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.

Handcream maybe it is because i'm an older mother or because i know how much more sahm get now than say 20 years ago that i agree some come across as very entitled. I remember the free nursery places for all 3 year olds being introduced prior to that if you were lucky you got a place at a state nursery school. Half a day wasn't much use if you worked as you needed to take and pick up. Only covered term time nowadays you have a choice. I don't think pensioners should be made to pay for my choice to be a sahm.

Also handcream, no entitlement from me. I am not asking for childcare vouchers. I'm not sure anyone on this thread has tbh. It is just a shame re the child benefit cuts that it now acts as a disincentive for a single earner between 50 and 60k to earn more. As I said up thread, they will pay an extra 4k in tax and in our case lose 2.5k CB, which would be the equivalent of more than 4k pre-tax. My point was simply that a family earning 60k a year is no better off now than earning 50k a year. Why would a tory government administer such a disincentive for working? Why would anyone want to earn 60k in this situation if it meant significantly longer hours, more responsibility and perhaps a longer and more expensive commute. I will say no more on the subject. Time to feed the dcs and get them bathed and home work done

Ihategeorgeosborne- I don't know whether anyone has suggested outright on this thread that SAHP should get childcare vouchers, but it has certainly been seriously suggested on other threads- not by you I hasten to add!! But there have definitely been some SAHP who seem to have a fit of pique that people who work (and therefore need childcare) are getting some great advantage which they don't (and don't need!)

ihate are your figures correct?

60k = 41k after tax
55k = 39k after tax
50k = 36k after tax

the 'dead zone' is 50-55k but after that you are still better off.

I am an older mother too Jacks. I remember the nursery places coming in. I am sorry if I came across as being rude. I just dont know what SAHM's do all day - sorry. My SIL always says she is busy but with cleaners and gardeners I am really not sure what she does with her day now that her DS is at school.

There is cleaning, laundry, laying out uniforms, school runs, paperwork for the home, shopping etc but we all do that. I do the school run and then drive onto to work.

I do have to say I have a DH who does a lot around the house. However that was our agreement in the early days. He was the one who was keener on kids and I had an agreement with him that he would do his share... He kept to it tbh, if he hadnt then we would only have had one child I am sure..

No i agree with you that some come across as entitled and i hate that it gives us all a bad name but i do have a little one under school age so keep busy going to toddler groups and feeding ducks etc. I'm technically on a career break so once she's at school back to work i go. In case you are wondering i have 18 years between eldest and youngest.

YANBU but it won't happen - they are too big a section of the population who actually vote. They will continue to get their winter fuel payments whilst they are off sunning themselves on a cruise somewhere.

I've nothing against benefits for pensioners but they should be means tested in some way.

I didnt mean you George btw regarding vouchers!

I guess what I am saying to the women on this thread is that in our parents day divorce and break ups were much less common, having a child with no sign of a partner was frowned up. Now you can almost do what you like, men sometimes leave their families without a backward glance. You only have to see some of the stories on the Lone Parents Forum to see that.

Working and not relying on a partner to support you for me was the sensible way to go.

Didnt Terry Conran say about one of his wife's that she only cooked, ferryed the children around and kept the house clean and tidy when he was in the middle of divorcing her.

No you twat - she helped you by allowing you to completely focus on your job and get your large salary. If you had had to do the school runs, and swap diaries every week so that you could see who was able to do what pick up maybe you would have had more respect for her!

Faster, in our case, we would be 2.5k a year better off if dh earned an extra 10k a year. It doesn't seem worth it for the additional stress that would come with it. It does seem bizarre that you can earn an extra 10k and only be 2.5k better off in your pay packet.

Exactly who has sounded entitled on this thread?

The pensioner with 5 dc who retired early and feels their generation continue to deserve universal benefits?

So, if means testing was found to be more expensive than actually giving out the allowance is it worth doing?

I really dont know one way or the other but getting a raft of local authority/central government officials messing up yet another benefit isnt worth thinking about.

The other thing to bear in mind is that a number of old people 'worry'. My DM was great at bringing us up, now she tends to panic at the slightest thing. Having letters sent to them telling them they will be means tested etc will I fear put the fear of god into some...

Actually Square its you! You have trashed your PIL's for their endless pot of money and claim they spend £20k a year on holidays despite the fact he was an electrician with a stay at home wife.

Squarepebbles Wed 24-Apr-13 17:45:30
Exactly who has sounded entitled on this thread?

you.

