Wealth is a tricky subject. What is the real wealth of a couple aged 66 both entitled to £9,000+ per annum state pension (inflation proofed) and no other income or assets. They would pay no income tax or NI. Their 'wealth' on one basis is nil. But to buy a guaranteed income of £18000 per annum would cost several hundred thousand pounds. Which is their real wealth. You would have a difficult task taxing it.
Far easier to tax those who have the same wealth saved up in a visible non tax- payer funded form. But could it truly be fair?
Yes, I bet a couple of teachers retiring on an indexed-linked pension of £30,000 each at 65 wouldn't regard themselves as 'rich' - but between them they have an asset worth around £2.2m.
(Best buy annuity rates for an index-linked pension at 65 are around 2.5% to 3% depending on the exact terms).
How’s the return to school going, doesn’t seem to feature in the news coming out of the UK, full marks to the teachers who have had to manage this on their own. It doesn’t seem to be a big issue out here in Spain either although could be hidden behind the Madrid shenanigans.
There are plenty schools affected here in the NE. Here is a live blog from last week.
Just checked, Everton haven't beaten Liverpool since October 2010, less than 48 hours after Hicks & Gillette were ousted, and they haven't beaten Liverpool at Anfield since September 1999, I was still at university then!
So actually the detail shows most people are not prepared to pay more tax, less than a third support an increase in income tax or VAT, most voters are however prepared to allow the 10% of the population who have wealth of more than £500 000 to pay more tax with a wealth tax or to increase council tax on properties worth more than £1 million as they will not be paying that tax and it will not effect them
The council tax idea I am ok with, but re the wealth tax above £500K particularly for those retired or planning properly for retirement:
Are you including DB pensions in that wealth total? For a public sector pension a value of several million will result in a very moderate pension. How about DC pensions, particularly those in drawdown? If not (which would be a reasonable response) what about those who have provided for their own pension by other means eg shares, property, etc. Why are they being treated differently.
Off the top of my head I am guessing £500,000 saved for a pension in whatever form would provide a pension of about £15 - £20K only and I am guessing for most people much of that £500K will be tied up in the house they live in. Do you think it is fair to tax these people as wealthy?
It would be worth informing yourself by checking some stats on how small a proportion of the population has wealth at that sort of level.
Wealth is a tricky subject. What is the real wealth of a couple aged 66 both entitled to £9,000+ per annum state pension (inflation proofed) and no other income or assets. They would pay no income tax or NI. Their 'wealth' on one basis is nil. But to buy a guaranteed income of £18000 per annum would cost several hundred thousand pounds. Which is their real wealth. You would have a difficult task taxing it.
Far easier to tax those who have the same wealth saved up in a visible non tax- payer funded form. But could it truly be fair?
Wealth is a tricky subject. What is the real wealth of a couple aged 66 both entitled to £9,000+ per annum state pension (inflation proofed) and no other income or assets. They would pay no income tax or NI. Their 'wealth' on one basis is nil. But to buy a guaranteed income of £18000 per annum would cost several hundred thousand pounds. Which is their real wealth. You would have a difficult task taxing it.
Far easier to tax those who have the same wealth saved up in a visible non tax- payer funded form. But could it truly be fair?
Yes, I bet a couple of teachers retiring on an indexed-linked pension of £30,000 each at 65 wouldn't regard themselves as 'rich' - but between them they have an asset worth around £2.2m.
(Best buy annuity rates for an index-linked pension at 65 are around 2.5% to 3% depending on the exact terms).
Yep, when I got divorced, me and my wife had to 'compare' pension pots in order to get a finanical settlement.
Hers, beoing a teacher, was £180k. Mine, just paying into a private pension £40k.
We decided not to bother arguing over it, I didnt want to make a claim on hers.
Just checked, Everton haven't beaten Liverpool since October 2010, less than 48 hours after Hicks & Gillette were ousted, and they haven't beaten Liverpool at Anfield since September 1999, I was still at university then!
So Everton are due a victory soon aren't they?
We are. Hopefully not by forfeit. Strangely I seem to remember us generally holding our own in the 90s when we were bloody awful.
The news says that Shagger will announce that off-shore wind will power the UK in its entirety from 2030. A big, bold policy lift from the LibDems - glad he is listening.
No. He’s going to say “every household” which I presume means only domestic supply and not commercial/transport/industry.
But does it mean "every household" or "the equivalent of every household"? And, of course, the question no-one asks is "can those households afford that energy?"
Wealth is a tricky subject. What is the real wealth of a couple aged 66 both entitled to £9,000+ per annum state pension (inflation proofed) and no other income or assets. They would pay no income tax or NI. Their 'wealth' on one basis is nil. But to buy a guaranteed income of £18000 per annum would cost several hundred thousand pounds. Which is their real wealth. You would have a difficult task taxing it.
Far easier to tax those who have the same wealth saved up in a visible non tax- payer funded form. But could it truly be fair?
Yes, I bet a couple of teachers retiring on an indexed-linked pension of £30,000 each at 65 wouldn't regard themselves as 'rich' - but between them they have an asset worth around £2.2m.
(Best buy annuity rates for an index-linked pension at 65 are around 2.5% to 3% depending on the exact terms).
Agree, assuming you missed the 'not' out eg 'not regard themselves as rich'.
A combined income of £60K in retirement I think is very well off indeed, yet they they could have minimal assets that would attract any wealth tax at all, yet someone living on half that income from assets would be paying a wealth tax!
Just checked, Everton haven't beaten Liverpool since October 2010, less than 48 hours after Hicks & Gillette were ousted, and they haven't beaten Liverpool at Anfield since September 1999, I was still at university then!
So Everton are due a victory soon aren't they?
We are. Hopefully not by forfeit. Strangely I seem to remember us generally holding our own in the 90s when we were bloody awful.
Just checked, Everton haven't beaten Liverpool since October 2010, less than 48 hours after Hicks & Gillette were ousted, and they haven't beaten Liverpool at Anfield since September 1999, I was still at university then!
So Everton are due a victory soon aren't they?
We are. Hopefully not by forfeit. Strangely I seem to remember us generally holding our own in the 90s when we were bloody awful.
Joe Royle's dogs of war, I think we went five years without a Merseyside derby victory.
I remember we lost one match 2 nil and Danny Cadamateri scoring a goal and on 6-0-6 Everton fans saying he was better than Michael Owen.
Wealth is a tricky subject. What is the real wealth of a couple aged 66 both entitled to £9,000+ per annum state pension (inflation proofed) and no other income or assets. They would pay no income tax or NI. Their 'wealth' on one basis is nil. But to buy a guaranteed income of £18000 per annum would cost several hundred thousand pounds. Which is their real wealth. You would have a difficult task taxing it.
Far easier to tax those who have the same wealth saved up in a visible non tax- payer funded form. But could it truly be fair?
Yes, I bet a couple of teachers retiring on an indexed-linked pension of £30,000 each at 65 wouldn't regard themselves as 'rich' - but between them they have an asset worth around £2.2m.
(Best buy annuity rates for an index-linked pension at 65 are around 2.5% to 3% depending on the exact terms).
Agree, assuming you missed the 'not' out eg 'not regard themselves as rich'.
A combined income of £60K in retirement I think is very well off indeed, yet they they could have minimal assets that would attract any wealth tax at all, yet someone living on half that income from assets would be paying a wealth tax!
60k with no mortgage etc is extremely comfortable, ours is over £50 k and can’t spend it unless it went oh holidays etc, not an option so it goes to the grandchildren with increasingly generous presents. I don’t need or want anything physical but I’m lucky in the extreme.
Wealth is a tricky subject. What is the real wealth of a couple aged 66 both entitled to £9,000+ per annum state pension (inflation proofed) and no other income or assets. They would pay no income tax or NI. Their 'wealth' on one basis is nil. But to buy a guaranteed income of £18000 per annum would cost several hundred thousand pounds. Which is their real wealth. You would have a difficult task taxing it.
Far easier to tax those who have the same wealth saved up in a visible non tax- payer funded form. But could it truly be fair?
Yes, I bet a couple of teachers retiring on an indexed-linked pension of £30,000 each at 65 wouldn't regard themselves as 'rich' - but between them they have an asset worth around £2.2m.
