To think all the targeted pensioner benefits ie bus pass, TV and winter fuel should be abolished...

[Figmentofmyimagination]

.... And the equivalent amount added to the pension credit of low income pensioners. That would overcome the logistical/cost based arguments against means testing these benefits.

I am in favour of free bus passes for the elderly from retirement age. A lot of elderly people are not fit to drive a car and need gentle encouragement to stop driving. Free bus passes help pensioners stay active and this saves money for the nhs.

I am in favour of winter fuel payments, but they need reform. I would rather pensioners were given vouchers towards their heating bills than money. I feel the amount of money given should depend on th serverity of the winter. Encouraging pensioners to put the heating on saves the nhs money.

I cannot see the rational in anyone having a free tv licence.

DH and I are working on the principle that, since we will have a decent income from private pensions when we retire, we will get no state benefits because they will all be means tested by then... But that's by the by. I like the idea of universal benefits because they give everyone a stake in the system. but that's by the by as well.

Underlying a lot of what has been said on this thread is the simple fact that pensioners vote. So if younger people don't like what said pensioners are voting for, they need to get themselves down to the polling booth and put their X in a different box.

As a PP said, many pages back, ignore the Russell Brand disenfranchising nonsense and use your vote. I'm assuming that everyone expressing an opinion on here will a) vote and b) explain to their old-enough-to-vote DC how to register to vote, how to vote, and why they should go to the effort of voting.

And yeah, I know the options aren't great this time: but the fewer people are involved in politics, the more power is concentrated in the hands of the few.

I am not left wing. I used to vote tory. I won't do so again though. This child benefit debacle has seen to that as far as I'm concerned. I don't know who I'll vote for in May. I don't like any of the parties as they stand. I think I will be spoiling my ballot. It's not ideal, but it's better than not voting.

I am, indeed, Old Labour. Getting to be pretty Ancient Labour by now. I liked Blair because he won elections, but became pretty disillusioned when he carried on tory policies like PPI and academisation.

I still think there's a difference between the two main parties. I think it will emerge as time goes by just how much damage the Coalition have done in the short time they've been in power.

Education - academies and free schools mean power is in the hands of Westminster, not LEA's. It's ridiculous that LEA's can't build a new school where they know it's needed but a free school, of possibly dubious ethos, is allowed to pop up wherever its founders fancy. Big row in Bromley at the minute over a bi-lingual free school wanting to build on a public recreation ground.

The NHS - the whole Lansbury debacle. And the cuts in Social Care because council tax was frozen, which, in turn, have shifted the problem of frail elderly on to hospitals.

God knows what havoc the new Universal Credit will wreak when it comes to pass.

It's all v depressing.

Not aimed at anyone at all bereal.

I suppose I am just interested in the posters who feel that rich pensioners are to be slated...but many of then are related to these people. (see the many posts that start "well my parents go on holiday 4 times a year and buy wine" etc etc) So would they still accept an inheritance, or do they feel that that also should be put back into the communal pot for the benefit of the whole of society?

Dido that's an excellent (and radical) idea - keep universal benefits (child and old age - without children, there's nobody to pay future pensions) but nobody gets to pass on an inheritance - no loop holes, no gifting over a set amount (perhaps 5k) to anyone but a registered charity without the recipient paying income tax on it to avoid death duties.

That would remove whole heaps of resentment - nobody gets to be mortgage free because they were lefta house or houses or hundreds of tthousands of pounds, and no elderly person lives in squalor with huge sums in the bank or a very valuable house they don't want to release equity on because their children are expecting an inheritance.

You can't take it with you... and what if you couldn't pass it on either (except to your spouse for the rest of their life assuming it's shared property or shared savings)?

My parents are retired and due to private pensions and lump sums on retirement as well as owning a valuable house bought in the early 80 have a huge disposable income - my mum orders things on the Internet and doesn't bother returning them if they are wrong because of the hassle, my dad leaves the hall door open for the dog year 'round with the heating on (winter fuel allowance? Global warming? "Prudent" generation? )

I'd accept no inheritance if it were universal and on death (of surviving spouse if relevant) all capital and property over a certain value reverted to the state - in return universal benefits, health care and elderly care. Your money is yours til you die - spending it not holding capital in oversized property to pass on to your children would be good for the economy too - go on, why not?

The government already taxes the hell out of inheritance. Please allow me to pass half of my stuff to my kids rather than handing 100% of it over to the Inland Revenue?

Inhertiance tax is 40% of anything over £325K. People can't give their money way to avoid inhertiance tax as anything above 3K a year in the last seven years of a person's life is taxed.

If someone has worked hard all their lives then why can they not have some say what happens to theri money. Why cannot they choose to leave their money to the dog's home intead of inland revenue.

