If Labour raises taxes what will you think?

[functioningagain]

Typing on my phone so not sure I can do a poll? But, if the government raises income tax or NI at the budget, will you think:

A - let’s get real, they had no other choice
B - those duplicitous / inept bastards

DOH!

@Araminta1003

The state does not “have” to do anything, not free health, not free care, not free state pensions

None of those are provided for free. It’s paid for via taxes collected such as:

Income tax
National Insurance
VAT

Retirees will no longer pay National Insurance, but they will continue to pay Income Tax and VAT.

My father is in a care home at cost of £1355 every 4 weeks. His state pension and NHS, both accrued from 40 years of work, covers that cost.

His younger brother ended up in the same care home at zero cost to himself. He had spent 40 years on benefits.

The state does not “have” to do anything, not free health, not free care, not free state pensions.
Shall we add your DCs' education to that list?

There are only four fundamental things the state should provide:

National Defense: Protecting the country and its citizens from external threats and invasion is a primary and essential function of government.

Law Enforcement and Justice:Ensuring domestic order, safety, and security through police forces, a fair court system, and a system for enforcing laws and contracts. This establishes justice and protects individual rights and property.

Infrastructure: Providing essential physical and digital infrastructure such as roads, bridges, water systems, energy grids, and communication networks, which are vital for a functioning economy and society.

Public Health and Education:Offering public health services (hospitals, emergency services) and universal education, which are considered crucial for the collective well-being and development of the population.

Everything else is a political decision.

On another thread, a poster wrote about venture capitalism and how it was draining this country dry by sending billions of pounds abroad, which is badly needed to maintain our infrastructure.

I want to know more about this. Otherwise, we get stuck in this debate:

Left Wing: We need to increase the minimum wage to enable low paid workers to cover their basic living expenses.

Right Wing: How naive! That will only lead to more inflation and no one will be any better off.

But why do pensioners not pay National Insurance? What exactly is the reason for that? That could change too.

What you have to remember is:

baby boomer cohort were in a high ratio of workers to pensioners; that’s flipped now there are a low ratio of workers to pensioners.

this island is much more crowded, but with largely the same infrastructure. You benefited from peace, safety, freedom.

everything has already been sold off to give your generation a one off boost. There is no gold, oil, utilities, large manufacturing left that the state can sell.

abundant affordable council housing, which was sold off to you at considerable discount.

leave the typewriter in the office, down the pub, and no worries about work emails at 3am from the Sydney office, or your boss phoning you when on a long weekend with the family.

grammar schools recognising different talent streams, and free university for the brightest to study proper subjects like engineering.

single income families, able to afford a mortgage on the DH salary, and a car, and foreign holidays.

and after all that, final salary pensions!

Because National Insurance was originally designed to give entitlement to the State pension and working age benefits. So that wasn’t relevant to pensioners.

I think there’s an argument at the very least these days for people to pay NI on earned income, regardless of age, but that was the original reason why pensioners don’t pay it.

Well I don't think all of that is our fault! It's just the way it is. Oh, and no, we didn't benefit from peace, you forget the Troubles, Cuban missile crisis, the cold war, the Iran/Iraq war, the Falklands war,The Oil crisis, the first Iraq war. All of which had a detrimental effect on the economy and the people at the time. Not also taking into account the debt, and rebuilding from the rubble of WW2. Women's wages were approximately half that of men's for the same job, If you got pregnant, you were expected to leave your job and not come back, no maternity leave, no maternity pay. Very few actually got a mortgage regardless whether they could afford it or not. Rules were far stricter. Very few families had a car and almost none had two. Holidays abroad were sad affairs. You could only take £10.00 out of the country. As for selling everything off, The people never saw any benefit no 'boost' Selling council houses was the worst decision ever made which has made everyone the poorer, I agree.
That people allow themselves to be treated like servants by their bosses is not our fault, it's yours!
Final salary pensions? yeah right. Not if you worked in the private sector.
So please, don't blame us for your woes.

