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.

Given there has been a lot of debate about what constitutes a wealthy pensioner on this thread, why can't we say that a pensioner who pays higher rate tax is wealthy and therefore not entitled to universal benefits. In similar vein those of working age are not entitled to universal benefits either (rather than the complicated fudge the govt put through on CB).

All higher rate tax payers would need to complete tax returns annually (like people earning £100,000+ and like people who continue to claim CB then repay at end of tax year). This would be simpler than means testing and ensure WFA etc were automatically paid I.e. avoid problems of people who were entitled not claiming etc).

No taxes or charges to be paid on pensioners assets (unless they are taxed for all people ie mansion tax). It isn't fair to tax house price rises and IHT will cover this.

What do people think?

BTW Square your husband earns £52k. This is a lot of money so stop attacking pensioners many of whom will live on the state pension of less than £10k per annum.

George you would be shocked at child care costs. My DD is at nursery three days a week. It costs £950 a month. This is just how it is where we live.

Yes any pensioner paying tax at 40% could lose their £250 a year winter fuel allowance, free bus pass which many never use anyway so no huge loss. I suspect though so few pensioners earn over that threshold however that it would not save the state much. If it does I would certainly support that. If that does not yield enough though a simpler solution is like the TV licence to have an upper age - say you do not obtain these things until you are say 80 or 85. That would work too.

The comments last night from women who gave up work certainly support the views of many working mothers that it can be a bit silly to stop full time work or give priority to a male income. I encourage women having their first children to ensure they have developed a non sexist fair relationship with a man and they give equal priority to each career for all kinds of reasons. Many more pensioners are female not male and most of them live in poverty often expressly because they sacrificed their career on the altar of a man to clean and scrub and mind his children and they regret it in later life when they live in relative poverty.

Pensioners should not pay more tax than anyone else. That would not be fair.

What is currently wrong though is the amount they are receiving in index linked pensions (state or otherwise) at the expense of current workers. This was an accounting error and is ENORMOUS. It needs to be changed.

What is also wrong is that pensioners on benefits (housing benefit etc) are not subject to the same caps and limits as the young. This enables them to stay in oversized housing at our expense whilst there are families in overcrowded accommodation and/or expensive bed and breakfast accommodation that we are paying for.

Also, the current generation is paying for people to retire at 65 at the moment when they themselves will not have that luxury. Why? There should be an immediate change to pension age. Yes, tough on those who have banked on 65 but then the current economic climate is harsh. This would make a huge difference to the burden of the baby boomer generation on the young.

undercover, the pension age is being raised already to 67

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_State_Pension#State_Pension_age

Undercover there are a couple of issues with your suggestions.

Raising the retirement age now means older people not leaving the workforce and leaving space for new people so unemployment instantly increases.

The amount paid in pensions being wrong is not just an accounting error it was also bad management or not ring fencing and investing the funds and relying on the business growing enough to support it. None of these are the pensioners fault however you can not significantly disadvantage someone who is in no position to do anything about it. The benefits cap is different because you can go out to work to make it up an 80 yo pensioner can't

I entirely Agree with jacks about index linked pensions. It's not the pensioners fault that their payments out of their earnings were mismanaged. Most of the people I know on this type of pension went into professions such as nursing or teaching where a) society needed them and b) where they knew they wouldn't earn the mega bucks they could in private industry, but the better pension conditions were a trade off. Less money in the here and now, for more money later. If you want to try to move the goal posts, then why not do it for everyone? Force those pensioners who worked in private industry to sell their nice big house and give a chunk of their money to the govt coffers. After all, they had inflated salaries earlier in their life. Or force families to pay back CB which they were rightfully given for many years. Or make SAHM pay the state back for the NI contributions which the govt paid for them. All these suggestions are just as 'fair' and logical as the idea that pensioners should have their pensions stripped. Or how about go the whole hog and do a Cyprus: enforce a sudden tax on anyone who has savings. Never mind that they may have prudently saved while others spend, and that the money is rightfully theirs!
Tbh there is a hell of a lot of resentment on this thread.

What I do agree with and does IMHO need to be looked at is older people living in houses that are far to big for them at our cost. Some older people are only living in a couple of rooms and the heating and running costs must be huge. They are blocking the house for families.

There are also of course older people owning their own houses that have just got to much for them but they cannot bear to think about moving.

Maybe the house is cluttered and so overwhelming that its just not something they can consider doing.

Not sure what the answer is for people who own their own houses - we cannot FORCE them to move but what about some help/support for people who want to move but need some help.

But definitely we need to take the exception off for older people living on housing benefit in houses that are too large.

I agree Xenia that it may well not save much but could establish the principle. Given the CB changes it is likely many more people will need to do self assessment (if they claim and repay via higher rate taxpayers tax return). Extending to all HR payers wouldn't be that difficult. And most PAYE employees etc wouldn't find it particularly onerous.

Also Square do your PILs frequently take such expensive holidays or did they decide to go on the holiday they always wanted to in the basis their savings are earning bugger all interest.

I'd love to see the figures on those elderly types blocking in their big houses. The ones where there is suitable accommodation available for them to size down. Away from their friends and rels. Like fuck.

I'd like to see it linked to the numbers of elderly who die when removed from their homes, and NOT to hospitals/hospices but to other accommodation. Pound to a penny they die in droves. Solution !!!!!

My relatives moved in their late 60's. I am sorry but letting someone of this age stay in a council house forever cannot continue. My DB lives next door to a 63 year old women who has never worked and resides in a 3 bed flat in Central London. She wanted to see whether she could pass the place onto her DS who has long since moved out.