I would like tax relief if money goes towards prudent decisions. For example if a chunk of someone's inhertiance goes into a pension for the benefictory. If the goverment does introduce care ISAs then it would encourage people to be responsible for their own end of life costs.

www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4340348.ece

Maybe there should be tax relief if money from an inhertiance goes straight into a private pension or care isa. Our tax system needs to reward hard work, otherwise no one will do the necessary hard work to generate wealth.

Putting inheritance money into a pension for yourself is sensible Reallytired but it isn't anything to do with the much banded about phrase "hard work" .

I know tax on inheritance is high - it has been for a very long time - but those inheriting haven't "worked hard" for the inheritance (some might have cared for the elderly relative but many won't have and many carers inherit nothing because there is nothing anyway).

It's not "rewarding hard work" to have people inherit large sums, whether taxed at 40% or not (and 40% is on very hefty inheritances).

Tax on inheritance is not high, it's a pittance. MrTumbles is right - all estates should be taxed 100% except for surviving spouses and minors when both parents are dead (who should be enabled to stay in their own home and have the upbringing they would have had had their parents not both died). And probably some get out clause for disabled dependents too. Other than that - the state should get the lot. That would remove the entrenchment of privilege at a stroke.

So taking the example of my sister - she can forgo paid work, kids, her own home etc and care for her MIL in her MIL's house, but end up homeless when she dies... nice...

and too many of these "exceptions" would make it unworkable.

Goodbye I'm not in a position to stop you

But it would be refreshing if everyonehad what theythey'd earned themselves rather than some people having big freebies from inheritance (yes, taxed... But hey, a 500k house taxed at 40% still gives the inheritors a clear 300k).

Funny how when its about money going into the universal/ national pot it's "going to the inland revenue" as a universally despised institution instead of going to "our children" but when it's about taking money out everyone is in favour of giving money to all those universally deserving pensioners

I don't know if anyone else pointed this out, but some of those benefits go to people who aren't pensioners, what should they do?

But Somewhere if her MIL had no money of her own to leave the same would happen. In your SIL case it would make sense for your MIL to sell her house on the open market and use the proceeds to pay your SILa proper salary - all above board with tax and NNO. Then SIL wouldn't be working as a volunteer for nothing on faith she'll inherit something (MIL could still leave everything to the cats home or her second cousin in Australia under current arrangements).

*NI not NNO

Inheritance tax is 40% of anything over £325K
That is true, but the usual situation is that most people are married and inheritance tax is, for most, only payable after both partners have died. Inheritance tax then is only paid on the amount above the sum of the two allowances (this could be £650k). That is quite an allowance.

Funny how when its about money going into the universal/ national pot it's "going to the inland revenue" as a universally despised institution instead of going to "our children" but when it's about taking money out everyone is in favour of giving money to all those universally deserving pensioners

I promise you I despise all taxes equally.

Re: inheritance - It's not unearned wealth, my husband and I earned it! It is anyone's right to build a legacy to leave for their children. If someone wanted to take that from us, we'd just leave (with our money) and find a more favorable tax regime. And we're not the "elite", forget about them, they won't even have to leave to figure a way around that.

Goodbye no wealth is totally unearned by somebody at some point in history but inherited wealth is unearned by the people who inherit it.

tax on inheritance is a pittance - 6-10% of estates pay inheritance tax each year.... 45%-50% of those in London and the SE

MOST estates - by far - are not high enough to require inheritance tax to be paid.

Tbh I don't believe 95% of people who say they'd "leave with their money" if taxes increased - especially inheritance tax. Would youreally cut all ffinancial ties and rights to use the NHS and work in the UK and leave? Where would you go? In cold hard reality could you - practically as well as emotionally?

Loads of countries have much higher taxes than the UK, but surprisingly few of their higher earners flounce off to become permanent residents of the Cayman Islands.

We've reached the point in our lives where our major decisions are governed by taxes, so yes, we would definitely move.

There has been a significant influx of high-earning French to London following Hollande's disastrous tax policies, they commute to Paris via the Eurostar.

To make an obvious point, taxes on the wealthy affect only the wealthy so there's a lot of money at stake and moving from one country to another is not a big deal.

The people who orginally earnt the wealth paid plenty of tax in their life time. They should be allowed to choose who gets the wealth after their death.

Pensions and end of life care are a massive time bomb. A lot of people in their thirties or forties do not have decent pension provision. If someone could leave money directly into someone else's pension or care fund then it would save the tax payer money in the long. The heir would be less financially dependent on the state. They would still feel as if they were gaining even if they are saving the state money in the long term.

At the moment there is little financial incentive for people who inherit money to save for the future. They might as well buy a new car, pay school fees or go on holiday.