"Let me tell you about the very rich. They are different from you and me."

DaisyAnne

Pammie1

growstuff

I agree with you Doodledog. Benefits should be based on the individual, no matter what the circumstances of the other people in the household are - and it's not just spouses/partners.

Can I present the reverse side of the coin. It’s not just about multiple claims within a household. I have my own home and a modest pension income. When my partner moved in with me some years ago, he was on disability benefits - most of which were means tested. My income - which was earned during my working life and nothing whatever to do with him - was taken into account fully. He lost 90% of the benefits to which he was entitled through years of working and paying his taxes, and forced to rely on my income. We could have claimed he was a lodger and paying rent, and he would have been assessed differently, but we were honest and paid the price. So it works both ways.

I'm not doubting you Pammie, just seeking knowledge. Which disability benefit were means tested. - Just so I can chain myself to the right railing

Wasn’t meant as a criticism of you DaisyAnne. There have been a few post which have detailed the unfairness of couples being able to claim benefit/pension based on one persons’ contributions - which I’m not disagreeing with at all. I was just trying to add a little balance because on the other side of the coin, the system claws back benefit based on means testing to the bone where people can least afford it, whilst being more generous elsewhere. My partner was claiming Employment and Support Allowance - 90% of which was income based and means tested. He lost all but the contribution based allowance. Income based ESA is now in the process of being rolled into Universal Credit along with 5 other legacy benefits, and if the government gets its’ way, by 2027 Personal Independence Payment (PIP) will also join UC and so will be means tested.

OK! So people won't accept the idea of ensuring that all babies do at least have an equal opportunity the moment they are born, which doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

How about ensuring that every child has the best possible start in life by providing them with a genuinely world class education and funding state schools at the same level as the average for all private schools?

How about making sure that everybody receives genuinely free healthcare with no queue jumping, without money being siphoned off to private providers?

How about making sure that everybody can afford basic nutritional food and has adequately heated homes?

How about accepting that there's a very poor correlation between "working hard" and acquiring wealth? And accepting that some people don't deserve their wealth on their own merits - or their poverty?

I get what you're saying, Pammiel but people on UC are taxpayers, too. It's the implication that they are somehow disadvantaging other people in society that worries me.

'Taxpayers' don't fund government spending anyway. Government spends, then taxes back. Not the other way round.

I do not resent the extremely wealthy Rosalyn69, I do resent the fact that just a slight adjustment, even just a couple of thousand pounds a year, can make a huge difference to so many people, a sum of money which the extremely wealthy would not even notice. To put it in context; Ms Murta has an income of £27bn, and will now have to pay £2m in tax, in terms that make more sense; if she had £27,000 in income, she would have to pay an additional £20 in tax. Looks very different seen like that doesn't it?

Urmstongran

Well communism doesn’t work either.
Look at Venezuela. Mind you Corbyn was impressed ...

Well communism doesn’t work either.

No, it doesn't.

But why present that as the alternative?

Other countries manage a healthy Capitalist economy with adequate welfare nets, and public spending where it's needed.

We could, too.

Rosalyn69

It seems like there is a lot of resentment of people who are “well off”.

Where?

I don’t have a ‘pathological need’ to pass money to my son volver though I believe that may be the case in some cultures. It is as you surmise a natural desire that I have. I love him and wish to leave something to him and also to a number of charities that I support. The government will take quite enough of my hard-earned and already taxed money to ‘redistribute’.

Rosalyn69

It seems like there is a lot of resentment of people who are “well off”.

Why do people always regard a desire for equality as "resentment"? It's not resentment to think that there should be some degree of fairness in the system. The system now not only discrminates against the very poorest but also against the middle income famiies who find themselves with expenses for their children even when they reach adulthood. The very rich of course buy second or third homes in lovely areas, is it resentment to think that everyone should be able to live in a decent, secure, reasonably sized home? And to realise that if the very rich stopped buying property they don't use there woud be more and cheaper housing available?

I am rather uncomfortable with the fact that Ms Murta, despite being non domiciled was able to claim huge amounts of furlough payments for her uk businesses.

You may have heard of a system where theoretically everyone has the same start in life and everyone is equal. It’s called communism. And in every instance it causes more problems than it solves, quashes enterprising spirit and takes away the incentive to do well in life. The system you’re proposing means that no matter how hard you work in life, you never have anything to leave to your loved ones - your ‘wealth’ is redistributed when you die. Sounds lovely, but unfortunately, in time it would breed the type of resentment which inevitably leads to corruption. We’re all human and flawed, and some will always find a way to be more ‘equal’ than others, no matter how you legislate.

