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.

"Instead George Osborne went the other way at the last Budget and offer 'more help for pensioners' and removed benefits (eg CB) for other vulnerable groups"

Because most pensioners are Tory voters perhaps? Might also explain why the Fabians are so keen to make just about any pensioner with independent assets into a benefit dependent ;)

Entitled how?

5 years folks,5 years I've had off which is waaaaaay less than the vast maj of pensioners had off when they had small children.

My tax has paid for my dc's education before and after.My Dp's tax pays for his children which is a shed load more than the maj pay.The only way he could have done his job when I took my 5 years off was because I was doing a valuable job at home.

So if pensioners are berating women who take a very small career break now when they had a far longer 'privilege' and years of CB,free uni fees,grants etc they are hypocrites of the highest order and rather entitled.

5 years folks,5 years I've had off which is waaaaaay less than the vast maj of pensioners had off when they had small children.

do you have a reference for this? the working class women of my family have always worked.

4% of baby boomers when to university. www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/will-the-babyboomers-bankrupt-britain-1936027.html

"the working class women of my family have always worked."

indeed, we must be careful - despite personal anecdotes not to re-write history to mirror a 1950's utopia which never existed anywhere but middle america

square, DP & I pay a shed load more tax then you and your DH, so really you could calm down....

pensioners vote

Sooooooo it's m/c sahp parents we're berating but only modern sahp.

Pensioner sahp parents are ok- hard working

Modern day sahp -feckless,lazy,manicure / Starbucks addicts

Kind of ridiculous don't you think.

Square, people often state they have 'paid their taxes' and because of that it allows them to have x number of children etc etc. Well the figures just dont add up.

I am wondering though. How much does a state education cost per year per child. How much does the NHS cost per person? I know how much I am paying for my children to go to private school and suspect it nothing like that but does someone know...

And a little bit of time off is not FIVE YEARS! The fact that your DH needs you to be at home is really not a concern of anyone else and consequently should not be funded by others.

Square do you know when hrp was introduced? Are you aware that those women don't qualify for full state pensions as a result. You can take 5 years out without being affected they couldn't. When my eldest was born childcare was limited and expensive, working wasn't a realistic option, working from home wasn't really feasible as there wasn't the technology. You are not comparing level playing fields

My parents both hate this government with a passion. I'm not worried about my children's future as i believe they have a good work ethic and will make their own way, they don't need help paying their way through uni other than the loans that everyone is entitled to under this system. There seems to be a hysteria being generated about the financial position of the country the torys are trying to blame benefit claimants the fabian society wants to blame pensioners but the truth is we've all done it to ourselves by voting in whoever promises us the most. Its called buying votes, promise tax cuts to get in, years ago labour got in and near enough doubled benefits over night Tories had been giving tax cuts to get votes that is why we are now in this mess.

Soooo we shouldn't be funding any pensioners who had time off either then?

I've continued I pay NI btw.

Square - If you can afford to stay at home - well its more than some can do. I am a little confused why you have this huge chip on your shoulder.

If your partners earns enough to enable you to do this that's great but surely you can see that you arent really contributing to the economy TODAY. You have chosen for your own reasons to stay at home but that shouldnt be paid for by others. You berate the pensioners for not doing their fair share - and you arent even working yourself.

Errr I have been working,3 babies under 15 months don't look after themselves.

Soooooo any pensioner who had more than 1 year off has no right to comment and really going by your logic shouldn't be whining about having a smaller pension or having benefits they don't need taken off them.

Oh and there was childcare.Families weren't scattered so far afield,extended families could help out.

Square my dad was made redundant following a company takeover he had to find work which proved to be 40 miles away so we had to relocate my sister was only 1 at the time. When i had my eldest my parents were still working so not available for childcare, i wasn't a teen mum i was 25 my mum was 50 my grandmother was 80ish and in a care home so what childcare was that again?

Jacks not sure your story speaks for the entire population.

Morebeta

That's just nonsense. To make that work you would have to do that for everyone right across the board, not just pensioners, anyone on minimum wage or above should get no other allowances of the sort that you mention (that they would be entitled to). Otherwise what you are proposing is discriminatory.

I'm sorry what you're saying and proposing and the methods of funding it does not make any economic sense at all.

However if you want to potentially throw a large proportion of the country into poverty, then it does make sense.

Yes, I am wondering where this childcare was for our parents.

I feel these days that we are almost allowed and encouraged to do what we like, work, dont work, have any number of children, someone will support and often pay you for these decisions.

There is no shame in not working, you will have plenty of reasons for not working, chose wrong partner had a few children and he left not paying a penny - not my fault, dont want to move because all my friends are here, but there are no jobs - never mind. We will still continue to pay your benefits.

To put it into perspective.

My inlaws (3 kids like us)lived on one salary(not easy),mil had 3 siblings and her mother near by.She chose not to work and never has,not a single day.

Fil retired on a final pension,full CB,uni paid for etc-they spend 20k a year on holidays.

Kind of not seeing why they are entitled to their benefits,not expected to help the country financially,mil isn't seen as work shy etc,etc and I who has had 5 fecking years off in a lifetime am seen as lazy,not entitled to comment or to question millions of the younger generation continuously being clobbered.

You're right square but if all women had to work who would have done the child care? The point is that when my generation had children the previous one was still working age and the one before was very elderly

Fil retired on a final pension,full CB,uni paid for etc

the fact he attended uni put him in the top 4%. i think you need to think more about the 96% that didnt.

or just keep ignoring reality....

No he didn't,one if his children did.

Surely if 50k is seen as rich for the younger generation it should be deemed as rich for the older generation and both should be treated the same ie no benefits and contributing to paying off the debt.

Singing from exactly the same hymn sheet is what people want and I know I'm not alone in wanting that.

bobby - I think you misunderstand.

A universal benefit is one that everone gets regardless of their income. Like child benefit (as was), NHS care, state education it comes on top of your income from work. It provides a basic standard of living you do not have to claim for and is the safety net as it is always there and far far simpler to administer. It covers everything and people would have to cut their cloth. No housing benefits or council houses or social housing or tax credits or state pensions or income support or indeed any of the current state benefit system. Anything you want above that basic level of a universal credit you have to work for and pay tax on.

The NHS and state education would be the only other state funded benefit.

The tax rate would have to be a flat rate and everyone would pay it at that rate and with no tax allowances of any kind and set at about 40 - 50%.

It would make for a fairer society as everyone would have the same amount of benefits given to them by the state, everyone pays the same marginal tax rate and everyone has the same incentive to work.

My DB is 67 - far from free uni education, he left school at either 14 or 15, Can't remember exactly but educating to 16 only came in after he left school. And of course straight into work. So many things weren't better for the baby boomers, it's just not talked about.

Square if they are spending that much on holidays then your fil would have paid exorbitant rates of income tax in his lifetime. I seem to recall 90% for higher earners at one point. Like my parents the benefits they get ie wfa do not add up to very much. pensioners are being hit by having personal allowances brought into line. You have advantages your mil didn't with young children, no nursery places never mind free ones you did get playgroups but that was it, things like vacuum cleaners, washing machines central heating dishwasher etc have all made your life so much easier.

square, are you saying your FIL did not go to uni but one of his DCs did?

if so, why are you mentioning free uni? it was not him getting the benefit but his DC.