become rich without the efforts of the less well paid. Where do you think all that investment money comes from? It’s not the banks it’s earned through profits made in companies or through loans to businesses who employ people.
They wasn’t one day where God said ok you lot are rich and you lot are poor. The original tax was by kings on the poor serfs then the enclosures act enabled any assets the poor had to be taken off them.
Being a serial investor from the age of 19 I know very well how it works but I also know how totally unfair it can be. Many poorly paid people work very hard for very little reward or opportunity. Also some very rich people don’t work at all and yet get richer still. Don’t assume rich is always through hard work or endeavour it isn’t. If an average worker was given tax free wages as many rich are then I’m sure they would be much better off and contribute more to the economy via spending.
As for dividends I agree they should be paid but a government owned business should not pay dividends whilst cutting the wages of the workers. Also why should dividends be taxed at a lower rate than income tax? Unearned income should be taxed at the same rates as earned. Otherwise yet again there is a favourable bias towards wealthier people. I’m a hypocrite here as I’m made a lot of money from dividends but even I can see if the poor are getting poorer despite working hard then somethings need to change.
There is nothing stopping poor people becoming rich people other than motivation.
Many well off people I know weren't born with a silver spoon in their mouths, they worked hard, took occasional risks and weren't afraid to invest in their future.
We chose to invest in our retirement at the expense of spending money when we were younger, it's a personal choice and most can't afford to burn the candle at both ends so they get jealous when they see others enjoying retirement when they probably could have done the same
That’s simply not true.
Anyone who has done well has been helped at sone point. Whether that’s an interview for a job or an introduction for a business deal . Sone people who grow up surrounded by other poor people with no helpful leverage are simply unaware of their opportunities . Our state education system does not develop people to be entrepreneurs it teaches them how to write a cv not how to start a business.
I’ve employed people who’s parents didn’t give a shit and they were just kicked out of their homes. Some of those people were very smart indeed and very hard workers but no education and no idea how to get on.
Just being a hard worker doesn’t make you successful.
Yes the quote “Everyone says I’m lucky but the harder I work, the luckier I seem to get” is a favourite to trot out. Without contacts and assistance in some small way you are stuck no matter how hard you work.
People who chose not to work should have the minimum to survive and not have a lifestyle on the dole as I am not happy about that either.
This right to buy is a load of nonsense to announce as I know someone who’s done this already. He knows very well to not mention it to me as I will give him a hard time. He hasn’t worked for over twenty five years but has bought a house with his benefits . How is that possible or allowed?
"
I agree with the dole should provide essentials in fact if you so far as to suggest it should be vouchers rather than money although they would probably sell them for half the face value to buy booze and fags.
Disagree with you that people who have made a success have been helped up the ladder, yes of course it happens but not for the vast majority that I know who just keep getting back up every time they get kicked down.
I've seen quite a few people I wouldn't rate as being particularly intelligent making good money selling crap or drop shipping on eBay |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *eroy1000Man
over a year ago
milton keynes |
"With all the things regarding inflation at the moment, rishi has confirmed that pensioners will get the full increase next year… so whatever the inflation rate is in October that is what it will go up by next April
Also remember that pensioners will also get 1000 pounds for their heating (400 plus 300 plus winter fuel allowance)
So… bearing in mind that pensioners are more likely to vote.. and vote conservative… is this pandering to your most loyal crowd
What would have been the response if they were not to get this rise. Proof if needed that whatever decisions are made, people will complain. This government has got many things wrong and lost my vote in the process, but when they occasionally get something right then surely that's good news
It’s not right when millions more are becoming much worse off.
Give the pensioners a rise . Give them 20% if you like as we do have one of the worst state pensions in the west but only if we have the cash. Otherwise it’s means tested.
Imagine if the government hadn’t blown £37 billion on track and trace . That’s £3363 for each pensioner. Then add the tens of billions on PPE or the £11b on bond interest lost because of Sunaks stupidity. . That’s more than Gordon Brown lost selling our gold reserves. Throw in the hundreds of billions we’re losing over Brexit and there’s your issue.