(Best buy annuity rates for an index-linked pension at 65 are around 2.5% to 3% depending on the exact terms).
The richest person I know is my missus' aunt, who was a deputy head teacher for 1 year before taking early retirement at the age of 52. She freely admits that despite eating out every day and taking around 6-7 expensive holidays a year she literally can't spend all the money she gets from her pension.
She is in her 70s now, but if her mum who is still alive at 101 is anything to go by then she could be getting this pension for 50 years.
The average worker who gets nothing like this back from the government is going to be taxed even harder to pay for this stuff and it's completely unfair.
What the valuations of pension pots show is also how artificial all this stuff it. My example of two teachers retiring on £30K each having an asset worth £2.2m is based on the market rate today - i.e. the size of pot a couple retiring with two defined-contribution pots would have had to build up to buy a similar pension. But annuity rates are historically very low, because of QE and general economic uncertainty, and that hasn't actually made the two teachers any richer than they would have been if they'd retired when annuity rates were higher.
Just checked, Everton haven't beaten Liverpool since October 2010, less than 48 hours after Hicks & Gillette were ousted, and they haven't beaten Liverpool at Anfield since September 1999, I was still at university then!
So Everton are due a victory soon aren't they?
Its worth remembering that home advantage isn't worth what it was without fans.
Anfield just isn't the same without the fans. It is the fans that make it.
Wow is there nothing that isn't blamed on (a) Tony Blair or (b) "Luvvies"/Guardian readers in PB Tory Land? Gift Aid was actually introduced by the Tories in 1990, but rather characteristically they thought it should only be available to those rich enough to be giving away £600 or more. Labour simply made it available to all taxpayers by abolishing the lower limit, perhaps that is what irks people on here. Personally I think charity is something that should be encouraged.
What are you going on about? The coalition-led government, in Osborne's budget, tried to limit it. I wasn't actually expressing an opinion on the merits or otherwise of the idea, I was merely responding to the original suggestion that Gift Aid should be limited. Maybe it should, but last time it was tried, there was, as I said, a tsunami of opposition to the idea and it had to be abandoned - and that opposition didn't come from Conservative Party activists or Tory MPs.
Isn't it quite clear what I was going on about? I was expressing incredulity that you were blaming the continued existence of Gift Aid on "luvvies" while another poster had said that they thought it was introduced by Blair. I was merely pointing out that the policy was actually introduced by the Tories - all Blair had done was to democratise it rather than restricting it to the wealthy. Like you I am not expressing a view on its merit as a policy. Although it strikes me that charitable giving is not a bad thing and if the government wants to encourage it through the tax system it doesn't seem like such a bad idea - which is presumably why it enjoys bipartisan support. It actually strikes me as an inherently Tory kind of policy so I am surprised that Tories are now turning against it.
Does anyone have a breakdown of which European countries it is standard for students to stay in the parent home while at university and in which it is standard to move to a different location.
It might have an effect on infection patterns.
I am not an expert on these matters but why is the explosion in students testing positive for covid not resulting in more hospital admissions and sadly deaths
Perhaps because the virus affects younger people much less than older people.
But they must come into contact with older people
Seems strange but then I am not an expert
As ever I recommend looking at what happened with Geoegia
Even as cases rocketed (mostly amongst the young) deaths fell.
Everyone started formulating complicated theories about how the virus had mutated I to a lesser form.
And then deaths exploded. Makes sure you have the graphs by date of death and date of onset.
And that the hospitalisation rate has started to accelerate faster than the growth rate, which matches the hypothesis that it's been spreading from young to old.
The ONS stats showed the infection rate stalling, but other than a brief plateau, the hospitalisation rate has marched upwards, accelerating in recent days back up to the fastest acceleration since the start of September. It has doubled three times since the trough. Three more doublings sees us back at the peak.
(Figures for England only, 7 day average is naturally a bit lagged):
Given that hospitalisations is a lagging indicator, if the virus had plateaued you'd still expect hospitalisations to continue to increase for a week or two would you not? It was only the most recent ONS survey that showed a the infection rate stalling.
Not that far lagging.
The ONS survey was for the week 18 to 24 September 2020.
That's the period 15 to 8 days prior to the most recent hospitalisation figures; it'd be showing up quite significantly by now.
Wealth is a tricky subject. What is the real wealth of a couple aged 66 both entitled to £9,000+ per annum state pension (inflation proofed) and no other income or assets. They would pay no income tax or NI. Their 'wealth' on one basis is nil. But to buy a guaranteed income of £18000 per annum would cost several hundred thousand pounds. Which is their real wealth. You would have a difficult task taxing it.
Far easier to tax those who have the same wealth saved up in a visible non tax- payer funded form. But could it truly be fair?
Yes, I bet a couple of teachers retiring on an indexed-linked pension of £30,000 each at 65 wouldn't regard themselves as 'rich' - but between them they have an asset worth around £2.2m.
(Best buy annuity rates for an index-linked pension at 65 are around 2.5% to 3% depending on the exact terms).
The richest person I know is my missus' aunt, who was a deputy head teacher for 1 year before taking early retirement at the age of 52. She freely admits that despite eating out every day and taking around 6-7 expensive holidays a year she literally can't spend all the money she gets from her pension.
She is in her 70s now, but if her mum who is still alive at 101 is anything to go by then she could be getting this pension for 50 years.
The average worker who gets nothing like this back from the government is going to be taxed even harder to pay for this stuff and it's completely unfair.
Or my mother-in-law whose husband died in the 70s and has been supported by his railway pension ever since, the same scheme sent all the kids to Uni and she has had free rail travel ever since as well. The pension now pays her over £2K per month.
Tax increases should fall on the over 60s. Non-primary residential property surcharge, a special higher rate of tax for early retirement, pension income to be taxed as regular income, scrap the triple lock.
I'll use my dad as an example, he's about to turn 66 which means he's of state pension age. He absolutely doesn't need it, his annual earnings from private pensions, his own equity investments and continuing business interests bring in around 15-20x whatever the state pension is. It's a complete waste of money to give it to him along with all of the other bungs, if anything he's absolutely able to pay 10-20% more tax per year because he's got no mortgage, his kids (my sister and I) have flown the nest and has very few ongoing expenses.
Instead I'm sure the tax rises will fall on the working age population.
I think you should be very wary of suggesting things like this for the simple reason you are solving an issue that is fast disappearing. Those scales of pension earning aren't going to be there for my generation (generation x) and most of us are going to have nowhere near that level of pension income I know that despite paying into private pensions all my life and earning fairly decent money for most of the last 25 years that I am wondering if I will be able to afford to retire.
These taxes will hit people like your dad for a few years yes but they will still be there when my generation retires and we will already be on frugal incomes and often without the benefit of owning our own homes if we have worked most of our time in the south east.
We need to get public sector workers on the same defined contribution pension schemes as the rest of us. They are completely insulated from the problems that many people have. From personal experience of talking to friends in the public sector I don't think they have any idea quite how expensive their defined benefits are.
I don't know how it can be done politically but it needs to happen.
I'd be against a wealth tax, if only for personal reasons. I don't earn a vast amount compared to some but I don't spend much either, partially because caring duties mean that I don't get time. Am I to be punished and forced to work longer than I plan to because I've been prudent? I understand that the government probably wants people to live day to day because that keeps the economy moving but not everyone wants to live like that.
Wow is there nothing that isn't blamed on (a) Tony Blair or (b) "Luvvies"/Guardian readers in PB Tory Land? Gift Aid was actually introduced by the Tories in 1990, but rather characteristically they thought it should only be available to those rich enough to be giving away £600 or more. Labour simply made it available to all taxpayers by abolishing the lower limit, perhaps that is what irks people on here. Personally I think charity is something that should be encouraged.
What are you going on about? The coalition-led government, in Osborne's budget, tried to limit it. I wasn't actually expressing an opinion on the merits or otherwise of the idea, I was merely responding to the original suggestion that Gift Aid should be limited. Maybe it should, but last time it was tried, there was, as I said, a tsunami of opposition to the idea and it had to be abandoned - and that opposition didn't come from Conservative Party activists or Tory MPs.