The plural of anecdote is not data, handcream

I do agree that those in oversized social housing should be required to move if there is something more suitable but that's a different thing. I think the bedroom tax is wrong full stop unless alternative suitable accommodation is offered.

No they do every year,home improvements etc.He was some kind off electrical scientist dp says.Yes it's lovely they're comfortable however they don't need benefits and could contribute more.

I haven't bashed those on 10k as I have continuously said wealthy pensioners.

I agree re the focusing on those paying a higher tax rate would be a good idea.

Something will need to be done and to be frank if it helps and works any idea or suggestion would be a positive imvho.

Doing nothing is not an option.

There are not many wealthy pensioners so if you just hit those you don't save much expenditure. We could remove the £250 a year for heating which goes to them all. It is not a vast sum and most could manage without it and still not have to burn the furniture to keep warm and that apparently would save a huge amount.

As the Coalition is unlikely to get in next time it will not damage itself much by getting rid of its ring fencing around pensioners, schools and NHS. It should cut those 3 areas.

jacks365 janey I agree that it is not the current pensioners' faults that their pensions are overgenerous. Yet nor is it the current young's fault and they are being asked to pay for it (whilst knowing that they will not have anything like that luxury).

Yes, it DOES apply to all, Janey. Those with private pensions are receiving MUCH less per annum than was ever projected for them because annuity rates have dived and the pensions investment returns were much lower than hoped. For them, the fund is a limited pot and they will get out what they paid in. For those on final salary scheme and public sector pensions, this link does not exist and they are receiving FAR MORE in value than was ever anticipated, and more than anyone in the private sector will be getting from the same input. And, most importantly, more than the country can afford.

All those Greek public sector workers expected to pass their pensions on to their children. The Greeks can't shrug and say well that is what should happen then because it was promised as they have gone bankrupt. That is what will happen to the UK unless we take serious measures now. Too much was promised, it is not the pensioners' fault, but nonetheless it is unfair and unaffordable and so must be stopped or reduced. We cannot have people living off working taxpayers for 20 - 30 years whilst the young have to pay for them whilst having much less to live on themselves. It was not their fault either.

An electrical scientist for the national grid is hardly an electrician.

It is likely that he took some of his final salary pension as a lump sum and therefore the £20k holidays (where did they go!!) are coming out of capital rather than income so taxing them at a higher income tax rate would be pointless. Taxing the asset would be a fundamentally new approach for uk taxation and if it happened would have to happen for all tax payers.

I have to agree that the shortfall in pensions is not the younger generation's fault either, but it seems like they are expected to pay it now, including through working longer. My pension has changed since I started paying into it too, including raising the retirement age. Its annoying, but i understand why it needs to. Seems that we should find some way of sharing the burden across the generations, including those who are actually benefiting through the miscalculations.

I don't agree that people should be paid to be sahm in perpetuity or anything like that, but it seems that some here defending the need to keep ALL their rights, whilst accusing others of being grabby, are also being a bit hypocritical here.

I see the point re younger people having the option of getting a job (although this is not always possible of course), but that could also apply to pensioners at younger end of scale (as it will as standard to younger generations).

I also think those saying pensioners on private pensions have it easier are being a bit misleading - my understanding is that they have been much more susceptible to fluctuations of stock market etc impacting on their pension.

I don't agree with taxing pensioners more just because they are pensioners though, bar rolling in NI to tax rate and applying across the board.

square - they are SKIing

spending your DH's inheritance.

oh dear.

^^^ this explains the resentment.

Plenty of pensioners have lost out. When you retire you have a lump sum in your pension and that is used to buy an income for life - called an annuity. The lump sum you need to have saved in the pension to generate a £10,000 a year pension is about half what it was. If you apply for an annuity which will go up 3% or 5% a year the annual pension is less. If you apply on the basis if you die your spouse will continue to receive it it is less again. Plenty of those who saved with Equitable Life years ago have a much reduced retirement than planned. Many pensioners do not have index linked pensions so if we have say 60% inflation we had in the 60s in the next 20 or 30 years they could end up with very very little money indeed. My neighbour lives on interest on savings which is paying 2% or 3% not the 6% or more that used to be paid as interest rates are low.

What the state has done by keeping base rate at 0.5% is giving a whacking great bonus to people like me - I had £1.3m of divorce debt and no savings. low interest rates have been pretty good for me. The state has on the other hand in effect said to savers - you have been careful all your life and live on your interest. We are going to ensure the interest is almost so low it was hardly worth saving. On that analysis the state has preferred young people - borrowers - over pensioners whose income from savings has been halved.

Inheritance- I have 3 children and the country has an ever increasing elderly population and won't be able to fund all care.We don't live near them (London too expensive) soo I doubt we'll inherit a bean and if we did it would have to go on the dc.

Anybody who relies or expects to inherit in the future are frankly bonkers.

So no resentment re spending inheritance just an opinion that if we're all in it together,we all need to be in it together.

As others have said we've all got to wake up and smell the coffee.

May I just repeat for the umpteenth time on this thread that that we[pensioners] pay tax on our pensions at exactly the same rate as every other earner.Yes I feel we have 'earned' our pensions. If you [square] want to take more from us in tax then you are treating a whole section of the community unfairly.Remember we paid tax, NHI and pension contributions all our working lives [no 5 years off for me] and many of us could give up WFA and bus passes if asked but it would make little difference.
My dd has 2 children and she took 6 months maternity leave with each then worked part time.I September when her youngest starts reception she will go part time.My family has a strong work ethic-we have never been rich but I would be ashamed to be crying 'not fair' in your position.

I meant she will go FULL time in September

So what do you suggest ?

I take it you want the country to continue funding gold plated public pensions nobody else will get without changes then.

I have a strong work ethic too thanks.