to hope the government has the guts to tax WEALTHY pensioners more

[ReallyTired]

The Fabian society has suggested that wealthy pensioners pay more tax.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-22220345

Some how I can't see a conservative wanting to tax wealthy pensioners more when they all vote Tory.

I find it unfair that pensioners with an income more the average family's income get free bus buses, winter fuel allowance, TV licence as well as paying less tax and national insurance. It is about time that the the wealthy pensioners took their share of the pain of the cuts.

I am in favour of well off pensioners having free bus passes, winter fuel allowance as these things encourage independence and improve health. I would like to see the money for these things clawed back by WEALTHY pensioners paying more income tax.

faster

Interesting More so really paying less into pensions and overpaying mortgages would perhaps be better???

Faster - I dont intend to have anything left to give to my children by the time I die. That is something today's pensioners just refuse to acccept. They still expect a huge pension and to have care fees paid for and to pass on their wealth (ie mainly their house) to their children and it is totally unrealistic. I do not have that expectation and the current pensioner baby boomers need to get to grips with that reality.

I entered life with nothing and I intend to leave with nothing.

Teachers are not as fantastically paid as some people think considering their qualifications this was always accepted because it was compensated for with the pensions. My dd will more than likely walk out of uni with a degree and earn straight away about 5k more than a teacher would start on and if she wanted to teach she'd have to go back to uni for another year to do get a teaching qualification.

I'm 44 and started a private pension at 18, i paid out of my wages to improve my lifestyle in old age but now because i planned and provided for myself you think i should pay more so i wasted my time. I should have lived the high life and blown everything instead of thinking ahead, let everyone else pick up the pieces. The wealthy pensioners i know didn't work in the public sector and paid for what they now get but take what they do have and you will collapse the whole system because people will stop making any effort to provide for themselves and that will be a real timebomb for the future.

morebeta I dont intend to have anything left to give to my children by the time I die

but how do you know how long you will live?

I completely agree with thegreylady

What exactly is it these moaners want? As far as I can see it appears to be people who don't want to work and who want the elderly to be taxed more to enable them not to... The mind boggles really . Im damn sure they'll want a change of rules when they get older. As for all this 'they are taking out more than they put in- since when did the sums exactly balance up so that people only take out what they put in? By that argument, anyone on benefits should have all their money taken away (unless they worked for about 30 years before receiving any!) Anyone using the NHS to have a baby should probably be denied a bed, epidural,'csection etc because they won't have paid in enough to meet the costs. Oh and forget about sending your child to school, unless you wait until you're 50 to have them, because you won't have paid in the cost of a state education ...

FFS any pensioner on a decent pension will only be on it because they've worked for 40 years. I honestly don't think some people on here have a clue about pensions- they talk as if it's some golden gift that's bestowed upon lucky people. You have a pension because you WORK and pay the amount you're told to, on the understanding it will be wisely invested by people who's JOB it is to do so! It's not pensioners fault if their funds have been mismanaged

Yes the economy is a mess. I speak as someone whos pension payments have increased - a lot- this very Month of April (as no doubt have many other workers) I won't get more back for my extra payments- I just have to pay more in and work longer. Boo hoo hoo. It's not fair. Stamp feet. Why can't the govt take the money off some other poor bastards so I get to keep more? That's the kind of sense of entitlement that seems rife on MN at the moment

Square - most pensions are a essentailly a ponzi scheme as pension investment returns have been poor due to bad investment mangement and high fees. In truth, no one should expect pension investment returns to exceed inflation plus economic growth (ie about 2%) in the long run. The promises made by state, corporate and private pension providers have been far in excess of what was ever realistic.

I manage my own investments and the reason I just bought a house is because I want to, in efffect, have an investment that protects me against future inflation in rents. I have rented up to now and as my wage earning potential declines I want more protection against inflation. The rest of my investments are in tax free self select equity/bond PEPS and a very small SIPP (private pension fund) that I will liquidate at age 55 as a lump sum if I am allowed to.

Yes for most people, buying a house they live in tax free and paying off the mortgage is better than a private pension. Some of the old state sector final salary schemes were very good because they paid out so much compared to the contributions. However, those schemes are coming to an end now and younger people will never see the like of those massively generous schemes in their lifetimes.

Squarepebbles Tue 23-Apr-13 09:53:52

faster
Interesting More so really paying less into pensions and overpaying mortgages would perhaps be better???

mortgages are paid from your post tax income. pensions are paid from your pretax income (as you will be taxed when you withdraw the money)

so why would you pay off your mortgage instead of paying into a pension?

Hmmm given that the maj of pensioner couples didn't have to put babies into full one nursery and often only had one parent work your argument doesn't quite stack up.

Each generation has a moral obligation to support those that can't work.

And again - who should pick up the shortfall?

Janey

To add to what faster said not only are mortgages paid post tax if when you sell up and invest the money to provide income you then pay tax on interest payments.

more beta your investment advice is wrong.

Square pebbles- swings and roundabouts isn't it? My parents bought a house on one income, but the price of that was an extremely fugal lifestyle which many people these days aren't prepared to accept AND most importantly, my mum never had access to the sort of decent fulfilling work of which she was capable.
You clearly have an issue with not wanting to use childcare and work, but it doesn't mean everyone else does, and you are certainly being very entitled if you expect other people to pay more tax to fund your wish not to work. Now thats an argument which doesn't stack up!

1. This is not just about what people "deserve" but also about what the country can afford. BTW I agree that there are vanishingly few pensioners around who fought in the war so that argument is pretty much a dead duck.