Isn't it quite clear what I was going on about? I was expressing incredulity that you were blaming the continued existence of Gift Aid on "luvvies" while another poster had said that they thought it was introduced by Blair. I was merely pointing out that the policy was actually introduced by the Tories - all Blair had done was to democratise it rather than restricting it to the wealthy. Like you I am not expressing a view on its merit as a policy. Although it strikes me that charitable giving is not a bad thing and if the government wants to encourage it through the tax system it doesn't seem like such a bad idea - which is presumably why it enjoys bipartisan support. It actually strikes me as an inherently Tory kind of policy so I am surprised that Tories are now turning against it.
I agree it is inherently a Tory type of policy. I`m not a Tory and I`ve always been opposed to it, much more so now than I was back then due to its mushrooming cost.
Thinking about this more widely, I like the suggestion made by another poster that there should be a scheme for voluntary giving to the exchequer and I`d like to see this recognised as an even more goodly thing to do than giving to a charity.
Wealth is a tricky subject. What is the real wealth of a couple aged 66 both entitled to £9,000+ per annum state pension (inflation proofed) and no other income or assets. They would pay no income tax or NI. Their 'wealth' on one basis is nil. But to buy a guaranteed income of £18000 per annum would cost several hundred thousand pounds. Which is their real wealth. You would have a difficult task taxing it.
Far easier to tax those who have the same wealth saved up in a visible non tax- payer funded form. But could it truly be fair?
Yes, I bet a couple of teachers retiring on an indexed-linked pension of £30,000 each at 65 wouldn't regard themselves as 'rich' - but between them they have an asset worth around £2.2m.
(Best buy annuity rates for an index-linked pension at 65 are around 2.5% to 3% depending on the exact terms).
Agree, assuming you missed the 'not' out eg 'not regard themselves as rich'.
A combined income of £60K in retirement I think is very well off indeed, yet they they could have minimal assets that would attract any wealth tax at all, yet someone living on half that income from assets would be paying a wealth tax!
60k with no mortgage etc is extremely comfortable, ours is over £50 k and can’t spend it unless it went oh holidays etc, not an option so it goes to the grandchildren with increasingly generous presents. I don’t need or want anything physical but I’m lucky in the extreme.
As you can see this is close to my heart. I have an income of only £3K or £4K and I am retired. I live off of my assets which I accumulated for this purpose. I fail to see why my assets should be treated differently to a DB pension pot for wealth purposes, but if you include the value of a DB pot in a wealth calculation you will be bring into a wealth category many fairly lowish income people (as per Pagan's post - these pots are very valuable).
I have no issue with paying higher council tax on my property (as suggested in HYUFDs post) or in fact paying CGT on my residential property when I sell it, which I will do for the cash and downsize, but the wealth tax for people who have made their own provision for retirement is a can of worms.
So actually the detail shows most people are not prepared to pay more tax, less than a third support an increase in income tax or VAT, most voters are however prepared to allow the 10% of the population who have wealth of more than £500 000 to pay more tax with a wealth tax or to increase council tax on properties worth more than £1 million as they will not be paying that tax and it will not effect them
For a public sector pension a value of several million will result in a very moderate pension.
How about DC pensions, particularly those in drawdown? If not (which would be a reasonable response) what about those who have provided for their own pension by other means eg shares, property, etc. Why are they being treated differently.
Off the top of my head I am guessing £500,000 saved for a pension in whatever form would provide a pension of about £15 - £20K only and I am guessing for most people much of that £500K will be tied up in the house they live in. Do you think it is fair to tax these people as wealthy?
Altered quote only to highlight the piece I wanted to comment on
What planet are you on? I can only imagine you consider almost 100k a year to be a moderate pension.
Pagen, You are misunderstanding the point I am making (I have probably expressed it badly) as I agree with you re public sector pensions. I am not referring to the contributions made but if the value of the pension was taken into account for a wealth calculation. People with public sector DB pensions are exceedingly lucky and probably in most cases do not appreciate the extra benefit of their pension.
The words in the link make my point very well - 'worth 20 times the value of the contributions'.
So the point is someone on a very moderate public sector salary who will get a moderate pension will have a pension pot that is very large (if valued for wealth tax purposes).
So actually the detail shows most people are not prepared to pay more tax, less than a third support an increase in income tax or VAT, most voters are however prepared to allow the 10% of the population who have wealth of more than £500 000 to pay more tax with a wealth tax or to increase council tax on properties worth more than £1 million as they will not be paying that tax and it will not effect them
For a public sector pension a value of several million will result in a very moderate pension.
How about DC pensions, particularly those in drawdown? If not (which would be a reasonable response) what about those who have provided for their own pension by other means eg shares, property, etc. Why are they being treated differently.
Off the top of my head I am guessing £500,000 saved for a pension in whatever form would provide a pension of about £15 - £20K only and I am guessing for most people much of that £500K will be tied up in the house they live in. Do you think it is fair to tax these people as wealthy?
Altered quote only to highlight the piece I wanted to comment on
What planet are you on? I can only imagine you consider almost 100k a year to be a moderate pension.
Pagen, You are misunderstanding the point I am making (I have probably expressed it badly) as I agree with you re public sector pensions. I am not referring to the contributions made but if the value of the pension was taken into account for a wealth calculation. People with public sector DB pensions are exceedingly lucky and probably in most cases do not appreciate the extra benefit of their pension.
The words in the link make my point very well - 'worth 20 times the value of the contributions'.
So the point is someone on a very moderate public sector salary who will get a moderate pension will have a pension pot that is very large (if valued for wealth tax purposes).
Yes I did misunderstand what you were driving at
No problem. I am no fan of DB pensions (although I might be if I had one )
Wealth is a tricky subject. What is the real wealth of a couple aged 66 both entitled to £9,000+ per annum state pension (inflation proofed) and no other income or assets. They would pay no income tax or NI. Their 'wealth' on one basis is nil. But to buy a guaranteed income of £18000 per annum would cost several hundred thousand pounds. Which is their real wealth. You would have a difficult task taxing it.
Far easier to tax those who have the same wealth saved up in a visible non tax- payer funded form. But could it truly be fair?
Yes, I bet a couple of teachers retiring on an indexed-linked pension of £30,000 each at 65 wouldn't regard themselves as 'rich' - but between them they have an asset worth around £2.2m.
(Best buy annuity rates for an index-linked pension at 65 are around 2.5% to 3% depending on the exact terms).
Agree, assuming you missed the 'not' out eg 'not regard themselves as rich'.
A combined income of £60K in retirement I think is very well off indeed, yet they they could have minimal assets that would attract any wealth tax at all, yet someone living on half that income from assets would be paying a wealth tax!
60k with no mortgage etc is extremely comfortable, ours is over £50 k and can’t spend it unless it went oh holidays etc, not an option so it goes to the grandchildren with increasingly generous presents. I don’t need or want anything physical but I’m lucky in the extreme.
As you can see this is close to my heart. I have an income of only £3K or £4K and I am retired. I live off of my assets which I accumulated for this purpose. I fail to see why my assets should be treated differently to a DB pension pot for wealth purposes, but if you include the value of a DB pot in a wealth calculation you will be bring into a wealth category many fairly lowish income people (as per Pagan's post - these pots are very valuable).
I have no issue with paying higher council tax on my property (as suggested in HYUFDs post) or in fact paying CGT on my residential property when I sell it, which I will do for the cash and downsize, but the wealth tax for people who have made their own provision for retirement is a can of worms.
It`s an interested topic to discuss but it won`t happen. Any government which introduced a tax on residential property when sold (or even worse when not sold) would never be re-elected.
Wealth is a tricky subject. What is the real wealth of a couple aged 66 both entitled to £9,000+ per annum state pension (inflation proofed) and no other income or assets. They would pay no income tax or NI. Their 'wealth' on one basis is nil. But to buy a guaranteed income of £18000 per annum would cost several hundred thousand pounds. Which is their real wealth. You would have a difficult task taxing it.
Far easier to tax those who have the same wealth saved up in a visible non tax- payer funded form. But could it truly be fair?
Yes, I bet a couple of teachers retiring on an indexed-linked pension of £30,000 each at 65 wouldn't regard themselves as 'rich' - but between them they have an asset worth around £2.2m.
(Best buy annuity rates for an index-linked pension at 65 are around 2.5% to 3% depending on the exact terms).
