“Tax the wealthy” (RR budget) what does this even mean?

[gggddjkki]

I don’t remember anxiously waiting for budgets like we have the last few years earlier on in my adulthood. But when you read statements like this (as I have seen in the headlines today) what do you interpret it to mean? What does taxing the wealthy look like to you? Taxing higher earners more? From what point? Higher taxes on industry?

Credible?!?!?!

It would be funny if we wouldn’t all be forced to live with the consequences.

This falls firmly under point 2) in my list. With a sprinkling of 3) and perhaps others.

No. It wasn’t. Try again.

Labour.are in power until 2029. We may.be a very different country by then. We've been in decline for decades. Neither Conservative or Labour have changed that. At least Reform haven't buggered anything up yet. Let's see.

What do you propose? More of the same? The Greens/breast hypnotiser? Dictatorship?

I agree. I’ve made the same point multiple times: the country has been in decline for decades due to economic mismanagement and the failure to address entirely foreseeable and foreseen problems and implement a credible economic policy. All political parties have been utterly useless and failed on this and continue to do so.

My point is that voting for Reform is going to do the exact opposite of rectifying that. It would be setting what is left of the country on fire. This falls under point 3) in the list I posted earlier. “At least Reform haven’t buggered up yet”, the mistaken belief that “they can’t be worse”. They absolutely can, and will be.

I would suggest voters use their democratic rights to put immense pressure on their MPs to campaign for and implement economically competent policies so that the decline can be slowed and then reversed, not that they vote for people who plan to cut off your parachute when the ground is approaching at terminal velocity.

It won’t happen though.

Spot on. I bet those advocating the demise of the state pension are either very wealthy or spent a lifetime on benefits so somehow thinks they will be looked after. All courtesey of a low paid worker who worked for over 45 years who then gets zero. Laughable

Not demise, means-testing like in Australia, who sensibly reformed their state pension system a couple of decades ago foreseeing the same demographic time-bomb (it used to be structured based on ours). This would leave zero pensioners in poverty, and remove it only from those who already have incomes above the average full time salary of those in work who do not need it.

Meanwhile auto-enrolment should be mandatory with a similar scheme for self-employed people so nobody has a choice to not save for their own retirement.

Taking these steps (and significantly raising the mandatory contributions at the same time) would still leave a net saving of £80bn per year to the treasury, which can be spent on education, infrastructure, industrial policy (which will raise living standards) and tax cuts that will promote growth.

I am neither “on benefits” or wealthy. Although I would be one of those who don’t receive it myself if it was means-tested despite paying large amounts of tax, yet I still see that this is absolutely what needs to happen.

The low-paid workers you profess to care about are currently funding welfare for millionaires (25% of those claiming state pension are millionaires). Means-testing it would be far more beneficial for the low-paid workers than endlessly raising retirement age (which is also insufficient to address the problem fiscally).

No. I’m an economist.

Why? Investments carry risk that work doesn’t. Why should they be taxed more?

No. Why are you engaging on a written forum if you struggle to this extent to understand written language?

You said: “Are you a teacher?”

I replied: “No. I’m an economist.”

You then replied: “An economics teacher?”

By definition, the answer is “no” because I’ve already told you I am not a teacher, and that I am an economist.

You are certainly demonstrating behaviours that are consistent with a number of the points in the list I posted earlier in response to another poster asking about the range of reasons different voters might consider voting for Reform, so I now understand your anger about it.

Yes. The longer reform of the state pension is left undone the worse the impact will be when it does have to happen (which is mathematically inevitable), without any “easing in” at all. People might want to look at what happened in Greece a while back. It would be far more sensible for the pensioner cohort to accept that they have paid nowhere near enough to fund what they are demanding and that changes now need to be made and for once, a policy might be implemented that isn’t to their personal advantage and they’ll have to suck it up.

They won’t though: they’ve had a stranglehold over UK politics and public spending for decades and will happily watch the economic decline continue while blaming everyone else. Amusingly forums on various newpapers (I read a range for balance) are full of pensioners demanding public spending cuts, but are outraged the moment anybody points out that by far the most wasteful and poorly targeted public spending is the state pension welfare, and that over 50% of total public spending now goes on over 65s who make up only 15% of the population.