The country is in a mess because of who’s in charge . The poor always end up picking up the tab. It’s why the richest 1% have become even more obscenely wealthy. Our government is the problem along with our tax system.
Are you saying you agree giving pensioners the rise or disagree
I’ll quote my post again
“It’s not right when millions more are becoming much worse off.
Give the pensioners a rise . Give them 20% if you like as we do have one of the worst state pensions in the west but only if we have the cash. Otherwise it’s means tested.”
I “want” them all to get it but if the government can’t afford to give hospital cleaners more then why should a wealthier pensioner be given more when they don’t need it?
Remember a hospital cleaner can’t put great chunks of cash into a private pension because the pay is so poor.
That's a no from you then. Thanks. I personally think it's good but it's good to hear other views even if we disagree
Ha ha did you actually read it or did you think you read it?
Read it again
I'm still not sure then as your first words were its not right when millions are becoming much worse off. I know means testing has it's purpose but I feel with pensions it should be across the board
Yes that’s the point
The government are saying they can’t pay the workers 10% but they can pay pensioners 10% .
Not all workers some Directors for example need a 10% pay rise and in the same vain not all pensioners need a 10% pay rise.
My wish would be for all pensioners to get the same too but if the pot is to small then it’s too small.
Maybe if as another poster pointed out the tax rules for hiving money offshore legally was stopped then there would be enough to go around.
How can a company pay dividends to investors from profits but at the same time allow their workers to be forced to take a pay cut?
I don't know why they pay dividends to investors, I assume it's their choice. Maybe they should be limited on what they can pay investors as you mention though possibly it would hinder attracting future investors but that's a guess. I was not aware of pay cuts, I thought it was just not matching inflation. I know in real terms it means going backwards but the wages are still rising. I'm not a fan of means testing though maybe the pay rises should be means tested to give the most to the lowest paid and little to the higher paid
Maybe inflation wages guaranteed before dividends otherwise workers lose but investors win. Nonprofit no index linking wages or dividends.
Yes you’re right if an increase doesn’t match inflation which many workers have been forced to accept then it’s a cut.
I don’t like the means testing for pensioners either. As others have mentioned on here everyone’s paid in their fair share. However if someone is low paid then maybe if they were better paid they also could have paid more into a pension,
Also how is it acceptable for some in state employed roles to get golden handshakes and some can retire after 20 years while those such as a cleaner or social carer have to work until 70?
I’m not sure if index linking or if final salary still exists for some but not others? Anyone know?
The system is biased against the lower paid much like tax.
Those who earn more get better tax breaks such as ISAs .
If you keep digging you see it’s all out of kilter.
I don’t have answers but as I said before if right now the government has less cash then I personally would provide more for less wealthy pensioners and the less paid workers.
"
Inflation wage guarantee sounds good though not if it causes the business to go broke as that helps no one. Certainly wages before dividends as a principal though. Maybe a mathematical formula that ensures wage and dividends are linked so a low wage rise also means low dividends and high wage rise means high dividends. I think pensions are completely separate and not easy to compare |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
"Here’s a genuine question @Jackel @Hovis (not a gotcha as I honestly don’t know)...
I sometimes watch the Antiques Roadshow (yeah I know). People come on there with sometimes hideous knick knacks that most of us would throw in a skip, yet they picked it up for a few £ in a shop or at a car boot sale.
Turns out they have a collectors item that at auction could fetch tens or hundreds of thousands of £. Lucky them huh?
Do they have to pay tax on the proceeds if selling the item they owned? belive so, yes, CGT. There are a few exceptions there, and would also need you to be over your CGT limit. (so have realsied a load of other gains)
"
Ok thanks. Was trying to ascertain whether it is analogous to this concept of a wealth tax applied to your primary home. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
Sorry I was late to this but a good question and firstly I didn’t know the answer and so I fly I’m not convinced I can argue that point other that to say that is more in line with a speculative gamble such as a lottery ticket.
