General News Discussion

[grumpyhack]

I don't go with the idea of extending the retirement age. If there are a limited number of jobs available then people working on longer keep those jobs filled. If people retire then vacancies are created for younger people to enter the world of employment.

So surely better to pay older people pensions than younger people unemployment benefit.

[eFestivals]

I don't go with the idea of extending the retirement age. If there are a limited number of jobs available then people working on longer keep those jobs filled. If people retire then vacancies are created for younger people to enter the world of employment.

So surely better to pay older people pensions than younger people unemployment benefit.

something has to be done to make the numbers add up, so it's either extend people's working lives or have people contribute a not insignificant amount more in taxes during the same working years.

If it's option two, then it gets to mean that the people who are about to retire are having younger generations pick up their retirement costs, via having given themselves a cheapie in their working years. That doesn't really seem right.

Then again, working beyond 65 is unrealistic for people in many jobs. A physical job such as a dustman for example might be able to struggle on to 65, but is less likely to be able to struggle on to 67.

As for the 'taking jobs from younger people' thing, I agree with the basic idea of that, because it seems logical. However, I recently read or saw something which claimed that doesn't actually happen, and that the increased economic activity via those oldies working actually has the opposite effect and creates extra jobs for the young.

(the same thing said that 25% of the over-65s are currently doing paid work of some kind, tho that seems extraordinarily high to me).

[5co77ie]

What I say to that is there are too many wealthy pensioners getting state hand outs. I find it amazing how we haven't woken up to the issue of how we fund retirement.

[abdoujaparov]

We are effectively paying twice. We have to pay to cover their (in most cases wealthy) arses and we have to save to fund our own.

[5co77ie]

If you think it is right wealthy parents should lose child benefit surely the same goes for wealthy pensioners ? and anyone of wealth not getting state benefits ? Or do you think its different if you are a pensioner ?

Not sure what you are getting at here. If you think it is right or wrong ? Or are you saying they will remove it for ALL pensioners ? Which I wouldn't support at all....

Edited January 11, 2013 by 5co77ie

[abdoujaparov]

£17,700 after tax isn't bad. Specially considering most pensioners have a paid up mortgage etc... No child care costs, not need to save and pay into a pension (that boat sailed)... etc etc...

I have no prejudice... This is about helping the poor and not the wealthy. If you can't afford to get by then you should be helped. But if you can you shouldn't.

Its pretty simple. Its very wrong winter fuel payments for example go to everyone.

[5co77ie]

and we have this to look forward to:

[abdoujaparov]

The term "wealthy" is subjective. As the discussion on child benefit removal showed. Some people earn £50k but I wouldn't call them wealthy given their outgoings. But obviously going off raw income they are deemed to be.

£17k income after tax, paid up mortgage, little outgoings... I would be very happy to be in that position.

[5co77ie]

answers:

If you think it is right wealthy parents should lose child benefit surely the same goes for wealthy pensioners ?

Edited January 11, 2013 by 5co77ie

[5co77ie]

General strikes are illegal. Not going to happen. Union bosses haven't got the balls for jail time.

[eFestivals]

If someone has an ocupational pension that provides above a certain threshold, I'm not convinced that they should receive the state pension too.

while in theory I agree with that, it's something which comes with it's own problems that quite possibly doesn't make the situation any better.

I realised over 25 years ago that private pensions are a scam* and how the state pension system would go, and so I dumped mine. Because why pay for a private pension and a state pension when the private pension will cause you to not get the state pension you've paid into?

(* They'd recently changed the rules so that pension payouts could be calculated on an average rise of the investment of 12% per annum - an average return on investment that has never even closely been reached over any person's working life. And that was before Thatcher then allow 'pension holidays' for employers contributions, which has been the main fucker of current pensioners pension funds).

While that might leave me in poverty as a pensioner (if I get to live that long, which is factored into my thinking) because the state pension won't be more than a pittance if we carry on the way we are, it gets to mean that I don't have to live in poverty during my working life because of what i'm paying into my private pension.

I was a very early adopter of that idea and have taken a punt on it - so there's probably not too many like me currently - but if it's formalised that a state pension pay-out is offset by a private one then many people will simply stop paying into private pensions altogether, and the pension burden on the state will end up far higher than it is now.

The debate since Thatcher's time has been only about costs, and never about the value for money that can be got for those costs.

I recently got a statement for my private pension contributions made all those years ago - it's now worth (in actual terms, not 'real terms'. 'Real terms' would be far far FAR worse) less than 25% of what I paid in, despite having had the supposed chance to grow over those 25+ years. If that's not a scam I don't know what is.

[5co77ie]

Mind you cuts like this are just as bad:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jan/08/newcastle-council-nick-forbes-cuts?CMP=twt_gu

[zero000]

At the same time whilst I do kind of agree that not all pensioners need a state pension/winter fuel allowance/ free buss passes and it should be means tested, it does all feel like it's the old divide and conquer tactics by the Tories.

Private sector workers Vs public sector workers, workers vs pensioners and worst of all "Skivers vs Strivers". They're all dodging around the fact of why we're in this mess in the first place, the banks.

I really think we need a Tobin tax or a Robin hood tax to recoup some of the billions we've poured into these banks.

[5co77ie]

and I am surrounded by pensioners who got their houses a lot cheaper than me! yet have the same asset (paid up)!