Agree, assuming you missed the 'not' out eg 'not regard themselves as rich'.
A combined income of £60K in retirement I think is very well off indeed, yet they they could have minimal assets that would attract any wealth tax at all, yet someone living on half that income from assets would be paying a wealth tax!
60k with no mortgage etc is extremely comfortable, ours is over £50 k and can’t spend it unless it went oh holidays etc, not an option so it goes to the grandchildren with increasingly generous presents. I don’t need or want anything physical but I’m lucky in the extreme.
As you can see this is close to my heart. I have an income of only £3K or £4K and I am retired. I live off of my assets which I accumulated for this purpose. I fail to see why my assets should be treated differently to a DB pension pot for wealth purposes, but if you include the value of a DB pot in a wealth calculation you will be bring into a wealth category many fairly lowish income people (as per Pagan's post - these pots are very valuable).
I have no issue with paying higher council tax on my property (as suggested in HYUFDs post) or in fact paying CGT on my residential property when I sell it, which I will do for the cash and downsize, but the wealth tax for people who have made their own provision for retirement is a can of worms.
It`s an interested topic to discuss but it won`t happen. Any government which introduced a tax on residential property when sold (or even worse when not sold) would never be re-elected.
I agree. We have been here before on PB. I got slaughtered.
Wasn't there some bizarre claims recently that Trump was winning the youth vote?
Rather contradicted by the Rasmussen figures yesterday which had Trump winning over 45s and over 65s though the under 35 and 35 to 49 year old figures look similar
Wealth is a tricky subject. What is the real wealth of a couple aged 66 both entitled to £9,000+ per annum state pension (inflation proofed) and no other income or assets. They would pay no income tax or NI. Their 'wealth' on one basis is nil. But to buy a guaranteed income of £18000 per annum would cost several hundred thousand pounds. Which is their real wealth. You would have a difficult task taxing it.
Far easier to tax those who have the same wealth saved up in a visible non tax- payer funded form. But could it truly be fair?
Yes, I bet a couple of teachers retiring on an indexed-linked pension of £30,000 each at 65 wouldn't regard themselves as 'rich' - but between them they have an asset worth around £2.2m.
(Best buy annuity rates for an index-linked pension at 65 are around 2.5% to 3% depending on the exact terms).
Agree, assuming you missed the 'not' out eg 'not regard themselves as rich'.
A combined income of £60K in retirement I think is very well off indeed, yet they they could have minimal assets that would attract any wealth tax at all, yet someone living on half that income from assets would be paying a wealth tax!
60k with no mortgage etc is extremely comfortable, ours is over £50 k and can’t spend it unless it went oh holidays etc, not an option so it goes to the grandchildren with increasingly generous presents. I don’t need or want anything physical but I’m lucky in the extreme.
As you can see this is close to my heart. I have an income of only £3K or £4K and I am retired. I live off of my assets which I accumulated for this purpose. I fail to see why my assets should be treated differently to a DB pension pot for wealth purposes, but if you include the value of a DB pot in a wealth calculation you will be bring into a wealth category many fairly lowish income people (as per Pagan's post - these pots are very valuable).
I have no issue with paying higher council tax on my property (as suggested in HYUFDs post) or in fact paying CGT on my residential property when I sell it, which I will do for the cash and downsize, but the wealth tax for people who have made their own provision for retirement is a can of worms.
I did not suggest it, I am a low tax Conservative, I was just saying what the thread header suggests public opinion supports
Wealth is a tricky subject. What is the real wealth of a couple aged 66 both entitled to £9,000+ per annum state pension (inflation proofed) and no other income or assets. They would pay no income tax or NI. Their 'wealth' on one basis is nil. But to buy a guaranteed income of £18000 per annum would cost several hundred thousand pounds. Which is their real wealth. You would have a difficult task taxing it.
Far easier to tax those who have the same wealth saved up in a visible non tax- payer funded form. But could it truly be fair?
Yes, I bet a couple of teachers retiring on an indexed-linked pension of £30,000 each at 65 wouldn't regard themselves as 'rich' - but between them they have an asset worth around £2.2m.
(Best buy annuity rates for an index-linked pension at 65 are around 2.5% to 3% depending on the exact terms).
The richest person I know is my missus' aunt, who was a deputy head teacher for 1 year before taking early retirement at the age of 52. She freely admits that despite eating out every day and taking around 6-7 expensive holidays a year she literally can't spend all the money she gets from her pension.
She is in her 70s now, but if her mum who is still alive at 101 is anything to go by then she could be getting this pension for 50 years.
The average worker who gets nothing like this back from the government is going to be taxed even harder to pay for this stuff and it's completely unfair.
Or my mother-in-law whose husband died in the 70s and has been supported by his railway pension ever since, the same scheme sent all the kids to Uni and she has had free rail travel ever since as well. The pension now pays her over £2K per month.
My Dad, civil servant, retired at 55, now 94. Boy has he had a good return on his inflation protected pension.
I think Trump's bravissimo and foolishness with Covid may be part of why he's doing terrible with seniors.
Personally my grandparents have been isolating all year and are taking this very seriously, they know if they catch this it will hit them hard. Many grandparents here are thinking the same. I imagine many seniors in the USA have the same thoughts - and Trump taking the piss and mismanaging this crisis that scares them probably doesn't play well with them.
Wealth is a tricky subject. What is the real wealth of a couple aged 66 both entitled to £9,000+ per annum state pension (inflation proofed) and no other income or assets. They would pay no income tax or NI. Their 'wealth' on one basis is nil. But to buy a guaranteed income of £18000 per annum would cost several hundred thousand pounds. Which is their real wealth. You would have a difficult task taxing it.
Far easier to tax those who have the same wealth saved up in a visible non tax- payer funded form. But could it truly be fair?
Yes, I bet a couple of teachers retiring on an indexed-linked pension of £30,000 each at 65 wouldn't regard themselves as 'rich' - but between them they have an asset worth around £2.2m.
(Best buy annuity rates for an index-linked pension at 65 are around 2.5% to 3% depending on the exact terms).
The richest person I know is my missus' aunt, who was a deputy head teacher for 1 year before taking early retirement at the age of 52. She freely admits that despite eating out every day and taking around 6-7 expensive holidays a year she literally can't spend all the money she gets from her pension.
She is in her 70s now, but if her mum who is still alive at 101 is anything to go by then she could be getting this pension for 50 years.
The average worker who gets nothing like this back from the government is going to be taxed even harder to pay for this stuff and it's completely unfair.
Or my mother-in-law whose husband died in the 70s and has been supported by his railway pension ever since, the same scheme sent all the kids to Uni and she has had free rail travel ever since as well. The pension now pays her over £2K per month.
Sounds like her 101 year old mother who has been getting a British Airways widow's pension for over 50 years, although that one is probably private and is nowhere near as much money as the retired teacher pension.
Wealth is a tricky subject. What is the real wealth of a couple aged 66 both entitled to £9,000+ per annum state pension (inflation proofed) and no other income or assets. They would pay no income tax or NI. Their 'wealth' on one basis is nil. But to buy a guaranteed income of £18000 per annum would cost several hundred thousand pounds. Which is their real wealth. You would have a difficult task taxing it.
Far easier to tax those who have the same wealth saved up in a visible non tax- payer funded form. But could it truly be fair?
Yes, I bet a couple of teachers retiring on an indexed-linked pension of £30,000 each at 65 wouldn't regard themselves as 'rich' - but between them they have an asset worth around £2.2m.
(Best buy annuity rates for an index-linked pension at 65 are around 2.5% to 3% depending on the exact terms).
Agree, assuming you missed the 'not' out eg 'not regard themselves as rich'.
A combined income of £60K in retirement I think is very well off indeed, yet they they could have minimal assets that would attract any wealth tax at all, yet someone living on half that income from assets would be paying a wealth tax!
60k with no mortgage etc is extremely comfortable, ours is over £50 k and can’t spend it unless it went oh holidays etc, not an option so it goes to the grandchildren with increasingly generous presents. I don’t need or want anything physical but I’m lucky in the extreme.
