Taxing the rich to pay for the poor

I agree. Many have just blown it all rather than saving. Even saving small amounts builds up over the years.

knspol

Imo the politics of envy plays a huge part in this idea. I do think the disabled/disadvantaged etc deserve to be very well looked after. On the other hand people who have worked hard all their lives, done without luxuries such as holidays and social activities and have made it a priority to save and plan for their future should not be penalised now they are home owners with a 'comfortable' lifestyle with savings in the bank should not be penalised to bale out others who have not been so careful.

Indeed.

Those who have made saving a priority should not be peanalised.

Norah, I have known so many high-earning men who couldn’t have done their jobs without a wife at home taking care of everything. I was one of the many women who said ‘What I need is a wife!’.

I think initially there was a direct relationship between NI and NHS/care/pensions but googling hasn't helped me find a "when"

I'm not sure how there could have been as the Welfare State started from a base of £0, so for a long time there would have been a population with a backlog of poverty and illness, with just a trickle of contributions coming in to pay for them. The concept may well have been that each generation would pay for the one before, but it will always have been playing catch-up. The current generation of pensioners includes 'baby boomers' of which there were (obviously) high numbers, so they/we have paid in in greater numbers.

I think the narrative that 'we' can't afford to pay the people who have paid in is false, but it suits politicians to have us believe it rather than to question their mismanagement of the system. There was money 'in the pot' to pay furlough at much higher rates than pensions, not to mention the other spending during Covid.

I agree that in many cases young people have lower pay so pay less in (although wages were also low in the 60s and 70s when many current pensioners were earning), but they are being told that it is they who are paying for pensioners and that pensions should be cut to 'be fair' to the young. Some of the venom on the subject of 'Boomers' on MN is disturbing. It's a useful narrative for a government that wants to roll back the welfare state, though.

Having said that, many posters on MN claim to be earning well over £100k pa in their 30s, in jobs that give them time to post on the Internet all day, so. . .

GrannyRose15

Germanshepherdmum. My figure of 20% was for illustrative purposes only. Though do you really think that having marginal rates of tax at 72% is a good incentive to work hard. Or for two earners on £ 40000 each to be better off that 1 earner on £80000 with a stay at home wife looking after the children. Our tax system is totally unjust and sometimes borders on the bizarre. It’s time we had a simple system and doing away with divisive tax rates would be a start. I’m not an economist but some of them say really interesting things.

I view the stay at home partner (me), never paying NI, with a partner in work (my husband), paying additional rate and NI as just. Stay home partner pays nothing - allowing working partner time to work.

I do know this logical argument is a waste of my time.

Tax Avoidance isn't illegal. Tax Evasion is illegal. Well that's what I've always understood. People need to learn the difference between the two.

I agree with your views on benefits. If you can work you should work, and not receive benefits. And don’t have children you can’t afford. Too many idle people in this country.

The rich need to pay their fair share. I earn 6 figures and Im ok paying taxes as long as theyre not going into the pots of the rich and are being used appropriately. Its not us alleged rich who are the issue though, its the mega rich who uae tax accountants and obscure schemes to avoid tax. Tax avoidance should be a crime esp as many more of these avoidance schenes are basically tax fraud.

Our benefits system needs changing. If people can work they should work for their benefits and if they dont work they dont get bebefits. There maybe would less time for drugs and crime and we cut the head off intergenerational unemployment.

Would there still be poor people? Not single unemployed people because they get so little thay they will see how little they need to work to cover their benefits and consequently how much more they could earn.
For families it'll be more interestimg but honestly noone should get benefits unless they cannot work. We might then be able to improve the nhs, education, infrastructure and build more social housing!

Quite agree GSM- there is so much moaning in interviews on the so-called poor. Yet those moaning seem often to be sitting in smart kitchens with all the latest gadgets- mobile phones to hand, large flat screen televisions, beautifully manicured nails, beautiful false eyelashes and expensively coloured hair. What has led to this feeling of entitlement? That they feel so sorry for themselves? Have they looked at how they spend their money? Can they afford to meet their expectations?

Germanshepherdsmum

David49

Lots of wealthy here saying they should pay less tax on their good fortune. I don’t think Labour are going to be too sympathetic because their core supporters don’t come from wealthy backgrounds.

I don’t know who the ‘lots of wealthy here’ are, but why should someone who has worked hard and paid tax ever since starting work have to pay yet more? I didn’t come from a wealthy background but my family were not Labour supporters. I do however see a lot of Labour supporters interviewed on tv sitting in the pub or the bingo club moaning about the government - perhaps getting off their backsides and working would help them, if it weren’t such a culture shock.

Ouch! Last time I go to bingo lol!

I just came here to say for 14 years we have overtaxed the poor to make the rich richer. This has nothing to do with hard work but a question of priority for people believing in the politics of me me me and only me.

What a mean spirited nation we have become...

