Wealthy pensions should lose benefits

[Gromit]

Says the Institue for Fiscal Studies:

// The Institute for Fiscal Studies argued that “relatively well-off” pensioners had benefited more than other age groups from lower tax rates and higher incomes in recent years and should make a greater contribution to supporting the country's ageing population.
Funds spent on “universal” benefits for pensioners, such as the winter fuel allowance, should be redirected to protect the elderly from being forced to sell their homes to fund old age care, the think-tank suggested.
Capital gains tax could be applied to property inherited by children when their parents die, while National Insurance could be levied on income earned by workers of pension age, the institute proposed. //

http://www.telegraph....for-elderly-care.html

Anyone disagree?

[pdq1]

It does seem a bit unfair when an older person has been paying in contributions, some for 40 years, to see others who have not contributed getting the same amount through tax credits.

[Old_Geezer]

Same old same old. If you are able to provide for your future self and opt to do so you find that due to your own sense of responsibility you are denied the state aid you have contributed to, and which is available to others: whist if you are able to provide for your future self and opt not to do so then you retain the right to aid. What sort of message is that to the citizens ?

Naturally those who were not able to provide for themselves should be helped but the same rights ought not be denied to others.

Grabbing from the prudent and responsible to pay for the spendthrift who have left themselves nothing, is the politics of the madhouse. That's not to say there should be no taxation on inheritance if that inheritance is large. There should be a limit on how much unfair advantage one should get by simply being fortunate enough to have parents who can provide excessively on moral grounds. But for the vast majority that ought not be near to 'kicking in'.

This should not be an either or situation, it should be a 'contribute while you can and on retirement (at a reasonable age - not forced to work until you drop and ensure the job positions don't get freed up for the young and unemployed) be entitled to a reasonable income from the State' situation.

[VHG]

Benefits should be a "safety net" not a "state handout".

I am over 60, get a company pension of over £20,000 a year, my wife works part time, and my 22 year old son who lives with us also works.

But I am (or was I think till they moved the dates) entitled to the Winter Fuel Payment (but I have never claimed it).

Does that not seem rather sily when there is well over £30,000 a year coming in to the house?.

[sandyRoe]

When a benefit is means tested, to exclude the relatively well-off, many pensioners who would be eligible don't bother to apply for it.
For a paymaster with a bean counters mentality this would produce a double saving.

[VHG]

For too long people have felt benefits are a state handout that they are some how "entitled" to no matter what (as Cameron said yesterday).

But we can no longer afford it.

My wife works with carers and disabled people and others on benefits, and you would not believe how many people "alter" their lives just to get more benefits.

One family (in a council house) with a disabled child invited their older son to move back in the house to become his carer (and get carers allowance), but he had to sleep on the sofa.

So they asked for a bigger house, which the council offered (though they turned the first one down as it was not decorated well enough).

I have no doubt when they get their bigger council house the elder son will then move back out.

My wife also hears stories of people with mobility cars where the person with the disability never gets taken anywhere in the car, and the other family members all use it as their run around.

The benefit system is being abuse by thousands and thousands on a daily basis.

[jno]

I could manage without the winter fuel payment; like VHG, I think that should be a safety net for those who need it. And perhaps as another safety net there should be a cap on the size of the houses the elderly are supposed to be selling off. If all you have is a one-bedroom flat you should be allowed to keep it; people with mansions should be invited to downsize.

(I don't actually know what the regulations currently provide for this.)

[Brenden]

jno, will the downsizing of housing include privately owned properties or just council housing?

[Gromit]

Sorry for the typo in the title.

[tamborine]

NI & tax is compulsory for wealthy even if they pay for private schools & health so why shouldn't they reap reward at retirement - IF they want to

[tamborine]

Owning property valued over £325k-ish is subject to IH. Tax man can then reimburse the Gov

[youngmafbog]

Rob those that work and save. What will happen?

Such rot, deal with the feckless and workshy and leave 'Mondeo Man' alone. Cameron is on dangero9us ground here upsetting the grey Mondeo vote. He wil find himself on his ear.

My wifes familly scrimped and saved (he was a factory worker, she cleaned) to buy trheir home. Other familly members and friends did not. Now my mother in law has Alzheimers so the property is being sold to pay for care. Why did they bother, they shoudl have just stayed in a council house and had holidays/tvs/cars etc. This country is a joke.

Oldgeezer has it righton the head.

[Zeuhl]

Governments have sneakily tried to reposition entitlements

(ie pay outs due as a result of contributions paid in)

into 'benefits'

(ie handouts for people in need regardless of contributions)

Even the state pension which was once a 'scheme' people paid into has been repositioned as a benefit that only those who 'haven't made sufficient provision for themselves' should receive.

Making entitlements such as those plus winter fuel, geriatric care etc means tested undermines the whole system because it penalises thrift, savings and self reliance.

Why should anyone bother 'providing for themselves'?

An insidious, dishonest and irrational policy

[shaneystar2]

Yes I disagree .
We are pensioners .Ok we have a reasonable income .I have a pension .Mr S has a state pension and a private pension and another pension from his homeland .That goes up and down like a yoyo depending on the rate of the Euro
We are not wealthy by any means although our home is bought and paid for .
We live on our fixed income but there's not that much left over to squander I'd love some jumped up jobsworth to come and means test me !
This government is making people like us feel guilty for having worked and provided for ourselves .We appear to be a drain on society because we are pensioners .
I've never forgotten when my Dad died nearly forty years ago ( from industrial injury ) and I came home from work to find my Mum in tears because some bloke from the social was giving her a hard time about her pension entitlements .He asked me how much "keep " I gave my mother ......I told him in no uncertain terms where the door was .Things don't change. .
We often wonder why we worked and saved. Perhaps they ought to put us all against the wall and shoot us .

[emmie]

should that be wealthy pensioners?
seems a bit unfair considering they too have paid into the system, after all if i pay into it, and get a pension, why is that different.

[emmie]

missed your reply about the heading, but i think pdq is right that why should anyone who hasn't paid a penny ever get one, that is of course assuming they do.

[AB Editor]

"An insidious, dishonest and irrational policy"

Well said.

Capital Gains and Inheritance Tax are, in their current form, the worst kinds of government theft.

I like VAT as a means of raising income.

[emmie]

had the same sort of argument with a relative over why British pensioners
abroad get the winter fuel allowance. if you have contributed all your life to Britain, why should you be denied a benefit because you move to the sun, where it isn't always warm in winter. It's being called fair.

[sunny-dave]

A 'social contract' (where those who can afford to pay a bit more into the system effectively support those who can't) will only work as long as it is perceived to be basically fair.

We have already moved a very long way past that tipping point - most of the 'net contributors' already feel that the government/society is taking the Fosters.

If you continue to remove pensions and entitlements that people have worked/contributed towards (by making everything a means tested benefit) then the point will come where people just say "no more" and the whole system fails - probably through the election of a single issue party to government with a mandate to tear up the whole taxation/benefit system. Then the social unrest really starts ...

So - to maintain stability you have to give the net contributors some of their money back - a decent flat rate pension and one or two 'perks' like the winter fuel allowance are probably the most efficient way.

[Zeuhl]

em and sunny dave

absolutely right.

[emmie]

otherwise we go to a system where we pay nothing, no tax, insurance and so forth to the government. But we then have to pay for everything out of what we can earn. Not going to work is it?