Labour and Pensioners

[Mycatsmudge]

So Labour has declared they will not increase taxes and NI on working people, but they need to raise money for their manifesto promises such as free breakfast clubs, more teachers, dentists etc. To help pay for it all would it be a good idea if they remove the triple lock on state pensions and make pensioners pay NI?

I was on another thread before. Someone's sister is childfree. Coming back to this thread, it makes me wonder how childfree or childless pensioners feel. Their working-life taxes were spent on educating and paying for the healthcare of other people's children. Now those children are young adults and some want to complain about older people getting pensions....

I'm proud of my DC as they seem to be more French in their attitude towards older people. They're not adults yet but already understand that every member of society whatever their age and whether able to work or not, is equally valuable. And everyone contributes. Financially (whether directly through income tax, or indirectly through purchase of goods and services), and in important ways other than financially.

There’s no justification why pensioners should pay lower tax rates on their income than everyone else. And no, the main effect will be on those who have a higher income. Why should already wealthy people with high incomes pay a lower rate of tax especially when they already receive universal benefits (set at about double the level of means tested working age benefits).

I think it’s unlikely that taxing pensioners the same as everyone else will increase the number working. They would have to pay more tax on their income apart from anything else. I would expect it to lead to fewer pensioners working.

young people are suffering at the moment because pensioners (as a group) are taking more out and putting less in. That’s unfair and silly to pretend it benefits the young. It doesn’t.

You keep generalising about age groups. And, I'm sure it's not your intention so please don't think I'm accusing you personally, but it's a bit too dog whistle imo to say "young people are suffering because of older people". There's lots of older people suffering too. Maybe fewer than younger people but a significant minority, and those older people matter too. Pitting groups against each other does nothing to help society's problems.

As I keep pointing out.
Inequalities within older generations are some of the most extreme in society.

I really must stop taking over this thread though as I know that's annoying. I'll sign off by reposting the quotes I highlighted from the excellent article (linked upthread) about the French young, because it makes such good points (points made by young French people).

Of course, we’re still young and retirement is a distantprospect for us.

But the more we let them eat away at our rights, the less we will have when it’s our turn to retire.

It’s everyone’s duty to protect our rights, to protect society’s most vulnerable, and to make sure we continue progressing.

We each should contribute to the system and be entitled to take things back out when we need. The problem with the current generation of pensioners is that (as a generation- obviously doesn’t apply to each individual) they have taken out (cheap housing, generous pensions, low retirement age, free education) what they have not put in. Now many of these things are not not available to the younger generation because the older generation did not pay for them so now the younger generation must pay for pensioners benefits.

So now, with demographic changes the young must pay tax for the pensions of the elderly- pensions that they themselves will get at a much older age, if they are available at all. Broadly there is great demographic inequality - it’s grossly unfair to the younger generation. All this while pensioners pay less tax.

If everyone is equally valuable- why is that an argument against us all paying the same rate of income tax (ie why do pensioners not have to pay the tax that is NI?). It really isn’t imo.

The point of this thread is that pensioners (as a group) get certain benefits and tax breaks. Op argues they should not. It’s irrelevant if there are differences within the demographic of pensioners- no one is saying there isn’t. We are saying that they should not get some benefits (such as lower taxes) that younger people do not.

Again, the thread is about benefits pensioners get just for being pensioners. Of course we must generalise as that is what the thread is about.

Those quotes from French people are fairly silly in the context. As we have already said, many of the benefits available to the current generation of pensioners are already not available to future generations (eg state pension at 60). It’s likely more of these things will also not be available due to the burden of the current generation paying for pensioner’s benefits (with the particular demographic pressures we have currently).

Wealthy pensioners who don’t want to pay their way are not the most vulnerable. Everyone should pay NI as I said (it should be merged into income tax). It’s unfair that one group who are taking most out, are not contributing fairly.

We are generalising because we are talking in this thread about benefits pensioners get for being pensioners. So a pensioner on exactly the same income as a working age person is better off because they pay less tax.

that’s unfair. Particularly because they’re also getting the state pension- a universal benefit (which is guaranteed to rise more than other benefits) which is about double the level of working age benefits (universal credit) and is paid for by the current taxpayer.

just to explain again- the issue is that pensioners are better off just for being pensioners. Even those on high incomes don’t pay NI and get state pensions. That’s the issue we are discussing- inter generational inequality and fairness. Of course we are generalising because we are talking about generations as a whole and distribution of resources between them.

No pensioners should not have to pay NI.