As you can see this is close to my heart. I have an income of only £3K or £4K and I am retired. I live off of my assets which I accumulated for this purpose. I fail to see why my assets should be treated differently to a DB pension pot for wealth purposes, but if you include the value of a DB pot in a wealth calculation you will be bring into a wealth category many fairly lowish income people (as per Pagan's post - these pots are very valuable).
I have no issue with paying higher council tax on my property (as suggested in HYUFDs post) or in fact paying CGT on my residential property when I sell it, which I will do for the cash and downsize, but the wealth tax for people who have made their own provision for retirement is a can of worms.
I did not suggest it, I am a low tax Conservative, I was just saying what the thread header suggests public opinion supports
Sorry HYUFD, badly worded on my part. I just meant to reference it not imply you were proposing it. Sorry.
Wealth is a tricky subject. What is the real wealth of a couple aged 66 both entitled to £9,000+ per annum state pension (inflation proofed) and no other income or assets. They would pay no income tax or NI. Their 'wealth' on one basis is nil. But to buy a guaranteed income of £18000 per annum would cost several hundred thousand pounds. Which is their real wealth. You would have a difficult task taxing it.
Far easier to tax those who have the same wealth saved up in a visible non tax- payer funded form. But could it truly be fair?
Yes, I bet a couple of teachers retiring on an indexed-linked pension of £30,000 each at 65 wouldn't regard themselves as 'rich' - but between them they have an asset worth around £2.2m.
(Best buy annuity rates for an index-linked pension at 65 are around 2.5% to 3% depending on the exact terms).
The richest person I know is my missus' aunt, who was a deputy head teacher for 1 year before taking early retirement at the age of 52. She freely admits that despite eating out every day and taking around 6-7 expensive holidays a year she literally can't spend all the money she gets from her pension.
She is in her 70s now, but if her mum who is still alive at 101 is anything to go by then she could be getting this pension for 50 years.
The average worker who gets nothing like this back from the government is going to be taxed even harder to pay for this stuff and it's completely unfair.
Or my mother-in-law whose husband died in the 70s and has been supported by his railway pension ever since, the same scheme sent all the kids to Uni and she has had free rail travel ever since as well. The pension now pays her over £2K per month.
Sounds like her 101 year old mother who has been getting a British Airways widow's pension for over 50 years, although that one is probably private and is nowhere near as much money as the retired teacher pension.
Paid for in part by the single person who died on the first day of their retirement.
What the valuations of pension pots show is also how artificial all this stuff it. My example of two teachers retiring on £30K each having an asset worth £2.2m is based on the market rate today - i.e. the size of pot a couple retiring with two defined-contribution pots would have had to build up to buy a similar pension. But annuity rates are historically very low, because of QE and general economic uncertainty, and that hasn't actually made the two teachers any richer than they would have been if they'd retired when annuity rates were higher.
It ain't as simple as 'just tax wealth'.
It sure isn’t.
As you point out, many teachers are effectively millionaires. Now good luck to them, part of their career choice may well have been influenced by a stable pension. Fine.
However, events such as super low interest rates have conspired to make their pensions super valuable compared to others. An index linked pension at 65 with 50% spouse pension on first death with spouses same age, has an open market annuity rate of about 2.33% today or (the other way round) the pension is worth just under £43 for every £1 of pension.
Now if I’ve saved out of taxed income, and built up a nest egg in addition to my private pension savings, and want a stable inflation proof(ish) income and an asset outside of pension restrictions, I could sell to finance my final years in a nursing home - like a house - why is it fair I’m taxed as “wealthy” when in all likelihood I’m still miles behind the “wealth” of a public sector worker with their platinum plated pension?
Wealth is a tricky subject. What is the real wealth of a couple aged 66 both entitled to £9,000+ per annum state pension (inflation proofed) and no other income or assets. They would pay no income tax or NI. Their 'wealth' on one basis is nil. But to buy a guaranteed income of £18000 per annum would cost several hundred thousand pounds. Which is their real wealth. You would have a difficult task taxing it.
Far easier to tax those who have the same wealth saved up in a visible non tax- payer funded form. But could it truly be fair?
Yes, I bet a couple of teachers retiring on an indexed-linked pension of £30,000 each at 65 wouldn't regard themselves as 'rich' - but between them they have an asset worth around £2.2m.
(Best buy annuity rates for an index-linked pension at 65 are around 2.5% to 3% depending on the exact terms).
The richest person I know is my missus' aunt, who was a deputy head teacher for 1 year before taking early retirement at the age of 52. She freely admits that despite eating out every day and taking around 6-7 expensive holidays a year she literally can't spend all the money she gets from her pension.
She is in her 70s now, but if her mum who is still alive at 101 is anything to go by then she could be getting this pension for 50 years.
The average worker who gets nothing like this back from the government is going to be taxed even harder to pay for this stuff and it's completely unfair.
Teachers can't take early retirement at 52 and haven't been able to for quite a while - if they ever were able to. However, putting that to one side, retiring at 52 would mean she was a teacher for a maximum of 30 years, including just one year as a deputy. On that basis, it is hard to imagine she would be getting a pension of more than £30,000 per annum. That is potentially very comfortable, but it is taxable and it is not going to allow you eat out every day and take 6-7 expensive holidays a year.
Any and all future benefits outwith a "pot" must be hypothecated back to their current NPV and treated parri pasu with all other assets when assessing a wealth tax.
That would exclude them from a job in the media though.....
For the love of God! Are we expected to have no cultural life at all? No social life? No leisure activities? No tourism?
Are the entire arts, culture, leisure, tourism sectors simply to be killed?
According to this government, apparently so.
And that ignorant fatso Coffey yesterday was suggesting that the unemployed, the redundant CinemaWorld employees could simply become care workers just like that. Because of course care work is something that anyone can do at a moment’s notice and no-one would have any concerns at all about having their elderly Alzheimer’s parent or severely disabled child being cared for by someone with no experience or training.
Wasn't there some bizarre claims recently that Trump was winning the youth vote?
Yes. That Trafalgar poll is unlikely to be one that @HYUFD returns to when considering the 2024 election.
The swings compared to the 2016 exit poll are interesting. Under 35 ~7% to Biden 35-49 ~8% to Biden 50-64 5.5% to Biden 65+ 14.5% to Biden
Simple story will be that those most vulnerable to Covid voted to turf out a President unwilling and unable to protect them from the virus. Should the same pattern of change lead to Biden's victory.
Wealth is a tricky subject. What is the real wealth of a couple aged 66 both entitled to £9,000+ per annum state pension (inflation proofed) and no other income or assets. They would pay no income tax or NI. Their 'wealth' on one basis is nil. But to buy a guaranteed income of £18000 per annum would cost several hundred thousand pounds. Which is their real wealth. You would have a difficult task taxing it.
Far easier to tax those who have the same wealth saved up in a visible non tax- payer funded form. But could it truly be fair?
Yes, I bet a couple of teachers retiring on an indexed-linked pension of £30,000 each at 65 wouldn't regard themselves as 'rich' - but between them they have an asset worth around £2.2m.
(Best buy annuity rates for an index-linked pension at 65 are around 2.5% to 3% depending on the exact terms).
The richest person I know is my missus' aunt, who was a deputy head teacher for 1 year before taking early retirement at the age of 52. She freely admits that despite eating out every day and taking around 6-7 expensive holidays a year she literally can't spend all the money she gets from her pension.
She is in her 70s now, but if her mum who is still alive at 101 is anything to go by then she could be getting this pension for 50 years.
The average worker who gets nothing like this back from the government is going to be taxed even harder to pay for this stuff and it's completely unfair.
Teachers can't take early retirement at 52 and haven't been able to for quite a while - if they ever were able to. However, putting that to one side, retiring at 52 would mean she was a teacher for a maximum of 30 years, including just one year as a deputy. On that basis, it is hard to imagine she would be getting a pension of more than £30,000 per annum. That is potentially very comfortable, but it is taxable and it is not going to allow you eat out every day and take 6-7 expensive holidays a year.
She retired about 25 years ago, so maybe the rules have changed. I am pretty sure younger teachers won't be getting anything like the same pension when they retire.
I've stopped buying books from Amazon entirely now (which is funny because that's their original business), because they seem to have forgotten how to ship books in a careful and damage-free way.
That's odd, I just ordered the Secret Commonwealth and it came in pristine condition.
Won't be worth it sadly.