Not a primary home.
Not a strong argument I admit and I think Hovis makes a better one |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"If it weren't for rich people then poor people would be even poorer
You can rob the rich to feed the poor
Dividends must be paid to allow companies to survive, Why would I risk investing my hard earned money in a company for any other reason than financial return ? If I could get a better return from a savings account then I would.
The bankers that get big bonuses make billions for the investors and for the chancellor enabling the government to provide handouts to those in need
The discussion is about balancing wealth and that includes looking at the economy as a whole.
The rich don’t become rich without the efforts of the less well paid. Where do you think all that investment money comes from? It’s not the banks it’s earned through profits made in companies or through loans to businesses who employ people.
They wasn’t one day where God said ok you lot are rich and you lot are poor. The original tax was by kings on the poor serfs then the enclosures act enabled any assets the poor had to be taken off them.
Being a serial investor from the age of 19 I know very well how it works but I also know how totally unfair it can be. Many poorly paid people work very hard for very little reward or opportunity. Also some very rich people don’t work at all and yet get richer still. Don’t assume rich is always through hard work or endeavour it isn’t. If an average worker was given tax free wages as many rich are then I’m sure they would be much better off and contribute more to the economy via spending.
As for dividends I agree they should be paid but a government owned business should not pay dividends whilst cutting the wages of the workers. Also why should dividends be taxed at a lower rate than income tax? Unearned income should be taxed at the same rates as earned. Otherwise yet again there is a favourable bias towards wealthier people. I’m a hypocrite here as I’m made a lot of money from dividends but even I can see if the poor are getting poorer despite working hard then somethings need to change.
There is nothing stopping poor people becoming rich people other than motivation.
Many well off people I know weren't born with a silver spoon in their mouths, they worked hard, took occasional risks and weren't afraid to invest in their future.
We chose to invest in our retirement at the expense of spending money when we were younger, it's a personal choice and most can't afford to burn the candle at both ends so they get jealous when they see others enjoying retirement when they probably could have done the same
That’s simply not true.
Anyone who has done well has been helped at sone point. Whether that’s an interview for a job or an introduction for a business deal . Sone people who grow up surrounded by other poor people with no helpful leverage are simply unaware of their opportunities . Our state education system does not develop people to be entrepreneurs it teaches them how to write a cv not how to start a business.
I’ve employed people who’s parents didn’t give a shit and they were just kicked out of their homes. Some of those people were very smart indeed and very hard workers but no education and no idea how to get on.
Just being a hard worker doesn’t make you successful.
Yes the quote “Everyone says I’m lucky but the harder I work, the luckier I seem to get” is a favourite to trot out. Without contacts and assistance in some small way you are stuck no matter how hard you work.
People who chose not to work should have the minimum to survive and not have a lifestyle on the dole as I am not happy about that either.
This right to buy is a load of nonsense to announce as I know someone who’s done this already. He knows very well to not mention it to me as I will give him a hard time. He hasn’t worked for over twenty five years but has bought a house with his benefits . How is that possible or allowed?
I agree with the dole should provide essentials in fact if you so far as to suggest it should be vouchers rather than money although they would probably sell them for half the face value to buy booze and fags.
Disagree with you that people who have made a success have been helped up the ladder, yes of course it happens but not for the vast majority that I know who just keep getting back up every time they get kicked down.
I've seen quite a few people I wouldn't rate as being particularly intelligent making good money selling crap or drop shipping on eBay "
By default no one can be a success alone so it’s levels of help.
Who gives them a go when they get back on that ladder ?
Who helps someone to be a success? It’s never alone despite what many wealthy people claim.
Dole fraud is very low despite the daily Mail claims but some benefits should be reduced whilst others for those more in need should be increased.
