Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

[Politics] Would YOU be happy to pay more income tax so OAPs could keep their fuel payments?

Would you be happy to pay an income tax increase and keep universal WFP?

  • Total voters
    207


GT49er

GT49er

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Feb 1, 2009
49,111
Gloucester
Herr Tubthumper said:
Probably a dumb question but surely the tax man knows now much people earned over the last tax year?
Click to expand...
The 'tax man' is HM Revenue and Customs. Pension credit and Universal credit is the domain of the DWP. Do they co-operate? I'll leave it to you to guess the answer!
(In my years with the DWP in the 80s and 90s, I can vouch for the fact the the Inland Revenue refused to co-operate even on a basic level)
 




WATFORD zero

WATFORD zero

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 10, 2003
27,692
Herr Tubthumper said:
Probably a dumb question but surely the tax man knows now much people earned over the last tax year?
Click to expand...

All of these 880,000 will be under the tax limit (by definition).

An additional issue is that a significant number of pensioners are in the asset rich, income poor group. I was decorating at my mother's yesterday and she was telling me about a friend of hers I know, who she goes on coach holidays with. Her friend has always had a very low income and got pension credits and, consequently could only do a couple of 3/4 day trips per year. In the last 6 months she has sold her 3 bedroom house with garden as, in her words, it was getting too much for her and bought a one bedroom flat.

She has invested the rest and has suddenly gone from very low income to (in my mum's words) 'loaded' and wants to now go on every holiday they can (and obviously no benefits or WFA). Absolutely great for her.

Then there are also some I'm sure, who deliberately keep their income lower and their assets high with properties and pension pots etc. It shows the difficulties in finding fair measurements for means testing.

Age Concern reckon there's about 2M (including the 880,000 who don't claim) who are at risk. It's about how we identify them and ensure they keep the benefit. Income is one aspect, but should accumulated wealth be considered (pension pots not being used, properties etc). Martin Lewis suggested people with properties in council tax bands A-C should get WFA (in addition to those who claim benefits) but that's 65% of all properties (A and B being 45%) :shrug:
 
Last edited:


R

Robdinho

Well-known member
Jul 26, 2004
1,067
One Teddy Maybank said:
Prefer the government didn’t cave to all the demands to pay increases as soon as they came to power.

That didn’t help the deficit
Click to expand...
Of course pensioners receive an equal or above inflation pay rise every single year with the "triple lock", but somehow there is always money for that, and nobody ever questions it. Yet when it's people doing critical jobs suppling crucial public services, for some reason there's no money and people get all indignant that they have the temerity to ask.

As I understand it, this year's rise is circa £460, so actually more than the winter fuel allowance that they have lost.
 
Last edited:


Thunder Bolt

Thunder Bolt

Silly old bat
Aug 18, 2009
67,804
Beside the seaside, beside the sea
Harry Wilson's tackle said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes. Basically, tax payers are subsidising the energy companies and greedy bosses paying low wages.
 


S

sussex_guy2k2

Well-known member
Jun 6, 2014
4,067
GT49er said:
Yes, the tax brackets are means tested.

No we're not, and this is certainly an area the government needs to work on.

Yes, they pay the same tax as if it was earned income.

Pretty much yes; if you pay tax you won't be getting pension credit (or the winter fuel allowance), and vice versa.
Click to expand...
Thanks for clarifying so succinctly 👍 I guess by means tested I also meant is 2% appropriate across all bands. To put everything up a blanket 2% sounds great, but it doesn’t affect everyone proportionately. Especially when many high earners are paying PAYE, and aren’t affected by that 2% in the same manner.
 




Eeyore

Eeyore

Colonel Hee-Haw of Queen's Park
NSC Patron
Apr 5, 2014
25,840
I wouldn't be happy to pay more so that all pensioners receive it, no way. I suspect a large proportion of pensioners are better off than working folk.