The people we should be getting more tax from are the Uber rich who are taking the money of literally everyone else. Stop finger pointing at people who you feel are slightly better off than you. These people are not the problem. The problem is the wealth gap. With the Uber rich on one side and EVERYONE ELSE on the other. These people have been getting richer and richer while the rest of us have been getting poorer. This is what needs to stop. Stop getting distracted with worrying about whether pensioners are paying NI FFS. We need to start talking about the real problem.

Have a listen to this guy. Explains it all better than I can....

www.facebook.com/share/72uY6TToaF32ubqm/?mibextid=LQQJ4d

a pensioner on exactly the same income as a working age person is better off because they pay less tax.

They're absolutely not better off just for being pensioners.

Poorer pensioners are often worse off precisely because they're pensioners, and data shows that many of the poorer pensioners have been in poverty for much or all of their working life.

Pensioners have a fixed income. Health less good too, especially if poor (poverty affects health).

Pensioners often have extra costs. As people age many become less mobile so are at home more. Just one example of many is that older people are also more vulnerable to the cold. So higher energy bills.

And, if not on pension credit, there's council tax. Fine for those who've done well but many are not much above the pension credit threshold with only a modest private pension.

Also other taxes including VAT.

However, that doesn't mean younger people don't need help too. Anyone on lower incomes whatever their age does.

Just because other people of the same age group (whichever age group you want to look at) are ok doesn't mean it's ok to ignore or dismiss the plight of those who aren't and never were ok.

This is a good place to start...

www.facebook.com/share/v/KLUr8Hm7sP9G8aFB/?mibextid=WC7FNe

This.

Pitting groups against each other doesn't do anything to address the issues in society. It doesn't help anyone who's struggling.

With the housing issue, there's a need for more social housing. For younger people, but also perhaps especially (because they have less chance of ever buying) for the 2 million private renters aged over 50.

But really there should be enough provided for all who need it whatever their age. Why would anyone have an issue with that?

This below is worth a read imo.

The State of Ageing 2023 offers a clear rebuttal of the “wealthy baby boomer” narratives that have become so commonplace in public discourse, fueling intergenerational conflict and resentment towards our older population.

Although it is undeniable that there are wealthy older people, wealth inequality within older age groups is vastly greater than between older and younger age

https://ageing-better.org.uk/blogs/busting-wealthy-boomers-myth

Completely agree with you on the social housing issue. Selling off social housing has been fucking disastrous. There should be enough low cost housing for anyone that needs it. The current situation with ridiculously high unaffordable private rents, not enough of it and the government subbing these ridiculous rents (ie usually the assets of the wealthy) via benefits while continuing to sell off social housing is absolutely ludicrous.

And yes I know plenty of very poor elderly people both personally and through my previous job. This rhetoric that all boomers are living the high life on final salary pensions is completely wrong. There are plenty of pensioners really struggling, often sick, and unable to change their situation by working more. My own mum (who thankfully isn’t sick) has the supplement her meagre pension by continuing to work in her mid 70s.

Politicians are very, very good at diverting people’s attention away from the real causes of problems by finger pointing at scapegoats. Don’t be fooled.

Firstly, i believe younger people have it very hard, at every turn they are criticised, put down and most have it financially very hard.

The rubbish sunak came out with on Nat Serv was just another example of this.

Yes so called boomers had access to cheaper property but not all, we are supposed to be talking about these people, many who were like you and doing a low paid job or maybe raising children, then divorce etc and forced into renting, with little chance of buying a house.

As a society, we should be aiming to help everyone who is less well off, not pitting one group against another.... which this Tory Govt is expert at.

Interestingly. I asked my 19 year old and his (also 19) GF if they are concerned about housing or being able to buy one in their future and they both said no.

Thank you to everyone who has contributed to this thread, there was been some very informative and thought provoking comments from various posters. As an undecided voter I was struck by Labour’s central message that they can increase spending but avoid tax cuts by promoting growth, primarily in the green industries. I have a relative who works in energy research and development. They are sceptical about politicians claims we will be net zero and companies be able to generate a profit in the next decade without us having to pay a lot more as the green technology is just not there to meet the UKs current energy demands. Also Labour promise not to tax working people more so who else is there to tax if the wealthy/super rich can move abroad. Im friends with a French family who moved to the UK a decade ago after the French government increased taxes significantly for the wealthy and they say a lot of their colleagues did the same so now London has the largest French community outside of France. I was struck by the wealthy pensioners at the art gallery as it made me think how some probably have more disposal income than working families and whether they would be targeted for extra taxation/NI contributions. I’ve concentrated on Labours pledges as everyone believes they will win a massive majority and with that the power to do almost anything they want include bringing down the voting age to 16 which will fundamentally affect the voting demographic and skew government attention from the needs of the older generations to the young. However, despite some excellent posts I’m still not sure how Labours spending pledges will be paid for so I will take the advice of a poster and read their manifesto.

