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?

Free TV licences for older pensioners have been removed now, now only free if over 75 and receiving certain benefits.

@Papyrophile You did have an opportunity to work though. You surely looked at your finances and made decisions based on what your company was doing. DH also owned a company and we saved a lot for pensions. I have a very good occupational pension but we worked everything out and I worked when I needed to. We all need to review our finances.

Older grads didn’t pay grad tax. The benefit of their degrees was much greater as there were fewer of them. They did get the best chance of the best jobs. Older people did have mortgage tax relief to help. We did. Two people on fairly average salaries could easily get a house. Others got council flats or houses pretty easily if in LA jobs as they got priority. It’s not so much about what pensioners get now (apart from unaffordable triple lock), its that they enjoyed so much better circumstances as younger people. Many didn’t need degrees to get on. Now look at what young people have to do.

I’d rather we had our own nuclear deterrent. Countries which rely on others to protect them soon stop being countries or are constantly being threaten of invasion by others . Taiwan being a case in point.

@TizerorFizz Just because more people of that generation got council housing doesn't help the ones who didn't. Not all did (have you not heard of the Rachman private landlords of the past?), and many of those less fortunate older people are amongst the 2 million over 50s private renting. This is a group who have statistically been in poverty for all or most of their working age lives and are still in poverty.

That other people of the same age were luckier irrelevant and doesn't help those who were less lucky.

Inequality within the same age groups still continues. Whilst some young people are doing right to buy, others are struggling to find affordable decent housing, and that's partly because of people of the same age doing RTB.

Why wouldn't you want everyone whatever their age who's in need to get help, whether housing or financial support or whatever else?

Taiwan is a poor choice as hardly anyone recognises it as a "Country" we don't!!
China actually has a good case as to why it should be "Chinese" their problem is the Taiwanese don't agree.

My point is the UK can no longer afford it and under what circumstances would we use/threaten to, independent of the USA?

If we aren't going to tax more to fund the things we want, then we are going to have to give up things.... e.g Pensions vs NHS vs Benefits vs Trident vs Education.....

Older grads didn’t pay grad tax. The benefit of their degrees was much greater as there were fewer of them.They did get the best chance of the best jobs.

As you say, there were fewer grads then. The vast majority didn't go to university. They left school and started work at 15 or 16. And the low paid jobs needed people just as much then as they do now. Loads of people didn't have high earning jobs.

Also then as now there were Shit Happens life events. Disability, lone parents where the absent parent didn't pay child support (and a lot more stigma against single parents), domestic violence (and did you know marital rape wasn't made fully illegal until the 90s), bereavement, divorce, needing to give up work to care for a disabled child.

Two people on fairly average salaries could easily get a house.

Single people matter (and pay tax) too, and it's not as if being single is always a choice. Worth noting too that single pensioner poverty is statistically much higher than for couples.

Older grads didn’t pay grad tax. The benefit of their degrees was much greater as there were fewer of them.They did get the best chance of the best jobs.

My friends and l were unable to find jobs as we were dismissed as being overqualified. People didn’t want to pay graduates and a lot of people were very much of the university of life attitude.

It was easier to get a job without having a degree and working your way up. I found it an impediment having a degree. Most employers weren’t interested 40 years ago.

@ArseInTheCoOpWindow I knew someone who had that problem. I think he was 'Gen X' rather than 'boomer' but same issue. He was unemployed when I met him. He'd been made redundant. Got told repeatedly by recruiters he was 'overqualified' but if he left the academic qualifications and related work experience off his CV, he was overlooked for having a large employment gap.

@Papyrophile

So now, we still pay tax on our SIPP and tiny occupational pension income and the interest on our savings (which didn't go above £50 pa until the last year).

You won't pay tax on interest until it exceeds £1k per year. In fact you won't pay tax on interest until your total income is over circa £18.5k.

I know that @taxguru, but being asked for the figures for the self-assessment form is a novelty! And having the option of savings accounts that are currently doing better than inflation is also a first.

I agree with @BIossomtoes that all this springs from the perception that some people are getting something they aren't.

Times change and people's circumstances are different so there will always be people getting different things. But to my mind there's a general lack of recognition from the young about what they have now, compared to what pensioners had when they were young. The reality is that in some ways it's harder now, but it's also true that in many other ways it was harder then.

Nott having a job was not a lifestyle choice, it was the only way to get everything done. Women of that generation without jobs didn't just sit around all day.