But I certainly don't want anyone to struggle. I'm very concerned that there appears to be no impact assessment for this, like opposition parties have said.

The first question is where are my exisiting taxes being spent ? Then we can talk about giving more.
 
Last edited:


S

sussex_guy2k2

Well-known member
Jun 6, 2014
4,067
Guinness Boy said:
The issue is everyone wants better public services and lower debt but no one wants to pay for it themselves.
Click to expand...
I think the issue for many is we’ve spent so much time under the Tories, having higher tax rates than ever, seeing wages stagnate, seeing less opportunities than many before us had, higher house prices, etc etc. And that leads to a lack of trust in the government’s ability to implement this appropriately.
 


N

nickbrighton

Well-known member
Feb 19, 2016
2,122
I would happily pay more tax to help generally but not for this particular benifit to go to ALL pensioners. My own personal experience of 4 or 5 pensioner relatives all of whom said they didnt need it - my mother used it for Christmas presents, my aunts and uncles used it for other things, my sister certainly doesn't need it.

Its right that pensioners who need this benefit get it, but it doesn't make sense for someone on a state and vocational pension,who isnt in financial need at all. Perhaps remove this benefit from those who don't need it but increase it for those that do?

There is always a kerfuffle when "means tested benefits" are announced, but I cant see the problem with that. Help those in most need

Pensions are refered to as a benefit sometimes however are not , they have been paid for throughout peoples working lives and therefore should rightly go to everyone regardless of other financial considerations, but most (not all) benefits IMO should be means tested
 




Zeberdi

Zeberdi

“Vorsprung durch Technik”
NSC Patron
Oct 20, 2022
6,817
tigertim68 said:
If the government didn’t give away money to people who Have never contributed anything to this country, or who have never worked , and all the sicknotes there would be enough to give pensioners their winter fuel allowance
Click to expand...

Taking away subsistence from vulnerable, sick people isn’t the answer here - redistributing the existing wealth in this Country is.

Taxation is the primary tool used by any government to redistribute wealth according to their ideological perspectives. For Labour, it will be making the taxation system work better for those less well off and closing the loopholes that wealthy, small businesses and offshore corporates take advantage of to avoid paying tax.

There was a £35 billion gap in tax payments last year of tax that should be paid by corporation/businesses but was not. To put this current debate into perspective, the winter fuel payments for all pensioners costs £2 billion.

There is plenty more this Government can do to redistribute wealth before cutting the benefits you list above to the most needy in our society. That includes higher rates of capital gains, Inheritance tax, higher rates of stamp duty on second homes, higher rates of the upper thresholds of income tax, windfall taxes across all utility sectors being used to reduce consumers’ bills (especially in the energy sector).

Even without targeting the very wealthy, most decent people in this country are prepared to pay more taxes for better services and to help care for the very vulnerable in our society because most of us are actually, at the end of the day, very decent in this Country and we care for others.

However, that compassion should NOT be tested by asking people to help those that frankly don’t need it - there is nothing more damaging to people’s goodwill than seeing their hard earned ‘tax dollars’ being taken from them and given to help people better off than they are.

There are a number of wealth redistribution measures in the manifesto but it would be unrealistic to expect them all to be implemented in the first 5 months of a new Labour Government :

 


Papa Lazarou

Papa Lazarou

Living in a De Zerbi wonderland
Jul 7, 2003
19,338
Worthing
I'd happily pay more tax to ensure the NHS is properly funded etc. Not specifically to ensure rich pensioners get an ensure 300 quid a year.
 


chickens

chickens

Have you considered masterly inactivity?
NSC Patron
Oct 12, 2022
2,683
Weststander said:
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.
Click to expand...

You would be in favour of making even the state pension means-tested would you?

I’m not entirely sure about that. At present, if you’re doing well, you can simply not bother to claim your SP. It’s a matter of personal choice as to whether you take it or not.

Assuming that those who have done well, have done well and paid their NI (which they would have to, to be eligible for SP) I don’t believe you can or should say “no entitlement to SP for you.”