[5co77ie]

At the same time whilst I do kind of agree that not all pensioners need a state pension/winter fuel allowance/ free buss passes and it should be means tested, it does all feel like it's the old divide and conquer tactics by the Tories.

Private sector workers Vs public sector workers, workers vs pensioners and worst of all "Skivers vs Strivers". They're all dodging around the fact of why we're in this mess in the first place, the banks.

I really think we need a Tobin tax or a Robin hood tax to recoup some of the billions we've poured into these banks.

[abdoujaparov]

while in theory I agree with that, it's something which comes with it's own problems that quite possibly doesn't make the situation any better.

I realised over 25 years ago that private pensions are a scam* and how the state pension system would go, and so I dumped mine. Because why pay for a private pension and a state pension when the private pension will cause you to not get the state pension you've paid into?

(* They'd recently changed the rules so that pension payouts could be calculated on an average rise of the investment of 12% per annum - an average return on investment that has never even closely been reached over any person's working life. And that was before Thatcher then allow 'pension holidays' for employers contributions, which has been the main fucker of current pensioners pension funds).

While that might leave me in poverty as a pensioner (if I get to live that long, which is factored into my thinking) because the state pension won't be more than a pittance if we carry on the way we are, it gets to mean that I don't have to live in poverty during my working life because of what i'm paying into my private pension.

I was a very early adopter of that idea and have taken a punt on it - so there's probably not too many like me currently - but if it's formalised that a state pension pay-out is offset by a private one then many people will simply stop paying into private pensions altogether, and the pension burden on the state will end up far higher than it is now.

The debate since Thatcher's time has been only about costs, and never about the value for money that can be got for those costs.

I recently got a statement for my private pension contributions made all those years ago - it's now worth (in actual terms, not 'real terms'. 'Real terms' would be far far FAR worse) less than 25% of what I paid in, despite having had the supposed chance to grow over those 25+ years. If that's not a scam I don't know what is.

Edited January 11, 2013 by abdoujaparov

[5co77ie]

I see my house as an asset to use for retirement. As I get older I will release equity to part fund my retirement. Seems the right plan to me.

I hope family members would be in a position to possibly buy it from me cheaper than the market says at the time or something like that. Help them and fund retirement sort of thing. Lots of people do this now.

Edited January 11, 2013 by 5co77ie

[abdoujaparov]

I see my house as an asset to use for retirement. As I get older I will release equity to part fund my retirement. Seems the right plan to me.

I hope family members would be in a position to possibly buy it from me cheaper than the market says at the time or something like that. Help them and fund retirement sort of thing. Lots of people do this now.

[zahidf]

good points

I'm lucky, my pension is index-linked (although now linked to CPI, not RPI) and it's a final salary scheme (albeit closed a while ago to new members)

if government wanted to formalise an arrangement under which state pension (say) tapered off as occupational pension increased they would, as you say, need to find a way to avoid perverse outcomes

[eFestivals]

I really think we need a Tobin tax or a Robin hood tax to recoup some of the billions we've poured into these banks.

while those things shouldn't be ruled out anyway, what we really need is a treasury that actually wants to collect taxes off everyone and not just the poor.

The tax burden has shifted massively over the last 30 years, from the richest to the poorest - all on the basis of the false economic idea of 'trickle down'. Trickle down has been proven as false, but govt policies continue as tho it hasn't.

Meanwhile, the man responsible for collecting taxes, Gideon Oldbore, appearred on TV two days ago to advise the rich on how to avoid paying the their taxes ... when he should have spent that time closing the loopholes he clearly knows about so that they do pay their taxes.

[abdoujaparov]

You haven't paid into a state pension. No pot with your name on it. I think you know this so confused why you said this ?

[eFestivals]

I hope family members would be in a position to possibly buy it from me cheaper than the market says at the time or something like that. Help them and fund retirement sort of thing. Lots of people do this now.

Yep, lots of people are avoiding the taxes and charges which the tax and other laws say they should be paying, by doing just that.

Gideon Oldbore approves too, to help ensure that it's only the poor that have to pay taxes.

c**ts is the only word that fits.

[5co77ie]

The other alternative is to not sell the house, keep hold of it, let the state pay for my care... This could mean me living in a care home during that time and house being empty. When I die the family would inherit it, pay the inheritance tax, probably by selling it because who has that cash lying around and still be quids in to probably buy their own house.

[5co77ie]

WOW!!!! I don't think so

I bought it for £155k.... It probably went down to £140k.... Then I spent £40k on extending and its probably now worth about £165k....

Basically its currently a bit of a shit investment... but its a nice place to live!

[eFestivals]

The other alternative is to not sell the house, keep hold of it, let the state pay for my care...

Nope, what happens is that the state makes you sell that home so that you pay for your care.

Which is as it should be. No one should have the right to have their acquired wealth protected for them no matter what costs they cause elsewhere.

You need to keep up with what the rules have been for a very long time already.

My view isn't to avoid tax... My primary view is how do I fund my retirement... Help my family... and not tie up my house forever and a day. I think the numbers probably work better this way for the state than keeping hold of the house to my dieing day.

So if your purpose is not to avoid tax you do what you suggest and still pay the taxes that would be due if you didn't take these tax avoiding measures.

Wou8ld you do that? Or are you lying when you say you wouldn't avoid tax?

(that's a rhetorical question. I know what your *real* answer is by so much of what you've posted over the years, even if you falsely choose to give different words here).