As a point if someone is working full time they should not need tax credits they should be paid a lovable wage by the employer. Tax credits are used to support poorly paid jobs. Pay more.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
Well today we had the revelation that a quarter of all pensioners are worth in excess of a million and over half have assets worth in excess of half a million. So baring that in mind, NO I don’t think all pensioners should get a 10% rise if the state workers don’t also. (Those state workers who need a rise not those already paid well).
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Well today we had the revelation that a quarter of all pensioners are worth in excess of a million and over half have assets worth in excess of half a million. So baring that in mind, NO I don’t think all pensioners should get a 10% rise if the state workers don’t also. (Those state workers who need a rise not those already paid well).
"
agree mate post of the day for me |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ercuryMan
over a year ago
Grantham |
"Well today we had the revelation that a quarter of all pensioners are worth in excess of a million and over half have assets worth in excess of half a million. So baring that in mind, NO I don’t think all pensioners should get a 10% rise if the state workers don’t also. (Those state workers who need a rise not those already paid well).
"
Will any party campaign for removal of the Triple Lock?
It's there to give all pensioners security and peace of mind. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Well today we had the revelation that a quarter of all pensioners are worth in excess of a million and over half have assets worth in excess of half a million."
Yes, but that's nonsense isn't it.
True, lots of pensioners now live in houses that are worth a lot, and they have a pension pot that's worth several hundred thousand pounds, but they don't have access to any of that money. The value of their house is of no use to them if they want to continue living in it, and their pension pot would look a lot smaller if they took it out of the pension company and paid all the tax due.
Whenever you hear someone talking about a person's 'wealth' instead of referring to how much money they have, that person is trying to lie to you. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I mean for me the all round solution is Universal Basic Income.
Everyone should have the means to leave a life outside of poverty. Regardless of Age, Class, Party, Geography or any other factor.
[this post has been an opinion] |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I mean for me the all round solution is Universal Basic Income.
Everyone should have the means to leave a life outside of poverty. Regardless of Age, Class, Party, Geography or any other factor.
[this post has been an opinion]"
regardless of wealth aswell lol |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"Well today we had the revelation that a quarter of all pensioners are worth in excess of a million and over half have assets worth in excess of half a million.
Yes, but that's nonsense isn't it.
True, lots of pensioners now live in houses that are worth a lot, and they have a pension pot that's worth several hundred thousand pounds, but they don't have access to any of that money. The value of their house is of no use to them if they want to continue living in it, and their pension pot would look a lot smaller if they took it out of the pension company and paid all the tax due.
Whenever you hear someone talking about a person's 'wealth' instead of referring to how much money they have, that person is trying to lie to you."
Are yes I knew someone would suggest this.
So here’s the issue.
My father was means tested in his 80s in relation to the care my mother needed. His assets including my mothers stake in his house outweighed any threshold for state care. Result no state side and he had to pay £800 per week for her care until myself and my siblings stepped in. The council had planned to sign up half his home as security for payment.
Now some have mentioned we all pay in so should get the same out. My father paid 83% tax in the 70s so paid a lot more than most. Shouldn’t he get more from the state?
How is it he is means tested and ends up paying based on total wealth and yet you’re saying others shouldn’t?
There are facilities to release asset wealth such as life mortgages on houses without giving up a home. The debt is collected on death. The only losers being the children and their inheritance. Never mind eh.
The principal is the same. Set a bar as they do with calculating care. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"My father was means tested in his 80s in relation to the care my mother needed. His assets including my mothers stake in his house outweighed any threshold for state care. ...
My father paid 83% tax in the 70s so paid a lot more than most. Shouldn’t he get more from the state?
How is it he is means tested and ends up paying based on total wealth and yet you’re saying others shouldn’t?"
Yes, your father (and mother) should have been treated better by the state. It's terribly unfair for the government to encourage people to buy their own home, and then to later 'punish' them for doing so.
"There are facilities to release asset wealth such as life mortgages on houses without giving up a home. The debt is collected on death."
They could do that, but that then traps the person in that house. They will have no chance of moving to a smaller place in later life.