But I've ordered hundreds of books from them no problem.
That would exclude them from a job in the media though.....
For the love of God! Are we expected to have no cultural life at all? No social life? No leisure activities? No tourism?
Are the entire arts, culture, leisure, tourism sectors simply to be killed?
According to this government, apparently so.
And that ignorant fatso Coffey yesterday was suggesting that the unemployed, the redundant CinemaWorld employees could simply become care workers just like that. Because of course care work is something that anyone can do at a moment’s notice and no-one would have any concerns at all about having their elderly Alzheimer’s parent or severely disabled child being cared for by someone with no experience or training.
Give me strength.
How many years of training do you think care workers have before they start work?
I've stopped buying books from Amazon entirely now (which is funny because that's their original business), because they seem to have forgotten how to ship books in a careful and damage-free way.
That's odd, I just ordered the Secret Commonwealth and it came in pristine condition.
Won't be worth it sadly.
But I've ordered hundreds of books from them no problem.
Wealth is a tricky subject. What is the real wealth of a couple aged 66 both entitled to £9,000+ per annum state pension (inflation proofed) and no other income or assets. They would pay no income tax or NI. Their 'wealth' on one basis is nil. But to buy a guaranteed income of £18000 per annum would cost several hundred thousand pounds. Which is their real wealth. You would have a difficult task taxing it.
Far easier to tax those who have the same wealth saved up in a visible non tax- payer funded form. But could it truly be fair?
Yes, I bet a couple of teachers retiring on an indexed-linked pension of £30,000 each at 65 wouldn't regard themselves as 'rich' - but between them they have an asset worth around £2.2m.
(Best buy annuity rates for an index-linked pension at 65 are around 2.5% to 3% depending on the exact terms).
The richest person I know is my missus' aunt, who was a deputy head teacher for 1 year before taking early retirement at the age of 52. She freely admits that despite eating out every day and taking around 6-7 expensive holidays a year she literally can't spend all the money she gets from her pension.
She is in her 70s now, but if her mum who is still alive at 101 is anything to go by then she could be getting this pension for 50 years.
The average worker who gets nothing like this back from the government is going to be taxed even harder to pay for this stuff and it's completely unfair.
Teachers can't take early retirement at 52 and haven't been able to for quite a while - if they ever were able to. However, putting that to one side, retiring at 52 would mean she was a teacher for a maximum of 30 years, including just one year as a deputy. On that basis, it is hard to imagine she would be getting a pension of more than £30,000 per annum. That is potentially very comfortable, but it is taxable and it is not going to allow you eat out every day and take 6-7 expensive holidays a year.
She retired about 25 years ago, so maybe the rules have changed. I am pretty sure younger teachers won't be getting anything like the same pension when they retire.
Perhaps the Conservatives should come up with a new tax, one that this is a fixed annual sum levied on every individual?
Taxes are things that lots of people (particularly on the left) think should be increased but only for other people. I always think there should be a "voluntary tax" to see how many people genuinely want to pay more. It would be the ultimate in virtue signalling, with those that are paying more voluntarily publishing their extra funding that they are paying over so doctors and public "servants" can have even bigger pensions.
Can be turned on its head somewhat. The warm glow one feels through donating to charity actually detracts from the tax-take as these days each donation can be offset against income tax (Gift Aid). Blair policy I think. I`d like to see this practice ended.
If you recall, the coalition government tried to restrict it. There was a tsunami of indignation from the luvvies and Guardian-reading classes generally, and they had to give up the idea:
Wow is there nothing that isn't blamed on (a) Tony Blair or (b) "Luvvies"/Guardian readers in PB Tory Land? Gift Aid was actually introduced by the Tories in 1990, but rather characteristically they thought it should only be available to those rich enough to be giving away £600 or more. Labour simply made it available to all taxpayers by abolishing the lower limit, perhaps that is what irks people on here. Personally I think charity is something that should be encouraged.
My favourite is the financial crash was Bill Clinton's fault for encouraging home ownership amongst the impecunious.
That would exclude them from a job in the media though.....
For the love of God! Are we expected to have no cultural life at all? No social life? No leisure activities? No tourism?
Are the entire arts, culture, leisure, tourism sectors simply to be killed?
According to this government, apparently so.
And that ignorant fatso Coffey yesterday was suggesting that the unemployed, the redundant CinemaWorld employees could simply become care workers just like that. Because of course care work is something that anyone can do at a moment’s notice and no-one would have any concerns at all about having their elderly Alzheimer’s parent or severely disabled child being cared for by someone with no experience or training.
Give me strength.
How many years of training do you think care workers have before they start work?
Biden is already banking his votes whilst swings against Trump will probably be magnified come polling day. Trump being shorter than 2-1 for the contest is nuts right now anyway.
That would exclude them from a job in the media though.....
For the love of God! Are we expected to have no cultural life at all? No social life? No leisure activities? No tourism?
Are the entire arts, culture, leisure, tourism sectors simply to be killed?
According to this government, apparently so.
And that ignorant fatso Coffey yesterday was suggesting that the unemployed, the redundant CinemaWorld employees could simply become care workers just like that. Because of course care work is something that anyone can do at a moment’s notice and no-one would have any concerns at all about having their elderly Alzheimer’s parent or severely disabled child being cared for by someone with no experience or training.
Give me strength.
How many years of training do you think care workers have before they start work?
I don`t know the answer to that but suspect the answer is close to "none".
That would exclude them from a job in the media though.....
For the love of God! Are we expected to have no cultural life at all? No social life? No leisure activities? No tourism?
Are the entire arts, culture, leisure, tourism sectors simply to be killed?
According to this government, apparently so.
And that ignorant fatso Coffey yesterday was suggesting that the unemployed, the redundant CinemaWorld employees could simply become care workers just like that. Because of course care work is something that anyone can do at a moment’s notice and no-one would have any concerns at all about having their elderly Alzheimer’s parent or severely disabled child being cared for by someone with no experience or training.
Give me strength.
How many years of training do you think care workers have before they start work?
So that’s the cost of a six months or a year’s training plus the cost of keeping yourself during that time.
Or do you think that looking after the disabled or the severely sick or old is something that anyone can - or even should - do at a moment’s notice?
Anyone who has ever had a relative in such a condition knows that it is not an easy thing to do.
The contempt shown for care workers and what they do and the skills needed to do this most important of jobs is one reason why our social care system has been less than optimal. That contemptuous attitude is probably also one reason why the government’s policy towards care homes this year resulted in so many deaths not all of which would have been unavoidable.
That would exclude them from a job in the media though.....
For the love of God! Are we expected to have no cultural life at all? No social life? No leisure activities? No tourism?
Are the entire arts, culture, leisure, tourism sectors simply to be killed?
According to this government, apparently so.
Give me strength.
Not that things should be trivialised at all, but we seem so unprepared mentally as a society that we forget life went on for people during far worse pandemics. In a different way, sure, and in the worst society almost collapsed, but life and, yes, culture went on.
We could cut down on a lot of deaths by being this way forever but no-one would think that ok, I hope .
That would exclude them from a job in the media though.....
For the love of God! Are we expected to have no cultural life at all? No social life? No leisure activities? No tourism?
Are the entire arts, culture, leisure, tourism sectors simply to be killed?
According to this government, apparently so.
And that ignorant fatso Coffey yesterday was suggesting that the unemployed, the redundant CinemaWorld employees could simply become care workers just like that. Because of course care work is something that anyone can do at a moment’s notice and no-one would have any concerns at all about having their elderly Alzheimer’s parent or severely disabled child being cared for by someone with no experience or training.
Give me strength.
How many years of training do you think care workers have before they start work?
So that’s the cost of a six months or a year’s training plus the cost of keeping yourself during that time.
Or do you think that looking after the disabled or the severely sick or old is something that anyone can - or even should - do at a moment’s notice?
Anyone who has ever had a relative in such a condition knows that it is not an easy thing to do.
The contempt shown for care workers and what they do and the skills needed to do this most important of jobs is one reason why our social care system has been less than optimal. That contemptuous attitude is probably also one reason why the government’s policy towards care homes this year resulted in so many deaths not all of which would have been unavoidable.
We seem to alternate between not caring about care workers and overdoing it with saccharine praise (without action).
