To wonder what could Starmer do, to turn things around?

[B0xes]

He was elected on fewer votes than Corbyn with very lukewarm support, the Tories lost that election, Labour did not sweep in on a tide of public approval, they just benefitted from peoples anger at the Conservatives. Since then, Starmers approval rating has tanked. He seems to have gone from one ill judged move to the next and seems totally tone deaf in speeches. Can he turn it around? What would he need to do?

You’re never fully dressed without a smile!

or in other words yes he jolly well could - probably would do if he were a woman.

I don’t remember Truss smiling much.

People, unless seriously ill/end of life, pay, until they have almost nothing left, its not free.

I'm confused, you don't want the state to get hold of pension pots after death but all ok for the house to be subject to tax?

All assets should be taxed after death, above any thresholds, a pension pot was for the original saver, once they die, its just a lump of money, which the beneficiaries have contributed into, yet will still get 60%.... all of if below the TH, which could be up to £1m in total.

Aside Reeves has made no mention of going after private pensions, you and another PP seem to want to keep peddling this myth.

That thread title was taking the piss out of someone who regularly plops in to insult us.

Though I don't know why people care so much about the titles of threads they don't post on. V odd.

@Alexandra2001

"I'm confused, you don't want the state to get hold of pension pots after death but all ok for the house to be subject to tax?

All assets should be taxed after death, above any thresholds, a pension pot was for the original saver, once they die, its just a lump of money,"

Not me - I'm perfectly OK with pension pots being taxed after death along with houses and all other assets.

I would even go further and set the IHT threshold at zero.

IMO inheritances enable the transfer of wealth across generations perpetuating social inequality, I mean it's not as if the beneficiaries (with the exception of the supporting spouse) actually worked or did anything for this money - they just get given it.

At the same time I strongly believe in meritocracy and I would be in favour of lower taxes on those who are in employment or business and are actually working or doing something for their own money.

Why would anyone name their cat after a leading provider of infrastructure services, construction and property developments?

Most odd.

@PandoraSox

"Why would anyone name their cat after a leading provider of infrastructure services, construction and property developments?

Most odd."

Well it's better than calling your cat Balfour Beatty I guess.

Its hard to keep up with the negative posters towards Labour!

Where do you draw the line? a householder downsizing may also make a large gain, thats not taxed at preset.

I'd like to see pensions subject to NI above a threshold and more IHT bands and get rid of the trust/company structures used to avoid it altogether.

@Alexandra2001

"Where do you draw the line? a householder downsizing may also make a large gain, thats not taxed at preset.

I'd like to see pensions subject to NI above a threshold and more IHT bands and get rid of the trust/company structures used to avoid it altogether."

I would have CGT applied to unearned income from a house sale even if it is the principal residence.

As for the state pensions I would make all pension benefits taxable, get rid of the triple lock and increase the pension age by 2 or 3 months every year. Oh and set the IHT to zero as it's unearned income.

But at the same time I would cut taxation on employees and businesses and shift the burden of energy taxes away from bills and back to central Government.

@Alexandra2001

Hopefully it won't be. You then have to pay huge amounts of stamp duty to buy somewhere else

Unsnarky hint @1dayatatime. If you put an asterisk before and after another poster’s quote it makes it bold and much easier for others to differentiate between the original and your response.

The issue with that is this may well leave someone unable to move, 18 or 24% CGT could mean a loan to buy another house, not possible if retired/not earning enough.

Dead against increasing SPA, it should be lowered, starting work at say 18/20 and work for another 50 years???
I'm at a loss as to how you think its a good thing for carers, lorry drivers, trades & other manual workers to continue work into their late 60s 70s & if they have to give up work before able to claim SP, they'll be on benefits, so little to no saving.

May as well have company graveyards, keep working until you drop dead, wheeled out, thrown in a pit... short funeral, new starter takes over....

What exactly would be the work ethic of people who may well be physically and mentally struggling with work and poor health?

Would lead to even lower productivity, UK workers already have some of the longest hours in Europe, yet UK has such poor outputs.

SDLT isn't very much in comparison to the cost of a house, about 2k on a purchase worth £285k or £0 below £250k.

@Alexandra2001

Unfortunately I live in the SE and the properties are very expensive so it would be a lot more and bungalows are especially dear.

Also I believe it is getting even more expensive in April.

You can't even buy a flat for £250K

Depends where you live. It would buy a three bed semi in many parts of the country.

Yes of course

Definitely not where I am based

And kill the housing market. Great move!!!

Sorry I missed an ".

I used to try and differentiate between another person's comment and mine by putting a line of ++++++ between them. But I got criticised for it for some reason 🤷‍♀️!

It’s easier to put an asterisk before and after a quote. Like this

@Alexandra2001

"Dead against increasing SPA, it should be lowered, starting work at say 18/20 and work for another 50 years???
I'm at a loss as to how you think its a good thing for carers, lorry drivers, trades & other manual workers to continue work into their late 60s 70s & if they have to give up work before able to claim SP, they'll be on benefits, so little to no saving."

I agree that raising the retirement age is not great and hardly a vote winner but the current model is unsustainable so what would you change?

Currently there are 3.6 workers to every pensioner and the cost of the state pension is equal to 45% of the income/ NI tax paid by someone on an average salary. By 2050 it is expected to drop to 2 workers for every pensioner which on todays average salary / tax / SP would mean the SP would make up 82% of the tax.

So as I see it there are three options:

1. Means test the SP
2. Cut the value of the SP
3. increase the retirement age

Which one would go for?

He should resign

The current model will always be unsustainable because the government doesn’t plan or invest for pensions, it keeps spending all revenue on interest payments for its huge borrowing.

I wonder how much difference it’ll make as a number of poorer OAPs will still need to be propped up by various other means tested benefits like housing benefit and UC.

Seems poor form to take 35 years plus of NI and then say no pension because we spent your contributions, but hey ho that’s government for you.

I'm not familiar with your assertion that there will only be 2 workers for every pensioner... and that would depend if these are workers are net contributors or not surely? so what if we have more workers per pensioner if these are low paid workers, claiming more in benefits than they earn?

Raising the SPA affects the poor far more, they don't benefit from triple lock for very long, unlike the wealthier pensioner, so in the first instance, i'd impose NI on pension incomes, above a certain amount, reaching a certain age, shouldn't mean a tax cut.

There also needs to be higher contributions made on working people & business now, the levels currently are far too low.
I'd also have a state insurance scheme for social care, everyone pays in, inc employers, ring fenced, this would reduce the benefits bill as well.

Changes to IHT, more bands, 10% 20% 40%... get rid of trusts, the wealthy should not be able to protect their wealth if the poor cannot not.

Triple lock reductions or cuts in SP ? mean higher benefits for poorer pensioners..

Raising the SPA affects the poor once again, the wealthy tend not to do physically demanding jobs, so can, if they wish, work for longer and/or retire earlier.
Where as those doing tough jobs will have to leave work and live in poverty on benefits.... doubtless dying even younger than before... Great!!!

All your solutions hit the poor, a means tested pension wont affect the rich but it will hit the less well off just above any threshold - see cuts to WFA !

This.

All wealthy pensioners that people are moaning about are paying thousands of pounds in tax per year.