Surely we must pay more taxes!?

David49

M0nica

If we are to maintain, pensions, benefits, services, those that have plenty either have got to be taxed more, or have those benefits etc, reduced or removed. How can anyone defend using public spending to subsidize those that already have enough

I have no problems with your argument just with your cliched representation of better off pensioners^

Older people have quite enough trouble fighting off the ageist lazy stereotypes of what we are and hpw we live. To find people in the older age group accepting them as well is really depressing.

I’m not talking about those wealth is under £1m. There are a lot with mortgage paid off and large pensions who have a very good lifestyle and aim to hand everything over to the next generation, without any taxation.

There is nothing wrong with saving for a rainy day everyone should do it, £1m will pay for a lot of rainy days

How does one arrive at the proper number for a rainy day?

Is there a home mortgage? Are there needs for private medical (which is quite helpful, imo, to the NHS)? Care home cost?

Barleyfields

Are you talking about £1m in liquid assets, or £1m in total, including house David? I found your post rather confusing. Would you expect someone to sell their home to pay for a rainy day?

Including the house, you can easily downsize, in fact you should, you dont have the right to sit on a pile like that and use public money.
Currently most of that would be IHT free, if you do go into care that will be taken into account anyway

How can there be needs for private medical care? I appreciate all the arguments about the flaws in the NHS. Nevertheless, I dispute that private medical care is needed when most can't afford it. Or are you saying that those who can't afford private medical care will just die - that's the logic if they can't afford something which is needed. I'm not disputing that some people choose private medical care, but don't try pretending that it's needed.

Need and choice/want aren't the same thing.

Likewise, having money will get you a nicer care home, but try kidding anyone that it's needed. It's your choice. Nobody is stopping people making that choice, but don't expect the state/poorer people to subsidise you by letting you off the tax - don't forget most people can't afford your choices - the ones you call needs.

David49

Barleyfields

Are you talking about £1m in liquid assets, or £1m in total, including house David? I found your post rather confusing. Would you expect someone to sell their home to pay for a rainy day?

Including the house, you can easily downsize, in fact you should, you dont have the right to sit on a pile like that and use public money.
Currently most of that would be IHT free, if you do go into care that will be taken into account anyway

Agree with you 100%. And I'm not listening to the whinging about the house having been the family home for 70 years etc etc etc blah blah blah. Their choice - they pay for it.

Now the downsizing bit, I do kind of agree with.
Sitting on a large property isn't helping anyone, so my solution is/was to sell and pass the proceeds down to the next generation now, so my children are not struggling and can have comfortable lives. As I said before, we all make our choices what we do with our wealth.

David what I took exception to was you stereotyping better off pensioners as Instead of buying a second home, or frequent long haul holidays, or a new luxury car every 3 yrs, they can well afford to well afford to loose state benefits.

This is such a lazy stereotype and plays into all the other tropes that nowadays seem to want to blame older people for everything from living in houses to big for them, monopolising the NHS, ruining their children's lives in so many ways.

This is very dangerous in the same way that anti-semitism takes a diverse group of people with one characteristic in common and makes them the scapegoat for anything that goes wrong, you are playing into the stereotype that any pensioner not on pension credit is a bloated capitalist determined to keep all their money to themselves and let children starve in the streets.

Avoiding taxation is not the special preocupation of the elderly and comfortably off. There are plenty of rich people of in younger age groups who wish to avoid tax. Many a wealthy a young man changes his car regularly.

Please stop the lazy stereotyping of older people.

David49

I completely understand why the wealthy posters on GN want to increase income tax and and keep the services free, because they have already had the benefits that system provides and want to continue to benefit from it.

My point of view is that income tax is high enough at 45% plus to increase further is a disincentive for enterprise, those successful individuals can well afford to pay into health insurance or elderly care and certainly don’t need the state pension. Instead of buying a second home, or frequent long haul holidays, or a new luxury car every 3 yrs, they can well afford to well afford to loose state benefits.

That would free up massive public services for those not so fortunate, it is the system used in many countries, if circumstances change and wealth reduces the state system picks up the costs.

Expanding the public spending issues if you think Cameron style austerity was bad, expect worse, to increase defence spending and increase health spending is a massive challenge. There is ample wealth in the UK we are not using it properly, those on low income obviously want universal benefits they NEED it, the wealthy also want it because they FREELOAD on it.

Are you suggesting State Pension should be means tested?

David, I have already downsized. My house isn’t a pile by any stretch of the imagination but it’s the right size for us and I can’t help what house prices are in my area. I have every right to live where I choose so kindly don’t tell me otherwise. I don’t know what ‘public money’ you think I use. Perhaps you could enlighten me.

Whether I have private medical treatment should I become ill is my choice growstuff, though I get the impression you feel that it should not be available to anyone on the basis that many can’t afford it. Were it not for the capacity available in the private sector NHS lists would continue to grow. The upside for the state is that they won’t be picking up the tab for anyone who chooses private treatment and some waiting lists are being shortened by the NHS paying for patients to be treated in private hospitals.

There is ample wealth in the UK we are not using it properly

Excuse me David, each of us uses our money as we see fit and I doubt you are an exception.

Not just older people, younger men and women who has high wealth would be caught by the same rules. There are some other avoidance schemes that celebrities use to reduce tax that should be stopped too

As for low income freeloaders, fraud should of course be stopped but they are not the ones with wealth you can tax.

