Brian Fantana
Well-known member
Absolutely not.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] Would YOU be happy to pay more income tax so OAPs could keep their fuel payments?
- Thread starter Guinness Boy
- Start date
Interesting thread. I voted yes.
However I'm, with @Thunder Bolt in general terms in that there should be no reason for a winter fuel allowance.
I would also add that if there is a winter fuel allowance it seems to make sense to means test it (I don't need it) and yet the cost of means testing will offset any savings; the individual sums involved are too small, and the numbers of people who would have to be 'looked at' is vast.
I think Labour have cocked this one up. But I am not sure how they can do anything differently. If they raise the threshold they won't save any money. If they get rid of the allowance and raise basic state pension they won't save any money and those who don't need an increase will nevertheless get an increase. They should have left this alone and focused on something that can be usefully altered.
Despite being an old lefty, I am not in favour of any benefits unless to help people who cannot earn an income owing to illness or disability. Benefits as a solution to low income and savings is wrong.
I would phase out universal benefits in line with moves to ensure wages/salaries are increased. This has to be done in tandem and it will take years.
Putting my old lefty hat back on, the UK is a great place for multinationals and entrepreneurs to make more money than they can elsewhere owing to tax breaks (for the rich), and that can't be right.
We need to 'rebalance' the damage done by the right (and I will admit Blair's excessively relaxed attitude to 'the wealthy' and their rubric is relevant here too), as evidenced most starkly from the relationship between house prices and average income. Actually allow working people the means to pay their way, and stop pretending we can turn the UK into some sort of low wage long hours Hong Kong of Europe, then finding too many are dependent on benefits that are expensive to curate.
However I'm, with @Thunder Bolt in general terms in that there should be no reason for a winter fuel allowance.
I would also add that if there is a winter fuel allowance it seems to make sense to means test it (I don't need it) and yet the cost of means testing will offset any savings; the individual sums involved are too small, and the numbers of people who would have to be 'looked at' is vast.
I think Labour have cocked this one up. But I am not sure how they can do anything differently. If they raise the threshold they won't save any money. If they get rid of the allowance and raise basic state pension they won't save any money and those who don't need an increase will nevertheless get an increase. They should have left this alone and focused on something that can be usefully altered.
Despite being an old lefty, I am not in favour of any benefits unless to help people who cannot earn an income owing to illness or disability. Benefits as a solution to low income and savings is wrong.
I would phase out universal benefits in line with moves to ensure wages/salaries are increased. This has to be done in tandem and it will take years.
Putting my old lefty hat back on, the UK is a great place for multinationals and entrepreneurs to make more money than they can elsewhere owing to tax breaks (for the rich), and that can't be right.
We need to 'rebalance' the damage done by the right (and I will admit Blair's excessively relaxed attitude to 'the wealthy' and their rubric is relevant here too), as evidenced most starkly from the relationship between house prices and average income. Actually allow working people the means to pay their way, and stop pretending we can turn the UK into some sort of low wage long hours Hong Kong of Europe, then finding too many are dependent on benefits that are expensive to curate.
Exactly. Means testing is guesswork and is expensive to curate.
I have a suspicion @cjd was having a personal dig at @Guinness Boy . I could of course be wrong. It needs to be meanness tested.
And that’s only for those who applied. There would be some checking eg to state pension data.
The mother, the weird friend weren’t pensioner’s ?
I have got three children, 2 currently at Uni one just graduated, i didn’t contribute anything to them going, they did all from the grantStart a new thread. It's a very different experience to when I went to Uni in the 1990's, that's for sure. My guess is more are likely living at home, and wonder what the figures are around which kids are going... i.e. less from working class background, more from those with money who can afford to pay. But that's guesswork
Also the high interest rate on the loan
I’ve just checked and its not that high
Probably a dumb question but surely the tax man knows now much people earned over the last tax year?
It’s a wider question than that.
For 34 years? we’ve had independent taxation, each person is a tax island. Whilst benefits such as pension credit are based on household, only then collated when applied for via a huge online form. No government agency has per household data without that. Also checking for child benefit.
Although libertarian experts such as Roger Waters and Matt Le Tissier would claim they do hold the numbers.
If the government are happy to stop the WFP then perhaps an example should be set and all MPs decline their second fuel payments and have the heating turned off in Parliament. After all there is enough hot air in Westminster to keep London hot. Then of course the Sh*t that pours out could in theory keep their feet warm.
This applies to all political persuasion, waste of space the lot.
This applies to all political persuasion, waste of space the lot.
Fair enough. All I know is I have to complete a self-assessment and it’s nigh on impossible to get any money back without a lengthy battle!
Because of your letting portfolio. 10m’s don’t complete a tax return.
In addition there’s no database lumping your UK household income in with Mrs.HT.
- Oct 12, 2022
- 2,507
There’s something deeply wrong in this country. We’re one of the richest countries in Europe, yet are constantly being told that we can’t afford decent public services.
I would happily pay more tax, but would want to see the state pension amount (and therefore the pension credit threshold) increased. At present our energy bills are high, but I want to give Starmer’s plans a chance to be put into practice and see if they make a difference.
I also desperately want to see working age benefits increased. Until we’ve got the NHS back on its feet, there’s going to be a lot of people on the long-term sick who until they’ve had their operation can’t return to work.
This all needs paying for. I’d happily pay 5% more income tax if it meant we could treat people humanely and get our public services back on their feet.
I would happily pay more tax, but would want to see the state pension amount (and therefore the pension credit threshold) increased. At present our energy bills are high, but I want to give Starmer’s plans a chance to be put into practice and see if they make a difference.
I also desperately want to see working age benefits increased. Until we’ve got the NHS back on its feet, there’s going to be a lot of people on the long-term sick who until they’ve had their operation can’t return to work.
This all needs paying for. I’d happily pay 5% more income tax if it meant we could treat people humanely and get our public services back on their feet.
There'll never be another
New member
- May 28, 2024
- 10
Well, it's the 'rich bastards' who pay a lot of tax anyway....
I think @Weststander meant overall wealth and obligations rather than income in a year. If income in a year were the yardstick there would be no need for any benefits, with tax take could be fluidly adjusted according to income. Sort of thing.
I overpaid a few times, always got repayments from HMRC within a few days once the calculation had been agreed
Imho the state pension shouldn’t be increased further for the many millions (including my parents) who are sitting pretty. This would include retired folk on fantastic DB pensions.
There are far more pressing social needs.
They are hypothetical and were used to make the point that you can’t apportion tax to specific issues. You need one pot that needs to be divi’d up as fairly as possible.
I did mean household income in this case. But I suppose savings might be involved on the long form?
Really? I had a real battle. Took about 18 months.