Peers wanting to remove pensioners' benefits

MOnica I think you have misread my posts, you are talking about PC and I am talking about those paying income tax. Different subjects and I am still waiting for those who think it is easy to live on a non-taxable income. I have said I don't know and am simply curious, not giving an opinion. I would appreciate it if someone would give me a breakdown of how it can be done.

My late Mum (owner occupier 3 bed semi) lived solely on her pension and pension credits. She had WFA, BP and Free TV licence.

She still went out to lunch with her friend, had a takeaway every Sunday evening with her friend (unless they were with us), had a foreign holiday each year, and bought new clothes M & S, Debenhams, Wallis and local independent shops.

When she died (2 yrs ago) we were surprised how much she had in savings also.

(Hope this is of some use Nonnie)

"MRC/government or others wanting to take more tax from those who have 'hauled' themselves into a comfortable financial position ..." GabriellaG54 Tue 30-Apr-19 14:47:00

Basically, you see what has happened economically over the last decade as "normal". No economy has operated "normally" during that time. No one got to hold the wealth they do currently by being a "good" person, in whatever way you define that and no one gets to be poor by being a "bad" person. Those who want Britain to continue the current policy do so because they recognise that is what has helped keep their asset value.

Income and wealth inequality make countries unstable and economies become strained and unpredictable. It holds back growth and national development. It also produces a democratic deficit which, it seems, is finally more obvious to everyone.

Those with wealth have a choice. Allow some rebalancing or lose much more in an economic crisis or a dramatic change of policy. Even some in the Conservative government, which has kept this damaging policy in place, have begun to realise this.

"not to make swingeing tax raids on people who have bettered tbemselves ..." (sic) GabriellaG54 Wed 01-May-19 09:38:28

Not judgemental Gabriella? I think the word "bettered" says it all.

GGMK3 If you think all people who have managed to put some money in their bank account, pay off their mortgage, keep their business going and thereby employ others are not “good people”. I respectfully think it is you that has a problem!!!!

I am pleased that when we depart this world we shall leave employment for some of our AC and others which in turn keeps a roof over them and their families heads and off benefits also enabling them to pay into an occupational pension scheme so that they will not be a drain on future generations.

No apologies for this “ranty” post!!

Well said GG3. I feel the same, we gave up so much to achieve what we have from a standing start with no help from anyone. We were determined to work for a better life for our family than we had. We moved for jobs and again after redundancy, each time costing us not only a lot of money but also having to make new friends and find our place in the new area. Not easy and not lucky.

It is too simplistic to suggest taking from the rich and giving to the poor. I am assuming by 'rich' it is those who don't have to ask for help and by 'poor' those who need help. If you take away all incentive people won't save, won't look for advancement etc. I am all in favour of helping those who need it but not taking away incentives. The difficultly comes when defining 'need'

https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/201905/medium-38502-20190501-114459.jpg https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/201905/medium-871848-20190501-114518.jpg https://www.gransnet.com/uploads/talk/201905/medium-904691-20190501-114530.jpg

GracesGranMK3
I can't agree with your view regarding my word 'bettered' as being judgemental.
I could, perhaps, have used mire words and written, 'put themselves in a better position' (financially) but the way I wrote it is perfectly correct.
See examples of use.

mire more

GracesGranMK3
No need for 'sic' as the word bettered is in any dictionary.

GrannyGravy13

In your post of Wed 01-May-19 10:47:51 you say "If you think all people who have managed to put some money in their bank account, pay off their mortgage, keep their business going and thereby employ others are not “good people" ..."

Let me make it clear. I did not say or infer any such thing.

In answer to the question your post poses, on whether people doing what you describe are 'good people' - how can I know? The morality could only lie, as far as I can see, in the way the money was acquired or in how it is used not in the very fact of having acquired it which is all we know about these people.

You are expressing what is a personal preference, for people who acquire wealth, as a moral judgement. That is being judgemental which is something I cannot see as helpful in any way.

Instead of removing these " benefits " across the board why not a means-testing programme ? That goes for a few other things too !

Gabriella, you seem to be moving into the realms of grammar. If you like I will apply all the corrections my software shows.

This is my lovely, new software, which hopefully (although not guaranteed) gets my thoughts down as an understandable post, without my weird misspellings or the clunky sentences my slowness used to give. However, it seems to flag up the errors in the bits I quote too.

EllanVannin you might find reading the thread interesting. It has covered this and you may have something to add to what has already been said.

GGMK3 you actually said "No one got to hold the wealth they do currently by being a "good person". in your post today at 10.33.

Sorry but you must meet /know some very "dodgey" folks?

GrannyGravy13 (Wed 01-May-19 13:03:22) What you are saying is that a person can be described as 'good' simply because of the possession of wealth.

Goodness defined by the possession of wealth cannot be true. Would you ascribe goodness to all people who possess a gerbil? It is no different.

It is not possible to ascribe a moral virtue, either good or bad, to the possession of wealth. Equally the lack of wealth cannot define the person as 'bad' although noticeably many of our mainstream news and a few people on this forum seem to try to do this too.

GGMK3 not at all, there are good and bad people in all walks of life.

You have stated multiple times on this thread what you think of "people who have wealth" and it is not unfair to say that you have not a nice word to say about them.

There are, one supposes given the breadth of it's reach, some reasonably wealthy people on GN.
Published authors and bigger business owners for instance.
It might be a good idea to ask those people how they feel about paying more tax and to which areas/sectors they would prefer those monies to be distributed.

GGMK3 not at all, there are good and bad people in all walks of life. GrannyGravy13 (Wed 01-May-19 14:19:36)
That is exactly what I have been saying. Having wealth is not a measure of morality.

You have stated multiple times on this thread what you think of "people who have wealth" and it is not unfair to say that you have not a nice word to say about them.
GrannyGravy13 (Wed 01-May-19 14:19:36)
Having accused me, would you like to produce a quote that evidences this?

2nd paragraph your post 10.33 today is one GGMK3

GabriellaG54. I can answer that immediately NO NO NO!!

Legitimate businesses and owners / shareholders (private company) are taxed enough. Corporation Tax, Business Rates (on top of which we still have to pay for our rubbish to be collected), NI on all employees, and heaven help if you happen to make a profit, makes us wonder some days is it worth it?

Could you copy and paste please GrannyGravy13? (Wed 01-May-19 15:18:41). I would like to know exactly what I am being accused of.

No need to copy and paste just read your posts up thread.

Now, why would you not try and be helpful?

It seems simple to me. Everyone reaching the retirement age should have a statepension that is enough to live on in reasonable comfort. Those who have untold riches or even a fair bit more would be taxed on the state pension along with their other income, those who only had SP would pay no tax.

Once this was in place there would be no need for Pension Credit, Winter Fuel or any other top ups, which would create a big saving in admin costs which would help to fund the overall increase.

GGMK3 in my post of 15.13 today I indicated one of your posts referring to wealth.

Sorry I am a technophobe have absolutely no idea how to cut and paste on an iPad, if I could I would.