@Araminta1003

State pension is about £12K per year. Subtract this from the base tax code of £12570 leaves a remaining £570 that can be earned before paying tax.

Average UK salary is £37430. Subtract the allowance of £12570 leaves a taxable income of £24860. Tax and NI off takes would total £6960.

A person who’s state pension and other income which have a total of £37430 would have a taxable income of £36860. Tax at 20% is £7372.

So, the pensioner pays more in total to the government than the worker as the state pension is subtracted from their tax code.

Most of today's young know they won't get a guaranteed state pension when they retire, so that's not really a valid comparison. Today, we have compulsory workplace pension schemes, so today's young workers have to pay income tax, NIC, AND workplace pension deductions, to get the same kind of "total pensions" that today's pensioners are getting, yet today's pensioners didn't have to pay workplace pension contributions.

But they get a "credit" from the taxpayer to set against the income tax, so they are better off, especially as there's no NIC on state pension, whereas there is NIC on wages.

People can (currently) opt out of workplace pensions - they are compulsory on the employer, not the employee.

And many current pensioners did pay pension contributions for at least some of their working lives.

But also, at the start, NIC was a fixed "stamp" with no relation to income, but over the decades it's morphed into just another tax, being variable according to wages incomes.

But if they "opt out", they probably won't get any pension as the state pension will probably not be a benefit for all in a few decades time than it is today. Highly likely it would just be replaced by means tested pension credit for all. That's why most workers opt in to workplace pensions!

True, and I think there’s a good argument in the current climate for abolishing it and just folding everything into income tax.

So… opt out and get the means tested pension, spending the money on what you want, or opt in and get a private pension equivalent to the means tested pension… tough decision

I agree and also the current NI system creates complexities if people buy extra years because it creates a ( justified) expectation that they will then get that pension which makes pension reform difficult and politically thorny. Better to just roll it into one for transparency and flexibility.

A. They have no option but to raise taxes. I also think they are inept, duplicitous bastards, but not as duplicitous or inept as Reform or the (absent) Tories.

I'll think they're mugs for actually believing that being in government means you're meant to run the country and make the numbers stack up. i think they've shot themselves in the foot for doing something so wildly unpopular but probably quite necessary. They may be willing to take the hard decisions but they're not good politicians. No easy solutions from me. I'm just happy it's not my job.

Actually, they are not compulsory, you can opt out, no one is forcing anyone to pay into a pension so the point is moot.
We have paid into the system,paying for our parents to have a state pension, just as you pay for your parents to have a state pension. The current working cohort pays for the pension of the previous working cohort, just as your children will pay for your state pension.

But today's young workers are paying for their own pension AND their parent's pension, so having to pay twice.

@PinkFruitbat

I am 60. I don’t have a final salary pension as I worked in the private sector. So, I had to make my own provisions for pension.

My first salary in 1986 after graduation was £7730. Take home was about £105 per week as base rate of tax then was 33% compared to 20% today.

Interest rate was almost 10%. Mortgage payment was £228. Add rates, utilities and food, monthly outlay of £300+. So, a disposable income of £25 per week for clothes and a beer at weekends. Cars and holidays were not possible.

When interest rates hit 15% I had zero disposable income.

So, the suggestion that the previous generation had everything given does not make sense.

Maybe if young people were not addicted to:

Smartphones
Holidays
PCP cars
Designer clothes

They could save like I did.

Sorry that's not right. Workers today pay NIC which pays for the NHS and state pensions already being paid. You are not paying for your state pension, the next cohort will pay for that. It's up to the individual to pay into a private or 'works' pension. Just as we did or not as the case may be.

But their parents did the same when they were young... Certainly my parents, or at least father, paid into his company pension and paid NI which was in part used to pay the state pension back then. As have my generation (Gen X), and subsequent generations. Nothing has really changed, expect that company pensions have become DC not DB, and public sector and state pensions are paid for many more years than was originally envisaged when the schemes were set up - making them far more expensive.