But what about the waltz?

@Mycatsmudge (Try a few paragraphs in a post).

We assume pensioner equals poverty. Many decades ago it did for many. Pensioners from any public service get work pensions that increase with the cost of living every year. I do. Many pensions were utterly gold plated. Our pensions from the state are triple locked too. Of course there are pensioners with no private pension but many had a good enough life but didn’t save.

We also should abolish NI as too many think it really is an insurance scheme. The notion it’s a scheme you pay into for benefits later is mostly untrue. Yes it’s a qualifying tax but it’s still a tax. I’ve no doubt it should apply to all income above the basic pension but maybe start at £20,000 for all taxation for pensioners who are receiving the state Pension. Just altering the tax system isn’t that difficult.

Sorry. Didn’t mean to be nasty but I find lots of info and no breaks a challenge to read.

pensioners (as a group) are taking more out and putting less in.

You keep saying this but you won’t answer - more than what or whom and less than whom? It’s completely meaningless unless you’re a bit more specific.

Agree.
Really we should be talking about

The cost of a declining birth rate

if we really want to discuss why we are struggling with paying for our welfare state.

For any economic model to have any chance of success you have to understand we have more and more pensioners coming through and a declining birth rate. Far fewer paying tax and the higher rate tax payers do contribute the lions share of the tax take.

Plenty who are older use services more. They need more care. They are paid state pensions and benefits. No, they have not contributed to them! They contributed to pensions of the elderly when they were actually working.

We support families to ensure dc can be contributing members of society later on. As we have found out, Brits won’t do some areas of work. Many people of working age work reduced hours and take benefits. My own family members! They take from the state at every turn. We don’t ensure those who can work, do. So there are too few paying tax and we have no economic growth. The public services are the worst performers. We need to generate wealth and we do this by growth. Older people don’t often contribute to this. However some could but aren’t required to. They should be.

The market price of homes fluctuates with demand. When people got social housing, house prices were lower due to less demand. There was more housebuilding too. So it was much easier to buy decades ago. Certainly in the 70s and 80s. Many people chose not to buy. They didn’t want to but now bemoan not having the asset.

have more and more pensioners coming through
Not for much longer. Life expectancy is falling, as far as I'm aware.

Plenty who are older use services more. They need more care.
Keeping other people in work. Bearing in mind that there's 916,000 job vacancies but over 1 million working age job seekers.

They are paid state pensions and benefits. No, they have not contributed to them! They contributed to pensions of the elderly when they were actually working.
Exactly. They paid for the elderly when they were young. Now it's their turn. As the French young realise, one day it will be them needing pensions and chipping away at them now affects younger people further down the line, especially as once the chipping starts it's easier to make people accept further erosion.

As we have found out, Brits won’t do some areas of work.
As I've said there's more jobseekers than there are jobs...

And most people would do those areas of work. The problem is, as you note, the lack of social housing. People can't afford to do low paid jobs (also working conditions are often poor, so the answer is to not go after pensioners but instead improve working conditions).

there are too few paying tax
Everyone pays tax, working or not.

Older people don’t often contribute to this.
Yes they do. They worked for decades. But they also continue to pay taxes, even if not income tax. Purchasing goods and services. VAT, and also that's helping keep businesses afloat and people in jobs.

Also there are more ways to contribute to society than financial.

Many people chose not to buy
Very few people chose not to buy. The security and future equity mean most would buy if they could afford to. If someone doesn't buy it's almost always due to inability to afford it.

Unless you mean the minority of people who could've afforded RTB but refused on moral grounds? So they didn't add to the depletion of social housing, because they wanted younger generations to have the same opportunity of affordable and secure housing they had. Hardly something to condemn. I'd say it should be applauded.

Yes. Job vacancies but we won’t do them. This is a problem. We then import labour. That’s not what we should do.

It’s not about turns. You have an income - you pay tax. We need to get away from NI being something that’s qualifying and a “turn”. You pay because you have a qualifying income. It’s that simple.

Yes. Job vacancies but we won’t do them. This is a problem.

I agree. To an extent. Sometimes the problem is employer age or disability discrimination, but yes these jobs need better pay and working conditions. And or more social housing, so people can afford to do the lower paid jobs.

Apologies for lack of paragraphs I just wanted to respond to poster comments before starting work so was typing quickly on the bus😊