1. Almost nobody who has a final salary pension (including public sector workers) has paid in anything like as much as they are now taking out. In no real way have they "earned" their full pension - it was an accounting error now being paid for by the next generation.

1. It is not just the rich pensioners we should be looking at (the rich pay lots of tax) but pensioners that are state subsidised. The state subsidies have to be weighed up agains the impact on those paying the state subsidies (mainly the working young). This means HB, WFA, higher tax allowances, NI (yes, technically it is not a tax but the reality is that it is identical in all but name and the fact that only workers have to pay it).

1. All home owning pensioners have benefitted extraordinarily by rampant house inflation and now own assets worth much more than they ever paid for them. If it is suggested that some of that might be used to fund THEIR OWN CARE, then what is the problem? It would also bring family houses back into use for families.

To me this whole discussion is no different to the debates around govt cuts and benefits cuts.

There's a lot of hoohah about what we should be doing.

Then there's the matter of what we can afford to do.

The left usually concentrate on the first. The right, usually the latter.

No doubt morally we should support our pensioners when they retire. I accept many of them have benefited from pensions they haven't contributed enough into. And as a result many of them are living a lifestyle few of us can expect to see.

But.

This generation and the next have the headache of actually paying for the pensions, healthcare and general care. I suspect as the next generation get into power, they will start to reign in on spending on pensioners since:

a) They can't afford it
b) They never agreed to the ludicrously overgenerous final salary pensions.

Back when the teachers wanted to go on strike because of changes to their final salary pension, my daughter was told by her teacher that it was because the government wanted to reduce their pension. She felt it was unfair. I pointed out to my daughter that it would be her who would be paying the taxes to pay for that very pension. A pension scheme she had no chance of getting. Her position changed quickly. All of a sudden she didn't feel it was fair at all to be paying for her teacher's pension when she wouldn't be able to get the same.

Errrr you're expecting younger generations to fund their choice of mothers not working ever whilst claiming years of CB/ uni fees/ grants, WFA,benefits and not paying enough NI as a family etc,etc

Plenty of families today are prepared to live frugally and do.Many mothers simply want a short 5 year break to be with their babies not a big ask considering they pay tax and NI before and after......and are picking up the tab older generations have created.

undercover your item 4 happens already.

niceguy2 I agree with everything you have contributed to this debate. Are you my DH?

Faster - it is true that you pay into your pension and get a tax rebate but you pay tax on the pension when you take it.

If you buy a house, you dont pay any tax on the rent you avoid by owning a house and you also dont pay tax on the capital gains when you sell a house.

A house you buy out of after tax income but pay no tax on the investment return after that. A pension is the other way round, you pay no tax up front but pay tax on the way out.

For most people buying a fairly priced house, that is just big enough for their needs (and no bigger) so they can manage it themselves rather than pay pension management fees is a better investement.

People have tended to overpay for houses in recent years so but if they fall in price they will turn out to be a better investment for many young people than a pension.

FasterStronger ...only in very limited circumstances where neither the pensioner owner nor their spouse will ever need the home again. Nobody is expected to downsize to fund care.....

Morebeta a house doesn't provide income though so what would you live on? If i understand correctly and you plan to downsize you will then have capital to invest but you then pay interest on the returns so in effect pay tax twice.

jacks - a house does provide an income.

It comes in the form of the rent you would otherwise have to pay but avoid by owning. I have rented up until now since I was 20 years old. I have paid every single penny of rent out of after tax income. People who bought houses did not pay rent while I had to for 29 years.

Now by buying a house I will also no longer have that rent going out each month.

First of all what is the definition of "wealthy"?

I can't speak for every pensioner, but my own parents worked hard all their lives. They payed tax and never took anything much. Now they are old and infirm. They are in their mid 70s. My Dad ran his own small business until last year. Now, he has cancer and has just had a major stroke. Despite paying tax all his life, other than the hospital care, there is no support form him, because they have squirrelled away over £23k worth of savings - with which to enjoy their retirement!!!!!

Their savings are going on private carers to come in and help my mum take my dad to the loo and put him to bed. Eventually, dad will be too poorly to stay at home anymore and then his savings will pay for a private nursing home & if there is any left after he dies, after death duties have been paid, Mum will live off the rest & then when she gets ill, the same process will start all over again. Eventually, they'll both be dead & the Govt coffers will be well-lined with the money that they spent their whole lives saving, after they had already paid tax on it!!!!

So, can we define the wealth we are taxing? Pensions are already taxed, savings have already been taxed - what extra wealth are we suggesting be taxed here?

undercoversahm Tue 23-Apr-13 10:33:50

FasterStronger ...only in very limited circumstances where neither the pensioner owner nor their spouse will ever need the home again. Nobody is expected to downsize to fund care.....

The debt is paid after you die, you don't need to sell the house when you are alive but the council have a charge on your property so you cannot sell it without paying them. after you die the debt is settled by your estate.

I often get people saying to me 'you are so lucky to both have private pensions when you retire'. Err - its because I will have WORKED for 40 years as will my DH. It will make us comfortable in our retirement - that's why we are doing it.

What next - lets look at who is paying what in and then deciding what you can take out? If you want to go that way - well bring it on!

I agree with Janey. I saw the thread about SAHM's asking for childcare vouchers and some even asked for the pensioners to pay them NMW! Where do this people get this sense of entitlement!

Wealthy pensioners havent just woken up one day and found all this money pouring in supporting them in retirement.