Wealth is a tricky subject. What is the real wealth of a couple aged 66 both entitled to £9,000+ per annum state pension (inflation proofed) and no other income or assets. They would pay no income tax or NI. Their 'wealth' on one basis is nil. But to buy a guaranteed income of £18000 per annum would cost several hundred thousand pounds. Which is their real wealth. You would have a difficult task taxing it.
Far easier to tax those who have the same wealth saved up in a visible non tax- payer funded form. But could it truly be fair?
Yes, I bet a couple of teachers retiring on an indexed-linked pension of £30,000 each at 65 wouldn't regard themselves as 'rich' - but between them they have an asset worth around £2.2m.
(Best buy annuity rates for an index-linked pension at 65 are around 2.5% to 3% depending on the exact terms).
Agree, assuming you missed the 'not' out eg 'not regard themselves as rich'.
A combined income of £60K in retirement I think is very well off indeed, yet they they could have minimal assets that would attract any wealth tax at all, yet someone living on half that income from assets would be paying a wealth tax!
60k with no mortgage etc is extremely comfortable, ours is over £50 k and can’t spend it unless it went oh holidays etc, not an option so it goes to the grandchildren with increasingly generous presents. I don’t need or want anything physical but I’m lucky in the extreme.
As you can see this is close to my heart. I have an income of only £3K or £4K and I am retired. I live off of my assets which I accumulated for this purpose. I fail to see why my assets should be treated differently to a DB pension pot for wealth purposes, but if you include the value of a DB pot in a wealth calculation you will be bring into a wealth category many fairly lowish income people (as per Pagan's post - these pots are very valuable).
I have no issue with paying higher council tax on my property (as suggested in HYUFDs post) or in fact paying CGT on my residential property when I sell it, which I will do for the cash and downsize, but the wealth tax for people who have made their own provision for retirement is a can of worms.
I think people are missing the point that with an unfunded defined benefit scheme, there is no "pot", only a promise.
Fingers crossed. Trumpism needs to be crushed decisively if US democracy is to move on. Most important is to destroy the careers of his enablers on the Congressional Republican party so that they don't allow this cancer to infest the party of Lincoln ever again. In my view they are the real villains of this story.
Perhaps the Conservatives should come up with a new tax, one that this is a fixed annual sum levied on every individual?
Taxes are things that lots of people (particularly on the left) think should be increased but only for other people. I always think there should be a "voluntary tax" to see how many people genuinely want to pay more. It would be the ultimate in virtue signalling, with those that are paying more voluntarily publishing their extra funding that they are paying over so doctors and public "servants" can have even bigger pensions.
Can be turned on its head somewhat. The warm glow one feels through donating to charity actually detracts from the tax-take as these days each donation can be offset against income tax (Gift Aid). Blair policy I think. I`d like to see this practice ended.
If you recall, the coalition government tried to restrict it. There was a tsunami of indignation from the luvvies and Guardian-reading classes generally, and they had to give up the idea:
Wow is there nothing that isn't blamed on (a) Tony Blair or (b) "Luvvies"/Guardian readers in PB Tory Land? Gift Aid was actually introduced by the Tories in 1990, but rather characteristically they thought it should only be available to those rich enough to be giving away £600 or more. Labour simply made it available to all taxpayers by abolishing the lower limit, perhaps that is what irks people on here. Personally I think charity is something that should be encouraged.
My favourite is the financial crash was Bill Clinton's fault for encouraging home ownership amongst the impecunious.
Bill Clinton de-regulated parts of the financial markets - in exactly the way that Bush I refused to do. This enabled the banks to play Monopoly with even more money. What could possibly go wrong?
Just checked, Everton haven't beaten Liverpool since October 2010, less than 48 hours after Hicks & Gillette were ousted, and they haven't beaten Liverpool at Anfield since September 1999, I was still at university then!
So Everton are due a victory soon aren't they?
Its worth remembering that home advantage isn't worth what it was without fans.
Anfield just isn't the same without the fans. It is the fans that make it.
Just checked, Everton haven't beaten Liverpool since October 2010, less than 48 hours after Hicks & Gillette were ousted, and they haven't beaten Liverpool at Anfield since September 1999, I was still at university then!
So Everton are due a victory soon aren't they?
Its worth remembering that home advantage isn't worth what it was without fans.
Anfield just isn't the same without the fans. It is the fans that make it.
Goodison isn't the same without 38 000 miserable pessimists on the players backs at the first sign of a problem. Am sure it has played a part.
This offshore wind stuff is just such a load of rubbish.
Straight out of the Jezza manifesto......
Well it just doesn't make any sense. An intermittent power source simply can't do all of the things he said without some kind of serious storage mechanism which no one had figured out yet. Tidal barrages make so much more sense for an island nation.
Wealth is a tricky subject. What is the real wealth of a couple aged 66 both entitled to £9,000+ per annum state pension (inflation proofed) and no other income or assets. They would pay no income tax or NI. Their 'wealth' on one basis is nil. But to buy a guaranteed income of £18000 per annum would cost several hundred thousand pounds. Which is their real wealth. You would have a difficult task taxing it.
Far easier to tax those who have the same wealth saved up in a visible non tax- payer funded form. But could it truly be fair?
Yes, I bet a couple of teachers retiring on an indexed-linked pension of £30,000 each at 65 wouldn't regard themselves as 'rich' - but between them they have an asset worth around £2.2m.
(Best buy annuity rates for an index-linked pension at 65 are around 2.5% to 3% depending on the exact terms).
The richest person I know is my missus' aunt, who was a deputy head teacher for 1 year before taking early retirement at the age of 52. She freely admits that despite eating out every day and taking around 6-7 expensive holidays a year she literally can't spend all the money she gets from her pension.
She is in her 70s now, but if her mum who is still alive at 101 is anything to go by then she could be getting this pension for 50 years.
The average worker who gets nothing like this back from the government is going to be taxed even harder to pay for this stuff and it's completely unfair.
Teachers can't take early retirement at 52 and haven't been able to for quite a while - if they ever were able to. However, putting that to one side, retiring at 52 would mean she was a teacher for a maximum of 30 years, including just one year as a deputy. On that basis, it is hard to imagine she would be getting a pension of more than £30,000 per annum. That is potentially very comfortable, but it is taxable and it is not going to allow you eat out every day and take 6-7 expensive holidays a year.
£30,000 at 52 (or 55, or 60 for that matter) index-linked, and with a spouse`s pension if you die first is equivalent to £1m plus of capital in the real world. Are you serious?
This offshore wind stuff is just such a load of rubbish.
Why? It is a good and increasingly cheap natural resource the UK has.
The UK leading the world in cheap, clean and reliable power generation will enable the UK private sector to have a competitive advantage in anything that uses electricity, which in the 21st century is everything.
The disastrous idea of XR and the Blair/Brown Labour government was to simply tax and cut demand on electricity. Having bountiful cheap clean energy enables our manufacturers and every other consumer of it to compete.
That would exclude them from a job in the media though.....
For the love of God! Are we expected to have no cultural life at all? No social life? No leisure activities? No tourism?
Are the entire arts, culture, leisure, tourism sectors simply to be killed?
According to this government, apparently so.
Give me strength.
Not that things should be trivialised at all, but we seem so unprepared mentally as a society that we forget life went on for people during far worse pandemics. In a different way, sure, and in the worst society almost collapsed, but life and, yes, culture went on.
We could cut down on a lot of deaths by being this way forever but no-one would think that ok, I hope .
A point I have been making ad nauseam both below the line and on thread headers.
So apparently the cycle with the drugs they're giving him goes 1) Exuberance 2) Anxiety 3) Depression
The problem for Biden is if he gets to stage (3) and throws the thing over to Pence, but hopefully he'll take some other drugs to compensate, and whatever he takes won't prove lethal.
I know this isn't an issue, but when Boris referred to floating windmills it amused me to visualise them all zapping around the North Sea driven by their giant propellers.
Hold on, who gets a training course in engineering? Pretty sure that's a degree.
Duh! BTECs?
Not sure you can do a BTEC in chemical engineering!
Fair point. I am not actually listening to the speech (supposed to be working) - my comment was a reaction to your post which only mentioned engineering not chemical engineering.
That would exclude them from a job in the media though.....