Leave it to individual conscience is my personal view.
 






S

Shropshire Seagull

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2004
8,769
Telford
GT49er said:
The 'tax man' is HM Revenue and Customs. Pension credit and Universal credit is the domain of the DWP. Do they co-operate? I'll leave it to you to guess the answer!
(In my years with the DWP in the 80s and 90s, I can vouch for the fact the the Inland Revenue refused to co-operate even on a basic level)
Click to expand...
Having worked for HMRC, as a contractor, or IT outsourced supplier, for many years, I can only provide my experience. One of the last projects I worked on in 2018 (I'm retired now) was the migration of Tax Credits customers to Universal Credit aka (HMRC to DWP). Highly complex stuff but I found relations between my HMRC team and DWP were definitely cooperative. I think Angela McVey was DWP minister at the time and made sure that we all played nicely. Maybe this was as a result of poor relations in the 1990s?
 


B

bbcgull

New member
Apr 24, 2009
9
Harry Wilson's tackle said:
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.
Click to expand...
.........and the numbers of people who would have to be 'looked at' is vast.......

Surely the government can ask Starlizard to write an algorithm to help? After all, the Albion somehow manage to scan the entire globe for potential signings.
 




GT49er

GT49er

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Feb 1, 2009
49,111
Gloucester
Shropshire Seagull said:
Having worked for HMRC, as a contractor, or IT outsourced supplier, for many years, I can only provide my experience. One of the last projects I worked on in 2018 (I'm retired now) was the migration of Tax Credits customers to Universal Credit aka (HMRC to DWP). Highly complex stuff but I found relations between my HMRC team and DWP were definitely cooperative. I think Angela McVey was DWP minister at the time and made sure that we all played nicely. Maybe this was as a result of poor relations in the 1990s?
Click to expand...
Good news if co-operation has improved then. :thumbsup: It was definitely the HMRC that needed to be forced to 'play nicely' though!
 


J

JamieR

Member
Jan 25, 2020
44
Nope and I'm not 'happy to pay extra to fund social care either. Focus should be on next generation who financially are going to be royally fcuked unless they win the euromillions or have very wealthy parents. I've already told my two teenage boys not to bother having children in the future because the numbers simply don't add up.
 


S

Shropshire Seagull

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2004
8,769
Telford
dazzer6666 said:
I overpaid a few times, always got repayments from HMRC within a few days once the calculation had been agreed
Click to expand...
This was my experience also. 15+ years doing self assessment with almost every one resulting in a refund due, always got paid within 3 weeks of submitting SA

Maybe @Herr Tubthumper had more complex or contentious tax circumstances, but 18 months sounds unusual.
 


GT49er

GT49er

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Feb 1, 2009
49,111
Gloucester
bbcgull said:
.........and the numbers of people who would have to be 'looked at' is vast.......

Surely the government can ask Starlizard to write an algorithm to help? After all, the Albion somehow manage to scan the entire globe for potential signings.
Click to expand...
Or perhaps, if we're bringing football into it, if Manchester City are found guilty their penalty should be that they pay the universal winter fuel allowance!
 






drew

drew

Drew
NSC Patron
Oct 3, 2006
23,576
Burgess Hill
Read the first page but not the others so apologies.

No, I wouldn't want to pay more tax just for WFP for 'all' pensioners. Like all benefits (apart from the basic pension itself) I believe they should be means tested.

With regard to the WFP, I agree in principle with what Labour have done except for where they have fixed the cut off point which I think is too low and excludes too many that actually do need the payment. That said, the 800,000 that are entitled to but don't claim pension credits need to apply. As Martin Lewis pointed out on tv the other day, getting pension credits opens the door to a host of other benefits and his view was along the lines that even if pension credit only gets you a couple of extra quid a week, it's worth it for the other benefits that come along.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.
Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports

Share this page


Top
Link Here