Is Ann Widdecombe right about females age of reirement?

You've all got a bee in your bonnets about wealth and those who have it.
Could you please say who exactly are the wealthy you talk about.
Landed gentry? Entrepenours? Royalty, Footballers? Owners of multinationals? Company CEOs?
Where is the line drawn between well off, inherited money and money earned through dint of their own efforts?
Is there an income band above which you are deemed to be wealthy and a target for HMRC to hike the tax rate in order to help our services and those who have less.
It's no good tinkering around the edges, they must be workable ideas which go at least halfway to meeting everyone's expectations of fairness.
It's all very well saying government should've or could've because they haven't so it's up to us to have proper ideas to put to them and 100,000 signatures gets it discussed by those who have the power to make changes.

I have definitely got a "bee in my bonnet" about the wealthy. Not least because they use their wealth to control a (capitalist) system that promotes arms production and wars, has sold off (cheaply to their friends!) our utilities, railways, postal system, and is increasingly moving towards privatisation - ie making profits out of - of health and education.

Far from the country's wealth trickling down, we see that inequality is increasing by leaps and bounds. And we have just been informed that social mobility (which might have held hope for the less wealthy) no longer applies. For many (especially the young) job security is minimal.

The drive for increased profits is ruining agricultural land, contaminating the food supply, and polluting the atmosphere!

And it's useless to say that we should increase taxes because the very wealthy don't pay taxes - or is there a new tax levy in the Bahamas?

As I said, we need a system change!!

grannypauline
You don't say who you determine 'the wealthy' or 'the young' are.
Above what level of income do you become wealthy?
What is the difference between wealthy and very wealthy?
You write the words but don't explain what your perception of a wealthy person is you simply trot out the same thing that we all know.
Things need to change.
Your ideas are...?

What ages are 'the young'?
You give no indication as to how to fix it.

Goodness me GG24 defining wealth in relation to income? Hahahahaha - you clearly don’t know any really wealthy people????

54

I personally know one “wealthy” person ( not counting business associates etc) the same person wouldn’t p*ss on someone who was on fire unless he was paid to do so.

Of course my North East idea of “wealthy” might be very different to someone else’s idea of wealthy. But I think it’s shameful that some people have so much money they don’t really know how to spend it, when others are so poor they don’t know where their next meal is coming from.

gillybob
'shameful that some people have so much money they don’t really know how to spend it'
You know that for a fact?
Do these people tell you that they don't really know how to spend their own money?
I really can't imagine that they do, therefore it's supposition on your part.
Perhaps you could give them some tips on how to spend wisely.
I find it odd that it only works one way. If someone with a bit more money than most, offers advice as to how to manage on a limited budget (which they themselves may well have had to do in their early life) they get shot down in flames and called smug.
Put the boot on the other foot and it's a different story. It's deemed ok to tell 'wealthy' people what they should do with their money, without any thoughts as to what effort they expended or obstacles they may have overcome to attain that position.
Hypocrisy writ large.

I certainly don't and never will feel guilty for having the money I have and don't feel I should sub others who don't have as much otherwise they have no incentive to do better.
Seven years were spent in getting my degree and who's to say I should give money to someone who makes no effort.
I've worked to enjoy a comfortable retirement and my spending helps to keep other people in jobs.
The money in my bank accounts and investments earns money for other people too.
If you who read this were fairly well off and I was an impoverished single mum, would you give me a better home, a job, or supplement my income...or would you say that it's the government's job?

The really wealthy are those who don't have to work. I wouldn't think many of us know any of them personally as they kind of inhabit a different, gated, world. Their wealth is invested and they reap the rewards of other people's labour.

This year's Oxfam report states that the "2,200 billionaires worldwide saw their wealth grow by 12 percent even as the poorest half saw its wealth fall by 11 percent."

Of course they mostly take the attitude of Gabriella (even though many have inherited rather than worked for their wealth) so almost none of their wealth gets redistributed.

They probably do know how to spend the wealth (or some of it). It seems they always need another yacht or private jet or fourth holiday home!!

I am not envious as I'm not sure they're that happy. But I do know that they pull the strings through their wealth. Their corporations cause immense poverty and damage as I stated.

I was sort of hoping everyone could come to their own conclusion about how to change the situation because things are gradually deteriorating under late capitalism.

My solution is a genuinely democratic socialist world. Socialism doesn't mean trying to redistribute income through increased taxation (though we note the rich have engineered enormous tax cuts - remember when they paid 19/6d in the £?).

Socialism means everyone jointly owning the means of production and having a real say in what is made. for whom, and how products are distributed. And there absolutely would have to be democratic safeguards as we have seen in the past how these systems have been hijacked by ruthless elites.

Even if we take the higher tax band (?income over about £45k) as a measure of wealth , only about 10% of pensioners would come into this bracket, so to imagine hordes of “wealthy pensioners” is rather misleading. Coming back to age and life expectancy, no one has pointed out the main reason why life expectancy at birth has increased over the last century , is that infant mortality has gone down, so it’s not that everyone is living longer, it’s more infants survive, so their deaths don’t skew the statistics. However, life expectancy is now trending downwards, so that tells us something.