For the love of God! Are we expected to have no cultural life at all? No social life? No leisure activities? No tourism?
Are the entire arts, culture, leisure, tourism sectors simply to be killed?
According to this government, apparently so.
And that ignorant fatso Coffey yesterday was suggesting that the unemployed, the redundant CinemaWorld employees could simply become care workers just like that. Because of course care work is something that anyone can do at a moment’s notice and no-one would have any concerns at all about having their elderly Alzheimer’s parent or severely disabled child being cared for by someone with no experience or training.
Give me strength.
How many years of training do you think care workers have before they start work?
So that’s the cost of a six months or a year’s training plus the cost of keeping yourself during that time.
Or do you think that looking after the disabled or the severely sick or old is something that anyone can - or even should - do at a moment’s notice?
Anyone who has ever had a relative in such a condition knows that it is not an easy thing to do.
The contempt shown for care workers and what they do and the skills needed to do this most important of jobs is one reason why our social care system has been less than optimal. That contemptuous attitude is probably also one reason why the government’s policy towards care homes this year resulted in so many deaths not all of which would have been unavoidable.
My wife works in a care home and yes they do take people on at a moment's notice and do on the job training. The only 'qualification' she needed to get her job was a DBS check.
I am not disrespecting care workers, I have the utmost respect for her and for them.
That would exclude them from a job in the media though.....
For the love of God! Are we expected to have no cultural life at all? No social life? No leisure activities? No tourism?
Are the entire arts, culture, leisure, tourism sectors simply to be killed?
According to this government, apparently so.
And that ignorant fatso Coffey yesterday was suggesting that the unemployed, the redundant CinemaWorld employees could simply become care workers just like that. Because of course care work is something that anyone can do at a moment’s notice and no-one would have any concerns at all about having their elderly Alzheimer’s parent or severely disabled child being cared for by someone with no experience or training.
Give me strength.
How many years of training do you think care workers have before they start work?
So that’s the cost of a six months or a year’s training plus the cost of keeping yourself during that time.
Or do you think that looking after the disabled or the severely sick or old is something that anyone can - or even should - do at a moment’s notice?
Anyone who has ever had a relative in such a condition knows that it is not an easy thing to do.
The contempt shown for care workers and what they do and the skills needed to do this most important of jobs is one reason why our social care system has been less than optimal. That contemptuous attitude is probably also one reason why the government’s policy towards care homes this year resulted in so many deaths not all of which would have been unavoidable.
We seem to alternate between not caring about care workers and overdoing it with saccharine praise (without action).
Comments
(Best buy annuity rates for an index-linked pension at 65 are around 2.5% to 3% depending on the exact terms).
So Everton are due a victory soon aren't they?
We are a club transformed.
Hers, beoing a teacher, was £180k. Mine, just paying into a private pension £40k.
We decided not to bother arguing over it, I didnt want to make a claim on hers.
https://twitter.com/marshablackburn/status/1313273763568455687?s=21
And, of course, the question no-one asks is "can those households afford that energy?"
A combined income of £60K in retirement I think is very well off indeed, yet they they could have minimal assets that would attract any wealth tax at all, yet someone living on half that income from assets would be paying a wealth tax!
I remember we lost one match 2 nil and Danny Cadamateri scoring a goal and on 6-0-6 Everton fans saying he was better than Michael Owen.
She is in her 70s now, but if her mum who is still alive at 101 is anything to go by then she could be getting this pension for 50 years.
The average worker who gets nothing like this back from the government is going to be taxed even harder to pay for this stuff and it's completely unfair.
It ain't as simple as 'just tax wealth'.
Anfield just isn't the same without the fans. It is the fans that make it.
The ONS survey was for the week 18 to 24 September 2020.
That's the period 15 to 8 days prior to the most recent hospitalisation figures; it'd be showing up quite significantly by now.
I don't know how it can be done politically but it needs to happen.
I'd be against a wealth tax, if only for personal reasons. I don't earn a vast amount compared to some but I don't spend much either, partially because caring duties mean that I don't get time. Am I to be punished and forced to work longer than I plan to because I've been prudent? I understand that the government probably wants people to live day to day because that keeps the economy moving but not everyone wants to live like that.
Thinking about this more widely, I like the suggestion made by another poster that there should be a scheme for voluntary giving to the exchequer and I`d like to see this recognised as an even more goodly thing to do than giving to a charity.
I have no issue with paying higher council tax on my property (as suggested in HYUFDs post) or in fact paying CGT on my residential property when I sell it, which I will do for the cash and downsize, but the wealth tax for people who have made their own provision for retirement is a can of worms.
PS for once with that year, not an Orwell reference!
SPIN back up:
Biden 307-313
Supremacy 78-86, equivalent to Biden 308-312
I think that is a shift towards Biden of a couple of points since before suspension.
It was definitely Scottish sub sample territory.
Personally my grandparents have been isolating all year and are taking this very seriously, they know if they catch this it will hit them hard. Many grandparents here are thinking the same. I imagine many seniors in the USA have the same thoughts - and Trump taking the piss and mismanaging this crisis that scares them probably doesn't play well with them.
Past tense "had."
He's been blowing it comprehensively over the past month.
As you point out, many teachers are effectively millionaires. Now good luck to them, part of their career choice may well have been influenced by a stable pension. Fine.
However, events such as super low interest rates have conspired to make their pensions super valuable compared to others. An index linked pension at 65 with 50% spouse pension on first death with spouses same age, has an open market annuity rate of about 2.33% today or (the other way round) the pension is worth just under £43 for every £1 of pension.
Now if I’ve saved out of taxed income, and built up a nest egg in addition to my private pension savings, and want a stable inflation proof(ish) income and an asset outside of pension restrictions, I could sell to finance my final years in a nursing home - like a house - why is it fair I’m taxed as “wealthy” when in all likelihood I’m still miles behind the “wealth” of a public sector worker with their platinum plated pension?
Biden 57% (+6)
Trump 41% (-2)
Are the entire arts, culture, leisure, tourism sectors simply to be killed?
According to this government, apparently so.
And that ignorant fatso Coffey yesterday was suggesting that the unemployed, the redundant CinemaWorld employees could simply become care workers just like that. Because of course care work is something that anyone can do at a moment’s notice and no-one would have any concerns at all about having their elderly Alzheimer’s parent or severely disabled child being cared for by someone with no experience or training.
Give me strength.
The swings compared to the 2016 exit poll are interesting.
Under 35 ~7% to Biden
35-49 ~8% to Biden
50-64 5.5% to Biden
65+ 14.5% to Biden
Simple story will be that those most vulnerable to Covid voted to turf out a President unwilling and unable to protect them from the virus. Should the same pattern of change lead to Biden's victory.
But I've ordered hundreds of books from them no problem.
Trump being shorter than 2-1 for the contest is nuts right now anyway.
So that’s the cost of a six months or a year’s training plus the cost of keeping yourself during that time.
Or do you think that looking after the disabled or the severely sick or old is something that anyone can - or even should - do at a moment’s notice?
Anyone who has ever had a relative in such a condition knows that it is not an easy thing to do.
The contempt shown for care workers and what they do and the skills needed to do this most important of jobs is one reason why our social care system has been less than optimal. That contemptuous attitude is probably also one reason why the government’s policy towards care homes this year resulted in so many deaths not all of which would have been unavoidable.
We could cut down on a lot of deaths by being this way forever but no-one would think that ok, I hope .
Am sure it has played a part.
The UK leading the world in cheap, clean and reliable power generation will enable the UK private sector to have a competitive advantage in anything that uses electricity, which in the 21st century is everything.
The disastrous idea of XR and the Blair/Brown Labour government was to simply tax and cut demand on electricity. Having bountiful cheap clean energy enables our manufacturers and every other consumer of it to compete.
1) Exuberance
2) Anxiety
3) Depression
The problem for Biden is if he gets to stage (3) and throws the thing over to Pence, but hopefully he'll take some other drugs to compensate, and whatever he takes won't prove lethal.
Probably the last sliver of hope for Trump backers to cling onto.
I am not disrespecting care workers, I have the utmost respect for her and for them.
When I was doing my mechanical engineering undergraduate degree, I had people ask me that they didn't realise you had to do a degree to do MOTs...