Do you make a habit of ignoring posts you don't want to read.

George explained and so did I.

So wealthy pensioners many of whom will have had far more years as a sahp than me,CB for 18 years per child,the ability to buy houses on one wage,could retire early and save yada yada but don't feel the need to forgo universal benefits,rooms they don't need,benefits they don't need let alone help to reduce a debt they helped create and will add to more than any other section of society are not entitled.

However I am because I had 5 years off and resent unfairness in how cuts are handed out.

Errr you don't make sense.

Binky "I thought there was a limit to the amount that can be gifted each year tax free to avoid people just handing money over to avoid inheritance tax (before the 7 year cut off)?"

There is no limit at all if you survive 7 years. If you have made gifts in the 7 years as my father did when our mother died then it is taxed at 40% on the death except for those things you mention - right to give money away to someone on marriage, right to make small gifts each year.

So just about any mumsnetter who thinks they will live to 80 could give their children everything even if as much as £3m when they turn 70 and as long as they do not stay in a home given to the children but take themselves off to a small rented flat or whatever will ensure the children inherit without any IHT. However if you live 100 and then have 30 years before that in poverty and your children have taken the money and run then it isn't wise.

Squarepebbles- YOU are the one who is coming across as supremely entitled. You seem to have a real gripe with several specific demographic types:

Male pensioners who are in a good pension like your FIL. Well frankly anyone who can spend 20k just on holidays while retired must have paid shed loads of income tax throughout their life. You don't get that sort of pension on peanuts wages

Female pensioners who didn't work or didn't work much. They won't be wealthy though- they'll be on a basic state pension. Or living on their husbands pension if he's still alive.

Couples with 2 working parents who get CB. Frankly with childcare costs, CB isn't going to make much of an impact

Couples with 2 working parents who use relatives for free childcare. But then you have said yourself that you would use relatives for free care if you worked, so I can't see your particular issue there

Anyone who earns more than your DH

I think that covers everyone but I may have missed some!

Oh and those female pensioners who didn't work , or worked a lot less than you- don't assume they were all happy as larry about that. Many women were frustrated and miserable and felt trapped by the lack of choices open to them. It seems like your dislike of work is colouring your view of things.

I think a lot of pensioners live in poverty and plenty choose not to claim pension credit and housing benefit as they were brought up to think it demeaning to claim from the state and not fair on other people even more poor. Gov stats - £19k average pensioner net income which is after tax - not sure what it is before tax.

" In 2010-11 the average net income for all pensioner units (pensioner couples and single pensioners together) was £340 after housing costs (£369 per week before housing costs).
Between 1998-99 and 2010-11, average net income after housing costs increased by 40 per cent. Before housing costs the rise was 33 per cent.
Average pensioners' income has grown faster between 1998-99 and 2010-11 than average earnings, which increased by 11 per cent during the same period."

My dislike of work Janey- how exactly did you come to that conclusion?

There's a whole lot of hypocrisy and bullying on this thread.

Squarepebbles Wed 24-Apr-13 18:12:58
There's a whole lot of hypocrisy and bullying on this thread

yes there is:

Squarepebbles Wed 24-Apr-13 17:45:30
Exactly who has sounded entitled on this thread?
The pensioner with 5 dc who retired early and feels their generation continue to deserve universal benefits?

I haven't moaned about people earning more than my dp only those on 300k getting help with childcare as have others.

I don't have an issue with 2 working parents using grandparents(I'll be one) I simply pointed out the argument re those on double a 1 income family keeping CB can't be justified by childcare bills as many don't have them.

Janey you have a bullying tone which is quite frankly not very nice.

As long as the hypocrisy is being acknowledged.

And my dislike of work?

conservatives think people should be rewarded for their hard work so cut benefits housing income support from the dont work brigade.
labour believe in socialism where everyone should get the same in society whether benefit scroungers or have a job.labour are generous with benefits.
so if these people are weathly due to working hard they should not be taxed hard .labour are to generous with the tax payers money giving it to the scroungers.

I don't know many who have help with childcare at all! The best nursery around here as a 1 year waiting list! You might have parents willing to help but it assumes they want to do it, aren't too old or live too far away.

All of those thngs applied to me and others have parents living near by but don't want to use them because their view of child care is stree away from views today.

That then leaves a small pool of people. And I haven't even started on whether or not to pay them.