They ran households without any modern conveniences. They had no central heating and had to lay and maintain coal fires. They did the washing with twin tubs and hand operated mangles. Many had tin baths that hung on the wall in the kitchen and had to be filled by heating pots of water on the stove. They had to do the shopping in person and carry it home because they didn't have cars. They had houses with outside toilets. Have you never watched Call the Midwife? That's a sanitised version of what it was like for me growing up, it's certainly not an exaggeration.

I don't dispute that in some ways, we had it easier than young people do now. I'd like those young people to acknowledge that in some ways, they have it very much easier than we did. Maybe then we'll be able to come to a solution that everyone sees as fair.

I was listening to the election special Women’s Hour on R4 yesterday. The Labour spokes person Sarah Jones said those with the ‘broadest shoulders’ will be expected to pay more taxes under a Labour government to fund public services and the spending pledges. Who exactly are those with the broadest shoulders? No specific group was mentioned .

On MN there are those on £150K in London who say they are struggling as they have a massive mortgage, high childcare fees, get no child benefit and lose their personal allowance pay higher tax on the majority of their salary. Then there are others who are on £35K in Hull with UC and child benefit top ups who say they are managing fine as have a small mortgage and also get some government help for child care fees.

I mentioned the waltzing pensioners when I started this thread as wealthy pensioners has been quite a recent phenomenon and probably specific to the group born post WW2 to the early 60s. My NHS pension will be nowhere as good as my colleague who is 10 years older than me. She will have a full final salary pension which she can take at 60 whereas I will only be able to access some of my pension at 65 and the rest at 67 on a defined benefit basis. So even though we do exactly the same job and will contribute to a NHS pension for a similar amount of time she will get more money and for a longer period of time if we have a similar life span.

What I really want is for Labour to spell out the additional taxes they want to impose before I vote.

wealthy pensioners has been quite a recent phenomenon and probably specific to the group born post WW2 to the early 60s.

It was actually my parents’ generation who were the first in any numbers to be comfortable in retirement, both mine were born during the First World War. There was a vast swathe of them with lifestyles comparable to today’s “wealthy” pensioners. Who aren’t all particularly wealthy at all for the reasons you point out when comparing wage earners in different parts of the country. Many of those people of whom you’re so resentful have inherited from their parents just as many of today’s younger generations will. I fully expect that as boomers become extinct their heirs will step up as the target for resentful complaining about “unfairness”.

Earnings and income go much further in some parts of the country, and always did.

The IFS has reliable stats on the degree premium for earnings. There’s always folk who didn’t make much effort (my relatives) but as so few had degrees, it wasn’t that difficult to get a job. You had to want it, teaching was never closed off! Or working for the NHS or LA. Or the government. I don’t know any friends who did nothing. Only relatives in the north. As more go to uni, the degree premium for earnings has decreased but it’s still there. Considerable for some courses and unis and less for others. So choosing uni, course, friendship group and personal drive matter. I’m not buying the sob stories.

On MN there are those on £150K in London who saythey are struggling as they have a massive mortgage, high childcare fees, get no child benefit and lose their personal allowance pay higher tax on the majority of their salary. Then there are others who are on £35K in Hull with UC and child benefit top ups who say they are managing fine as have a small mortgage and also get some government help for child care fees.

The above is because of this
Earnings and income go much further in some parts of the country, and always did.

One of the biggest, perhaps the biggest, costs in society is housing. London housing costs are extreme.

Although the example the previous poster gave of a couple on £150K is of high earners, there's millions in London on the national average wage, and many on the minimum wage.

And London has, I understand, the longest waiting lists in the UK for social housing. Childcare costs are higher in London too, especially as fewer people can afford to live near their families so less chance of grandparent help (obviously not every grandparent can help even if living nearby but many can and do). So obviously people in London often struggle a lot more than a family in social housing or owner occupier in Hull.

It's not as if everyone from London or the SE can simply move elsewhere. Aside from family or job commitments, it would impact on the areas they move to. As we see on the many threads about the impact of regional 'blow-ins' adding pressure on housing, jobs, and public services.

Perhaps worth noting here. The stats show that London has the highest pensioner poverty rate in the UK.

@Againname Exactly. It’s very easy to think everyone down south is rich. Southerners do contribute more in tax but also have higher costs. There are many who don’t have much left after living costs. Or none. Often family and networks make moving difficult. Plus who likes a blow-in? Not many as they put up house prices!