That's not communism, its fairness. I've worked damn hard in life and I have no "loved ones" to leave anything to. I intend to spend all my money before I die and leave the house to the cats' home. Or something similar. DH has started 2 businesses so I guess you could call him enterprising. No children in sight.

I have no idea why anybody wants to leave big sums of money to their children, I suppose its a natural attitude, but a pathological need to keep your own money just to pass it on to your descendants is one that has passed me by.

It seems like there is a lot of resentment of people who are “well off”.

Pammie1

growstuff

I agree with you Doodledog. Benefits should be based on the individual, no matter what the circumstances of the other people in the household are - and it's not just spouses/partners.

Can I present the reverse side of the coin. It’s not just about multiple claims within a household. I have my own home and a modest pension income. When my partner moved in with me some years ago, he was on disability benefits - most of which were means tested. My income - which was earned during my working life and nothing whatever to do with him - was taken into account fully. He lost 90% of the benefits to which he was entitled through years of working and paying his taxes, and forced to rely on my income. We could have claimed he was a lodger and paying rent, and he would have been assessed differently, but we were honest and paid the price. So it works both ways.

I'm not doubting you Pammie, just seeking knowledge. Which disability benefit were means tested. - Just so I can chain myself to the right railing

Pammie1

GrannyGravy13

DaisyAnne I am not protecting this or any Government, not sure where you get that idea?

Pointing out the blatantly obvious that no Government has the stomach to make any significant changes in the UK’s tax system, is not defending them.

How about going after the unscrupulous employers who pay their staff peanuts, and then the Government ^tops up their wages with UC.

I am all for a compulsory living wage and I fully understand that it would in all probability lead to higher prices, which leads back to folks not being able to afford all they would like…

Vicious circle!

Not so sure it would be a vicious circle because there would be some rebalancing of the books. If employers were forced to pay a living wage, there would be little or no need for Universal Credit, which costs the taxpayer a fortune.

I think there has been a thread on that. I know I have often commented on the fact that it is the company that benefits and it should therefore be up to the company, that can show it cannot pay proper living wages to some of it's employees, to apply to the government for loans or grants, whichever is appropriate.

I think there would be an immediate rebalancing of top and bottom wages and an honest view of dividends. No company would want to declare they had to turn to the government under normal circumstances. It could, however, be good for startups and community businesses.

growstuff

Pammie1

Germanshepherdsmum

Nobody who has children and something to leave them would support 100% IHT growstuff. There’s nothing immoral in having earned your money by legal means, paid your taxes and wanting to leave something for your children and maybe charity. Charities rely heavily on legacies so 100% IHT (or anything approaching that) would wipe them out. The Treasury already gets a hefty chunk of money from the estates of deceased taxpayers. Quite enough IMO.

I agree. Can’t see any government wanting 100% IHT either, if they have to apply it to themselves.

Of course they wouldn't! But how else can all people have the same start in life? The moment babies are born, inequality exists.

You may have heard of a system where theoretically everyone has the same start in life and everyone is equal. It’s called communism. And in every instance it causes more problems than it solves, quashes enterprising spirit and takes away the incentive to do well in life. The system you’re proposing means that no matter how hard you work in life, you never have anything to leave to your loved ones - your ‘wealth’ is redistributed when you die. Sounds lovely, but unfortunately, in time it would breed the type of resentment which inevitably leads to corruption. We’re all human and flawed, and some will always find a way to be more ‘equal’ than others, no matter how you legislate.

That’s so true GrannyGravy. I fully support payment of a living wage but people must accept that it will be reflected in the prices they pay.

I don't think that hatred of the extremely wealthy or envy of those with untold wealth is a good starting point for any potential changes we would like to the current Tax Code. I am perfectly happy with what Sunak's wife earns, not my concern, but what is my concern is that as a couple, they don't have the awareness to work out that what is seen by many as 'dodging tax' is not morally appropriate when Sunak, as chancellor, is making decisions which effect everyone's life. I do not expect him to have any idea of how some people have to live their lives, any more than I have any idea of how the super rich run theirs, but surely some kind of advise from staff, even reading the newspapers would give him some idea. What is important to remember is that if a person on average income gets an increase of say 10% on take home income by reduced taxation/increased income, then that money will go back into the economy; apply the same to the super wealthy and that money is stashed, stored, probably in an offshore tax haven.