I completely agree with you grannypauline. We live in a world of haves and have nots and a many of the ones at the very top have loads and loads and a very “I’m all right jack”attitude. They have absolutely no sympathy or empathy for the ones who are struggling at the bottom.
The ones at the bottom are either born into or fall into a situation where it is very hard to do better for themselves. They do not have the backing or the resources to pull themselves out of the world they exist in.

shameful that some people have so much money they don’t really know how to spend it

It is (I assumed you knew) Gabriella a turn of phrase perhaps only in the NE ? meaning that someone is so rich they couldn’t begin to spend it if they tried...... Anyway pointless responding to the rest of your sarcasm because you clearly missed the point I was making. So it doesn’t matter.

The one very rich person I know (and his equally rich new wife) has all but cut himself off from the rest of the family with the exception of the gloat/bragging visit my poor dad endures once a year. My late mum bless her used to hide in the bedroom and not come out until after they had left.

Your last paragraph shows a very sad state of affairs and that attitude is abhorrent gillybob
I'm all for the government coming up with ways to help those on low incomes to either:
1) Get a foot on the ladder to better paid employment by offering free skills workshops and/or adult education facilities for a couple of half days per week which offer free nursery places.
2) Stop employers from handing out zero hours contracts
3) targeting people who are able to work but have not made headway, by setting up interviews with employers and guaranteeing both sides a 6 month contract.
If the employee fails to turn up their benefits are cut.

I'm not in favour of my income being taxed at a higher rate to enable the above.

Get a foot on the ladder to better paid employment by offering free skills workshops and/or adult education facilities for a couple of half days per week which offer free nursery places.

That would still leave a large number of jobs paying very low wages (including those of the Nursery Nurses who will provide the care in the 'free' nurseries). You will still have people who are not earning enough to take them out of poverty.

The 'skills workshops' will need to be paid for , of course GG54. Are you expecting the tories (whose objective is to slash public expenditure) to fund this?

Of course, a good public education system would be very useful but that's been cut to the bone, too.

If any government did put money into education and training I would forsee a welter of posts on Gnet bemoaning the government's profligracy and trying to prove that the said services were wasting money left right and centre (on the authority of a friend of a friend who was a school dinner lady, of course )

I do love your parting shot, GG54

I'm not in favour of my income being taxed at a higher rate to enable the above

Who would you like to pay for it, then?

The government coffers, by stopping their wasteful spending on HS2, computer systems that don't work, jollies abroad to discuss climate change and a 1001 other ridiculous and wasteful misappropriations of people's taxes.
I already pay enough via normal taxes, corporation tax, VAT and council tax on 2 properties.
My spending also adds to their coffers. No more.

Your last paragraph shows a very sad state of affairs and that attitude is abhorrent gillybob

I’m so sorry you think “My attitude is abhorrent” GG of course you know me and my extended family so well don’t you ? It is most definitely a sad state of affairs when one of the last people we have left on one side if the family chooses his money over his last remaining relative ( my dad ) . Being in the best possible position to help He would never dream of it . Might cost him some petrol. The same person who told my late mum that she wasted her money on a new carpet for a council house. Horrible individual .

I think also perhaps you should also look up the word abhorrent which is the kind of word I would reserve for the behaviour of vile racists, child abusers, murderers etc.

MaizieD
I understand your points but I was simply putting forward suggestions as to what any government of the day could consider as a way to take some of the population out of 'poverty'.
You, on the other hand, are looking for ways to negate any suggestions.
A nursery nurse's take home pay would be £14,583 (according to Google) which equates to £280pw.
When you take up employment, you surely take into account the salary/ wages on offer and your living costs.
If expenditure is the higher of the two amounts, why take a job which doesn't keep your head above water and expect other taxpayers to make up the difference by paying government more tax.
As for training etc...why would GNers decry government measures to help people to help themselves? I thought most of the comments actually endorsed government help for the poorest in society but that does not always mean simply giving them more money.
Sometimes it is more helpful to enable them to obtain better paid work by learning different skills or better education, something that they may not have had in their younger years.
That can only be a good thing.

gilkybob
The attitude to which I referred was that of the rich person who visited your father and his gloat/bragging visit. You have interpreted the comment in your own way, not how it was written.
I was commiserating with you on the attitude of the rich visitor.

**

gilkybob gillybob

we've had tax changes here ,a penny in the ound when you earn over 35k and a penny off it if you're at a lower level.We also pay a higher council tax rate because our house is worth more.I have only heard one person complain about the tax ..Nurses have had a rise of 9 % ,Police personnel a rise of around the same + new officers start at over £4k more and teachers are getting 13% over two years.
THATS why we voted for SNP ,because they look after the folk who should be looked aftre.A rise in carers allowance ,providing free personal care to the disabled UNDER pension age as well as those who already had it.I truly dont understand why they get a bad press down south...I'll wait for Jane to mention education...47% of scots now have a degree ...that seems like a pretty good number

If I have interpreted your comments incorrectly GabriellaG then I sincerely apologise

gillybob
Thank you. It was generous of you to apologise.
I was sorry that your parents felt uncomfortable (with the visitors comments) esecially your mother who felt she had to remove herself from the room.
Harsh, at times, I might be but never heartless.