@Againname

Perhaps worth noting here. The stats show that London has the highest pensioner poverty rate in the UK.

On what basis? If it's based on proportion of income compared with the average income and distribution graph of incomes in London, then of course it's going to be relatively high as average incomes are higher across the board, so pensioners are more likely to be below 20% (or whatever is the definition) of average.

It doesn't mean that London pensioners have lower incomes than pensioners in other parts of the UK!

It means they have higher costs!!!

@Badbadbunny There's extreme inequality within London (and to an extent the rest of the SE). The high average figures thrown around are skewed because there's some very high earners there, which brings the average figure up, but they're not representative of everyone else in those areas. There's also many on very low incomes.

It's not only pensioners in these areas who're affected, but regarding pensioners here's the stats from Age UK

The capital has the UK’s highest rate of poverty for people of pensionable age. Older Londoners are as diverse as any other age group and face significant socio-economic inequalities impacting all aspects of people’s lives.

24% of Londoners of pensionable age live in poverty (a quarter of a million people). This is a 5% increase since 2017 and 7% more than the rest of England average.

https://www.ageuk.org.uk/london/projects-campaigns/age-friendly-campaigns/poverty-and-older-londoners-8-facts/

This

Not only housing. Many examples. One is that example childcare costs more.

From Age UK.

More than one in three fuel poor households in London include at least one person of the age of 60.

One on five pensioners in inner London Boroughs are unable access basic necessities such as a damp-free home, access to a telephone or having hair cut regularly.

this is so wrong I even don't know where to start

NATO only makes sense because of nuclear power. I can't believe that Ukraine is not a lesson learned for some people.

We can't increase taxes on those who pay them already, that's true, but what about pushing into work and paying taxes those who don't? why not to review welfare system so you can get eg. 80% of your salary in the first 3 month of forced unemployment, then 50% (up to certain floor min) in the next 3-6 months and then it stops? so unless disabilities, you are not paid if you don't work? heresy?

Dorisbonson on an education thread that's a bit stalled ATM posted a useful riposte to every one complaining the inadeqacy of education and support for the underprivilged. It ran along the lines of,

Your children's education is funded for £7.5k annually. You probably get £1.2k
in child benefit. Free meals etc.

The state spends 7.5k per pupil on education. Hands out 1.2k a year on child benefit. Provides tax credits for those on low incomes. Provides housing benefit to pay rent for families. The state spends about 20% of it's total expenditure on welfare payments. It further hands out loans for university study which never need to be repaid if you don't earn enough and ensures UK students pay 9.5k a year capped versus foreign students who pay the true price of circa 40k a year. It compels universities to prefer students from under privileged backgrounds with weaker education results over higher results from children with better off parents. If you piss your benefits away it provides free food for you to have too. If you don't feed your kids they get free school meals and cover for holiday clubs with free meals out of term time. It provides a free healthcare system (not over the moon about quality of this) and free prescriptions for those on benefits. It mandates discounted lower water bills for low earners, it forces energy companies to pay for insulation and energy saving devices on houses for low earners (paid for by other billpayers paying more). It discounts council tax up to the extent of 100% for low earners and those on benefits.

To do this it taxes some middle class earners at marginal rates of tax of over 60% (in fact over 90% marginal tax between 100k and 120k). The so called austere "tories" borrowed 1.6 trillion pounds to fund this situation.

What exactly was so shitty and unfair that you think people should be paying more towards? Who do you think should be paying for it?

I was chatting to my DM today so interesting to see what an actual pensioner thinks about Labour and taxes. DM thinks they will not make pensioners pay NI but instead they will lower the threshold when people start having to pay for their social care and care homes.

So currently the threshold is below £23,250. DM thinks Labour will lower this significantly resulting in a lot more pensioners having to pay. She thinks they will also increase inheritance tax, again drawing in more people who will have to pay and get rid of the triple lock on pensions.

You’ve had plenty of actual pensioners telling you what they think on this thread. This pensioner thinks your mum’s partly right and partly wrong. She’s right about NI and wrong about the triple lock. She’s absolutely wrong about the threshold for care - £23,250 wouldn’t even cover six months in a care home, the savings would be tiny. Inheritance tax will look after itself, thanks to house price inflation more people become liable every day.