Is The Public Expecting Too Much Financially From The State In Benefits And Services?

[dave50]

Is the level of spending on everything from welfare and public services unsustainable? It seems everyone now expects the state to cough up whenever any kind of misfortune comes knocking their their door. 

[Untitled]

dave obviously wants the thread to be about something else, so i will let you have the last word tora. show us your best argument for a huge number of people who are millionaires getting £12,000 a year in perpetuity that is guaranteed to go up every year--a sum which is vastly more than any NI contributions they have made. i won't reply, the floor is yours. 

[ToraToraTora]

No, no one is going to change their minds over this. I just wish you'd stop focusing on emotive terms, "millionaires" etc rubbish. You think they should be forced to sell their houses either literally or by financial necessity because you'd take away a penison they are entitled too, were promised all their lives and in most cases paid for. In any other area you'd be screaming blue murder if the government was going back on a promise made half a century ago that the promisees accepted, believed and worked towards. You seem to think that it's some sort of a sin to have been successful, or at the very least not a starving wretch from dickensian fiction. I just think it's a bit of nasty marxism infecting you.

[New Judge]

“…such people do not require state support because they control assets which are extremely valuable.”

I think you need to move away from the notion that people beyond working age must sell their houses. The simple upheaval and physical effort required for someone approaching seventy to up sticks and downsize sufficiently to realise enough capital  to replace their pension payments is simply not a practical proposition.

“..why should the taxpayer subsidise somebody's desire to live in a £1 million house?”

But in most cases it wasn’t a million pound house when they bought it and it isn' heir faul it haas appreciated to such  ridiculous degree. The State places a special significance on one’s principal residence. It is not subject to Capital Gains Tax when sold (perhaps you think it should be); it is sheltered in certain circumstances from IHT (perhaps you think it shouldn’t be).  Owning a house is not like owning some valuable paintings or coins. Your idea that in order to qualify for a State Pension – which is the basis on an agreement between the State and its elderly citizens – the recipient must “need” it is preposterous. 

“because being disabled is expensive.”

But surely they can afford it. All they have to do is sell their house. When all the capital they raise from that is exhausted they can sell the shoebox they’ve moved to and rent somewhere. Theay can then apply for pension credits and get everything that goes with that, such as zero Council Tax, Housing Benefit, free dentistry etc.. Surely that’s far more acceptable than seeing them remain in the house they bought.

“i think it's better for everyone if good quality healthcare is available indiscriminately.”

But it isn’t and it never will be whilst the NHS is structured and financed as it is. Surely far better for the millionaire pensioners to simply sell the house which they don’t need, finance their own healthcare and relieve the pressure on the NHS  until they go broke.  Of course they may die before then, but at least they won’t be a burden to anybody. After all, there’s no reason at all for the taxpayer to "subsidise their desire to live in a £1 million house” is there?

[Deskdiary]

"Show us your best argument for a huge number of people who are millionaires getting £12,000 a year in perpetuity that is guaranteed to go up every year--a sum which is vastly more than any NI contributions they have made." [my emphasis].

 

Errr, are you sure, really sure, about the empashised part?

[Deskdiary]

*emphasised

[ToraToraTora]

I know I have paid a lot more than that in NI contributions.

[davebro3]

if you collect the pension for 20 years (many don't) it might amounr to 1/4 million £...

[newmodarmy]

untitled's argument is a nonsense and I find it hard to believe he isn't pulling our legs on this.

Presumably if someone approaching state pension age chooses to sell their £1million house (pocketing or giving away the proceeds, or drawing down an income) and rent or move in with children, would untitled accept they coild then get their state pension after all.

What size army of civil servants would you need to decide whether  ahouse is worth more than a million. What sort of appeals process there would be for borderline cases. Would the wealthy definition remain at £1m  in perpituity? What about valuations that hover around £1m, sometimes just above, sometimes just below.

It's totally impractical. It's frankly daft. 

Any means testing should be based on income. The only sort of means testing that most would accept would be if state pension could be restricted for very high earners- say those small number of pensioners with other income over say £100k pa, but given that these earners will already be paying tax at 45% on their state pension, the savings would be small and the bureaucracy needed may outweigh the benefits.

 

 

[THECORBYLOON]

The current weekly rate of State Pension is £221.20 and you'd need to earn a fair amount to pay that in National Insurance each week.

[newmodarmy]

Yes, it's true many will receive more than they paid in NI. But you might pay NI for 45 years and before long the retirement age will be 67 so you might only claim state pension for 10 years, and if you're on a  good salary you may be quite a bit more NI than you claim in pension- and your pension is taxable, so you receive even less. And certainly a high earner will have paid a lot moe NI than will those on low incomes or who get NI credits when not working

[Untitled]

"What size army of civil servants would you need to decide whether  ahouse is worth more than a million. "

i have not suggested this anywhere newmodarmy. it is not my fault that you have poor reading comprehension.

dave50 has made clear that he wishes to discuss other parts of the welfare system so i will stop here. i note with satisfaction the number of pensioners who have queued up to pat themselves on the back for not wasting public money 🤣

[newmodarmy]

You're spouting nonsense and having a laugh untitled. Of course you didn't state it would need an army of civil servants. But neither did you suggest how such a system might work without needing a bureaucracy   to value houses, police it and deal with anomalies such as where 2 people share so they're only half a millionaire each, and marginal cases... eg where they've paid for expensive modifications to accommodate a disability.

Just use income as a measure or tax if you have to punish those who have a nice house.

[Untitled]

i didn't suggest any kind of "system" at all newmodarmy... i said several times that i think means testing the state pension is not workable. i am begging you... please learn to read. 

[ToraToraTora]

TBF untitled is not suggesting any sort of scheme he just thinks that the state pension should be means tested and that financial necessity will force the liquidation of property etc.

[Old_Geezer]

Which is wrong as pensioners contributed to the (compulsory) scheme with the agreement it was to provide their pension.  So means testing only comes in to it if the government drops any pretence to having any morals.  In which case a revolution is probably called for to replace them with a government that does have high moral standards.

[newmodarmy]

Please reread your own posts untitled. You said we shouldn't pay state pension to those living in a house worth a million pounds. How on earth would that work... you'd need a system to identify and process the people whose pensions you'd want to stop and you'd need an appeals process/ system. Basically you've thought of an idea that's unworkable.  

[davebro3]

Untitled would withold your pension until you prove that you are poor and not living it up in a stately home.

[New Judge]

"...and not living it up in a stately home."

Or, in the case of those living in London and other large cities, a three bedroom terrace:

https://www.zoopla.co.uk/for-sale/details/68443646/?search_identifier=2f4b2dc0536c7252fbd22f2be1c5fae0a8a4a92a612f4c2707055ab1c2aa56d7

[Untitled]

yes that's a very nice house newjudge located in zone 1. a person who is living in a house like that has absolutely no business claiming the state pension. if they want to live in it after retirement then that's their lookout... i do not see any good reason for the taxpayer to dole out £12,000 a year to an otherwise well and able bodied person purely so that they don't have to move out from their very nice house. the idea that the taxpayer should do so is pure entitlement and is costing this country tens of billions every year. that is the fault of the people who choose to claim it. 
 

we have done this enough times now. dave50 has said that he doesn't want to discuss the state pension anymore. 

[douglas9401]

Scanning the above there seems to be a stubborn resistance to understanding how taxation works.