Is ending the triple lock to fund a care service fair....

[mids2019]

To me this is actually not a hugely left wing proposal as middle classes with occupational and private pensions will not notice the reduced increases in state pension significantly.

However poorer pensioners with little other pension provision may be impacted a lot to essentially fund a care service that will be disprotioanrly help the middle classes as their life expectancy is greater.

Is it fair that our poorest pensioners get less to support a care service which would mean a millionaire pensioner would not nèed to sell their assets to access it?

It's the Labour way. Brown and Blair were experts at it.

I actually went back and checked this. He was very careful with his words.

He set the context with the story about how his Gran had had to sell her home to fund her care home.

But in his actual proposal just just said people wouldn't need to use their basic state pension to fund care.

A classic bit of politicing. The solution would have made little difference to his Gran case.

Nail on the head. Scrap NIC and raise income tax. That way everyone on the same income pays the same tax, regardless of source, regardless of age. It would bring in huge amounts of extra tax revenue, not hurt the already squeezed workers and not affect those on the lowest of incomes. Win, win.

Simple solution. Tax all income at the same rate. Doesn't matter if it is salary or capital gains.

Or benefits or maintenence

Benefits are supposed to be the minimum you can live on, so makes no sense to tax them. Although if you get a job in the tax year you are on benefits, the benefit income is counted when calculating tax.

What rate? Low or high?

It takes no account of the fact that people who planned their retirement income to cover their needs have absolutely no way of making up a 25% shortfall in everything over the personal allowance, because they are retired.

It would need at least as many years warning as the increase in pension age to be anything like fair but more money is needed now.

It does matter. Capital gains tax is lower for at least two reasons.

The first is that it's intended to encourage people to take investment risks because it helps the economy.

The second is that it is lower because no allowance is made for inflation. It would be very unfair to tax capital gains at the same rate as income tax if some or all of the increase has been caused by inflation. And very complicated to make it fair.

Nope, don't agree with that. My dh is now doing a low-paid job (redundant at 62) and he pays tax on a monthly income of £1550. Yet someone could be on UC, topped up with maintenence and pay no tax. That's not fair.

No it’s not fair that child maintenance isn’t taxed or counted in benefit assessment but that’s a specific circumstance. Pensioners pay tax on any income over and above the state pension just like your husband. But UC for a single person is less than half the amount of the personal allowance so it wouldn’t be taxable in any case.

Why on earth should child maintenance be taxed? The absent parent is already paying tax on their income.

Giving some of that income to the other parent for the child should not be subject to tax again.

If you tried to do that parents with any sense would find a work around, instead of Dad giving Mum money that she pays tax on to feed and clothe their child Dad would pay things directly.

And actually their is an argument its the childs money, so it their tax free allowance.