MaizieD not all employers make millions in profits, especially at the moment.
There are thousands of small businesses who are just about managing and any extra costs incurred have to be passed on to the end user

MaizieD

^there would be little or no need for Universal Credit, which costs the taxpayer a fortune.^

Did you know that people on 'benefits' are 'taxpayers' too?

Yes, thank you. Congratulations, you win the internet for today by being so intent on calling me out for wording you’ve misinterpreted, that you’ve entirely missed the point I was making. You’ve also reposted a part sentence from my original post, which now appears totally out of context.

My point was that if employers paid a living wage there would be a massive saving on Universal Credit because there would be no need for wages to be topped up at the expense of the tax payer. So the knock on effect of prices going up as a result of higher wages would hopefully be mitigated in part.

Universal Credit replaced six 'legacy benefits' with the aim of streamlining and simplifying the benefits system for both benefits claimants and those administering the system. It was designed to make sure claimants were better off in work, by topping up wages each month, reducing gradually as claimants earned more, and increasing if a job ended or earnings reduced. UC has been heavily criticised almost from the day it was introduced, as being inefficient, complicated and expensive to administer. If there was no longer a need for wages to be supplemented, the UC system could be scrapped and the individual legacy benefits reintroduced in a simpler and more cost effective way. It was not my intention to criticise or otherwise offend anyone claiming benefits and I apologise if my wording could have been better.

Shropshirelass

What Rishi Sunak and his wife have or do not have has no bearing on decisions made with the Governments purse strings. Quite honestly, Rishi and his wife have done nothing wrong and it really is none of our business. What would anyone do if they were fortunate enough to be in their position? We all take advantage of schemes that are available to us.

well one thing I can be sure of; if I had their income I would not go into politics with the sole purpose of making life more difficult for people.

I am all for a compulsory living wage and I fully understand that it would in all probability lead to higher prices, which leads back to folks not being able to afford all they would like…

Oh, I don't know, GG13, how about the companies that employ them lowering their profits, or paying out less in dividends?

Increased wages mean more money to be circulated in the domestic economy... is that a good or a bad thing?

Unfortunately the royals fall into this category too. Why are they ‘worth it’ to borrow a phrase from a well known advertisement.

I do agree with Maizie in that when wealth becomes obscene because there’s so much of it, it seems pointless and could be used to alleviate the distress of others. Abramovich has/had (not sure which is correct now) five super yachts, several mansions and a lot more. It’s sheer greed. I despise him. Why does he think he deserves it?

growstuff

I agree with you Doodledog. Benefits should be based on the individual, no matter what the circumstances of the other people in the household are - and it's not just spouses/partners.

Can I present the reverse side of the coin. It’s not just about multiple claims within a household. I have my own home and a modest pension income. When my partner moved in with me some years ago, he was on disability benefits - most of which were means tested. My income - which was earned during my working life and nothing whatever to do with him - was taken into account fully. He lost 90% of the benefits to which he was entitled through years of working and paying his taxes, and forced to rely on my income. We could have claimed he was a lodger and paying rent, and he would have been assessed differently, but we were honest and paid the price. So it works both ways.

there would be little or no need for Universal Credit, which costs the taxpayer a fortune.

Did you know that people on 'benefits' are 'taxpayers' too?

25Avalon

A billionaire as a chancellor might not be that bad as it shows he know how to accumulate wealth and look after it. The draw back is does he have the empathy to distribute it across society? I am also a little confused about his green card given to him when he lived in the States on the understanding he would permanently reside there.

WTF has accumulating wealth got to do with running a national economy? A country is not a business. It doesn't have to earn money and make a profit.

The UK has a 'sovereign currency'. We can issue as much of it as we please. A chancellor's job should be to ensure that the nation's money, our money, public money, is spent for the benefit of the individuals that comprise 'the nation'. The money should be keeping people employed, nurturing the young, the old, the sick and the helpless; fighting and mitigating the effects of climate change, keeping the nation healthy' oh, there's loads to spend it on. And all the time it's being spent it is keeping the economy open and thriving.

Conversely, the chancellor should, among other things, be using taxation to control inflation,and to ensure that too much money isn't sucked out of the country by those who just want to accumulate enormous, unproductive wealth.