It’s the usual story of “cut spending! Oh, I didn’t mean that spending that goes on me!”

Was the Australia system overnight or phased in?

Would Means testing result in the state pension being removed from those:-

with a private pension of around £35K

OR a private pension and state pension combination of £35k (23K private pension)

It could be worked out on a DB or annuity pension but you could take minimal DC drawdown pension for a few years to qualify for state pension and then take a large sum in a later year? Or take all your drawdown and then qualify for state pension in later years.

I have no idea why people think the current shit show or the just departed shit show are more credible when the evidence is that they are not. But if you want to stick to voting for the traditional party your parents did go for it.

The figures I quoted are for removing it from those with private incomes (or equivalent assets to generate those incomes without the state pension - because people with drawdown pensions for example can vary their income so an asset test, as in Australia, is also necessary to ensure the type of avoidance that you mentioned it not possible) of over the “moderate living standard” levels set by the PLSA and Loughborough University which are updated with inflation annually: currently £31,700 for an individual and £43,900 for a couple, after tax and housing costs, i.e. all they have to pay from this amount is Council tax, utilities, house maintenance, food etc.

www.retirementlivingstandards.org.uk

This is far in excess of the average full-time UK salary which is £37,500 before tax (so equates to £29,200 after tax and NI, assuming no pension contribution at all). Working-aged people are almost all generally then paying housing costs from this net income, and childcare costs, which retired people do not pay.

As such, this would leave even those who had their state pension tapered away to zero with far more disposable income than the average working person. The “moderate” standard is set at a level to enable purchase of a 3 year-old car every 7 years, spend money on taxis and travel, have a two-week holiday abroad every year and a UK break, pay for streaming services, pay for regular takeaways etc. It would create absolutely zero poverty to stop paying state welfare to such people.

Pathetic.

No: my job is economics.

I’m not sure how much more clearly I can explain this to you since you seem to have such difficulties with understanding words.

I did not say that Reform voters were stupid or racist. Why do you feel the need to misrepresent other people’s posts?

I’m 33 and my financial advisor recommended I plan for not receiving a state pension so I’m assuming it’s common knowledge it’s likely to be changed in some way. I’m not sure how this will work if Labour also remove higher rate tax relief for pension contributions.

If they do that they are insane.

But I wouldn’t put that kind of economic stupidity past them, given their track record so far on doing the complete opposite of what they need to do to improve things.

I don't mean to be annoying as I am interested in much of what you say, but you sort of did say that. For example at Point 1 of your post upthread you said.

A poorly educated electorate who have next to no understanding of economics so are easily redirected from the pressing issues into flapping around in rage and squabbling over irrelevancies/ directing their anger at scapegoats.

You did also say a fair few other derogatory things about Reform voters....

Not sure why you’re mentioning my parents. I’ve no idea who they voted for and nor is it remotely relevant to my decisions.

I certainly haven’t said that the current “shit show”, as you so eloquently put it, or the departed one, are credible. I have been scathing of the incompetence of both, and specifically stated several times that I believe one of the reasons some people are now contemplating voting for Reform is that they are in despair at decades of economic mismanagement and therefore falling living standards.

My point is that voting for people who are even more incompetent whose stated policies will be economically catastrophic on a scale much worse even than the “shit show” we’ve seen for the last 20+ years is not a sensible solution, despite the frustration (which I share).

When you’ve been shot in the foot it is best to go to hospital, not get someone to shoot you in the face as well.

When you reach pensionable age but carry on working you no longer pay NI - because you have paid what you need to to get your pension.
Also you still pay tax - so if you have a private pension add that to your state pension and you will be taxed as a normal working person (less the NI).

Quite you'd go to the hospital. This government has just kept on shooting themselves.

Also how would you means test? On yearly income? People with pension pots would just draw down the minimum each year to prevent losing the pension. On savings? That would completely discourage saving for retirement.