But isn't the point that we now have young people who are lower paid and in insecure jobs? So they will pay less tax, and there are fewer of them and more older people. So tax revenue will fall as the requirement for more health and social care rises.
The pot doesn't exist and there may be no connection between tax and government spending, but unless a way is found to increase the amount spent on healthcare and education they will become more and more run down.

Yes, I think we should tax those who can afford it, to support those who are poor or in poverty. And as so many have said, you need to define who 'can afford it' - but the principle is, in my view, humane and a good way to live and run the country. We now need to rescue our public services and they need money.

Doodledog

Wyllow3

Not saying it's fair Doodledog after lifelong NI payments, but the link between NI contributions and NHS directly was broken a long time ago.
The reality is that when we paid NI we were paying for health at that actual time not from contributions made long before.

I know that’s what we are told, but I question it. As we were never paying into a pig marked ‘health’, as no such pig existed, how is it possible for that pig to now be empty?

I think initially there was a direct relationship between NI and NHS/care/pensions but googling hasn't helped me find a "when"

David49

Lots of wealthy here saying they should pay less tax on their good fortune. I don’t think Labour are going to be too sympathetic because their core supporters don’t come from wealthy backgrounds.

I don’t know who the ‘lots of wealthy here’ are, but why should someone who has worked hard and paid tax ever since starting work have to pay yet more? I didn’t come from a wealthy background but my family were not Labour supporters. I do however see a lot of Labour supporters interviewed on tv sitting in the pub or the bingo club moaning about the government - perhaps getting off their backsides and working would help them, if it weren’t such a culture shock.

knspol 👏👏👏

Wishing you well Wong

Imo the politics of envy plays a huge part in this idea. I do think the disabled/disadvantaged etc deserve to be very well looked after. On the other hand people who have worked hard all their lives, done without luxuries such as holidays and social activities and have made it a priority to save and plan for their future should not be penalised now they are home owners with a 'comfortable' lifestyle with savings in the bank should not be penalised to bale out others who have not been so careful.

Am I rich? We saved for 3 years in the 60s for a deposit for a small house and our wedding. We had a cooker, a bed and a twin tub washing machine with no knobs when we were first married. I used a screw driver on the spindles where the knobs were once, to get it to work. We have worked all our life and built up a small business which is struggling now. I stopped work for a few years when my three children were small and this has resulted in a reduced state pension. I have recently had cancer again (2nd time) and up until then was still working part time. I am 78. I am still having chemo but hope to go back to work next week for two days part time. We have a lovely 6 bedroom house and spent our pension pot (small though it is) on a house in Italy when I got my first cancer. When we are no longer able to work we will sell this to live on. This will be soon. We will have to pay Capital Gains Tax if it has gone up in value, on the profit. Does this make me rich and liable to support the dossers who sit around all day milking the system and the foods banks and will get their fees paid for their care in a home when the time comes. We'll have to sell our house to pay the fees for us! Homeless folk break my heart and I would give them my last pound to help them and the kids from broken homes who don't stand a chance, if it helps. I do give as much as I can to charities. Why should I pay extra tax? Surely I deserve all that we have worked hard for and are still working for. I am one of the 'working class made good' generation who want to enjoy their old age reaping the benefit of all our hard work. Fat bloody chance if Labour have their way. Sorry for the rant but there are thousands of people who have got their so called wealth from sheer hard work. We need as voice.

Plunger

Who remembers the 'Brain Drain'when Labour promised to tax the 'rich until the pips squeaked'.? What happened was an exodus of doctors, scientists and other professionals to the US, Australia etc.

And many came back for a variety of reasons - family, culture, schools, lifestyle. All sorts of reasons.

Lots of wealthy here saying they should pay less tax on their good fortune. I don’t think Labour are going to be too sympathetic because their core supporters don’t come from wealthy backgrounds.

Wyllow3

Not saying it's fair Doodledog after lifelong NI payments, but the link between NI contributions and NHS directly was broken a long time ago.
The reality is that when we paid NI we were paying for health at that actual time not from contributions made long before.

I know that’s what we are told, but I question it. As we were never paying into a pig marked ‘health’, as no such pig existed, how is it possible for that pig to now be empty?

Who remembers the 'Brain Drain'when Labour promised to tax the 'rich until the pips squeaked'.? What happened was an exodus of doctors, scientists and other professionals to the US, Australia etc.

As I have said many times here, I give significant donations to charities - but they are all for the benefit of animals, here and abroad, which are not helped by any government.

Why muddy the waters with "rich" and "poor"?
Start with a sensible personal tax allowance (much higher than currently) then income tax graduated to earnings. Personal savings on which you've already paid income tax should be left alone. Inheritance tax thresholds need to be lifted in line with housing prices

I'm sure many do as I do which is to give regularly, in my case a key food bank in the town. But the voluntary sector as a whole is shrinking, not expanding, and is no substitute for policies which make them less needful.