But that is all beside the point. Saying that someone is a millionaire because their house has appreciated over the years is misleading. They aren't going to feel like a millionaire if they live in Belgravia, but on a state pension. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ackal1Couple
over a year ago
Manchester |
"My father was means tested in his 80s in relation to the care my mother needed. His assets including my mothers stake in his house outweighed any threshold for state care. ...
My father paid 83% tax in the 70s so paid a lot more than most. Shouldn’t he get more from the state?
How is it he is means tested and ends up paying based on total wealth and yet you’re saying others shouldn’t?
Yes, your father (and mother) should have been treated better by the state. It's terribly unfair for the government to encourage people to buy their own home, and then to later 'punish' them for doing so.
There are facilities to release asset wealth such as life mortgages on houses without giving up a home. The debt is collected on death.
They could do that, but that then traps the person in that house. They will have no chance of moving to a smaller place in later life.
But that is all beside the point. Saying that someone is a millionaire because their house has appreciated over the years is misleading. They aren't going to feel like a millionaire if they live in Belgravia, but on a state pension."
They can leave the house at any time and down size. They do not have to stay in the house.
You’re missing the point.
The rules on care are means tested based on total wealth and you receive less the wealthier you are. Whether that’s cash or property. Why not for pensions?
Why should government workers keep taking wage cuts whilst people are supported so they can leave millions to their children? The workers can’t pay their bills and have no assets to use.
Either we all get the same or we don’t. The fact is we are being told by the government there’s not enough money for all. If this is true then those who are able to fund themselves more should receive less. The result would be those in most red receive more.
I know there are scrounges who have never worked but that number is small enough to be insignificant in the overall scheme of things so should not hinder a more fair approach, Remember some of those pensioners who live in Belgravia are also scroungers as they’ve never paid tax and lived through offshore assets and income. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *irldnCouple
over a year ago
Brighton |
Another thought on this...
If the state pension goes up 10% and a wealthier pensioner has income from private pensions and other investments, then they hit the tax threshold sooner (due to state pension increase) and are taxed accordingly anyway.
So really the beneficiaries will be those pensioners with a lower income right? Note I did not say wealth (on paper) as per recent posts in this thread. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Another thought on this...
If the state pension goes up 10% and a wealthier pensioner has income from private pensions and other investments, then they hit the tax threshold sooner (due to state pension increase) and are taxed accordingly anyway.
So really the beneficiaries will be those pensioners with a lower income right? Note I did not say wealth (on paper) as per recent posts in this thread."
depends on their pension type. Some could dial down their pension income and so avoid this. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *JB1954Man
over a year ago
Reading |
I will point out . Know this for certain due to friends I know. If take out lifetime type mortgage. Then that company can stop you moving to downsize. IE new property is not to their requirements for this type of mortgage. Full repayment of mortgage if decide to move. Also if cheaper then a percentage has to be paid back on moving. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"There are facilities to release asset wealth such as life mortgages on houses without giving up a home. The debt is collected on death."
"They could do that, but that then traps the person in that house. They will have no chance of moving to a smaller place in later life."
"They can leave the house at any time and down size. They do not have to stay in the house."
How? If the council puts a lien on the house, say for half the house as in your parents' case, then there's only the other half left available to the owner. That won't be enough if they want to downsize at some point.
"The rules on care are means tested based on total wealth and you receive less the wealthier you are. Whether that’s cash or property. Why not for pensions?"
Because pensions aren't accessible. If you have a pension pot of £190,000 (which is the average at age 65), taking it all out will get you £140,540 after tax. You are then in a worse position as that money will not last you for the rest of your life.
"Why should government workers keep taking wage cuts whilst people are supported so they can leave millions to their children?"
I'm not going to argue with you there. I've never understood the idea that people must be able to pass on a house as their children's inheritance. But people seem to have strong views on it.
I'm not arguing against using a person's house to pay for their care bills. What I'm saying is that adding up the value of a person's house and their pension pot, and then declaring them to be a millionaire is a misleading statement. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