You’ve lost me David. Which rules are you referring to?

Barleyfields

You’ve lost me David. Which rules are you referring to?

Any new tax changes would affect all those with wealth over a certain threshold not just pensioners.

growstuff

How can there be needs for private medical care? I appreciate all the arguments about the flaws in the NHS. Nevertheless, I dispute that private medical care is needed when most can't afford it. Or are you saying that those who can't afford private medical care will just die - that's the logic if they can't afford something which is needed. I'm not disputing that some people choose private medical care, but don't try pretending that it's needed.

Need and choice/want aren't the same thing.

Likewise, having money will get you a nicer care home, but try kidding anyone that it's needed. It's your choice. Nobody is stopping people making that choice, but don't expect the state/poorer people to subsidise you by letting you off the tax - don't forget most people can't afford your choices - the ones you call needs.

Growstuff, I am not sure if you are aware of this, but you come across as so bitter and unhappy. I am so sorry if life is a difficult struggle for you but taking away choice is not the answer.

Our generation needs to recognize that we have been freeloading for too long, we have NOT paid for the public services we are now consuming. Even contributions that our children and grandchildren are making are not enough to fill the gap. Those of us that have had successful lives now have to accept they need to start giving more back, the gravy train has hit the buffers.

I do realize this is not an opinion that many want to hear, there is plenty of wealth in the UK we don’t need to borrow we need to step up and fund our own public services.

David49

Our generation needs to recognize that we have been freeloading for too long, we have NOT paid for the public services we are now consuming. Even contributions that our children and grandchildren are making are not enough to fill the gap. Those of us that have had successful lives now have to accept they need to start giving more back, the gravy train has hit the buffers.

I do realize this is not an opinion that many want to hear, there is plenty of wealth in the UK we don’t need to borrow we need to step up and fund our own public services.

David why are you so obsessed with the idea that better off people do not want to pay taxes and do all to avoid them?

Yes, some do, but where is the evidence that the vast majority are all beavering away constantly obsessed with how much tax they can save?

As for the idea that this is news we do not want hear, having been on GN more or less since it started the predominant impression I have always had is that the better off on GN, to the extent that one knows peoples circumstances, have always indicated their willingness to pay their share. of taxes.

Growstuff Having choice is what makes the difference between living in a free world or a police state, and choice lies at the heart of the NHS. When I needed minor surgery my local NHS contacted me giving me a choice of about 5 different places where I could have the surgery and gave me the waiting times for each location.

Throughout my life I have seen the welfare state bringing more and more choice into peoples lives, people being consulted about personal state decisions at every level.

Having several times needed to choose a care home for a family member. I can tell you that, whether a care home makes low charges or high there can be an enormous difference between the services, care and atmosphere, offered at every level of price and you make a choice as to which one to place your relative in.

If you want to live in a society without choice, I suggest you move to North Korea.

I disagree fundamentally with the idea that anything over absolute need is somehow immoral. It’s not. As King Lear said, ‘Allow not Nature more than Nature needs, man’s life’s as cheap as beasts’’. I don’t know where Shakespeare put the punctuation, but he was right with the sentiment.

I don’t believe for a minute that private medicine reduces NHS queues, and wish people would stop pretending that it does. I would prefer to see it scrapped; but as long as it’s available I can’t blame people who don’t want to wait for ages to have life-changing treatments. We only get one life, and if jumping a queue makes that life easier it can make sense to do so. Just don’t pretend the motive is pure😀

I think people should spend their money (after fair taxation) as they wish, without others telling us what we ‘need’, and keeping people in their place.

Sadly, I think we do need to pay more tax, and it’s not enough to suggest that simply going to the shops (on or offline) is enough to pay our way. We would all expect to be defended in the event of an attack, just as we all use roads, schools and hospitals, so we should all pay and not expect to be carried. Younger people who work can’t be expected to shoulder the burden. I know that many of us have paid tax for decades, but all the same, freedom has never been free, and nor is life in a civil society. The only fair way is to tax by ability to pay, but ways have to be found to enable people to save for their dreams without having them taken away as soon as they reach a point at which others think they don’t need them (ie means-testing).

We do, however, have to take more from those who have more, but how to do that fairly- to ensure that everyone pays their share and everyone can choose whether to spend or save after their share has been paid is much trickier than it seems. The more I think about it the more difficult it becomes.

HTH 😂

David why are you so obsessed with the idea that better off people do not want to pay taxes and do all to avoid them?

You are completely unaware that those with wealth above the IHT threshold are gifting and using whatever allowances they can to avoid tax, accountants and lawyers make a good living advising them how they can make best use of the legal allowances.
Successive government have also given over generous allowances and benefits to voters of all kinds to get votes, currently Starmer has a large majority and can redress those mistakes. His approach seems to be give what is needed (not more) in benefits and services while reducing the wealth of the rich.
Personally I think he is being too timid and should do more or he will not show an economic improvement before the next election.

“I don’t believe for a minute that private medicine reduces NHS queues,”

It NEVER will, because demand is unlimited, ever more advanced treatment available for free can never be met, NICE does its best to regulate cost but unless it works to an absolute budget it will fail.

Of course people with ‘wealth’ above the IHT threshold are gifting and using allowances. If they have paid a lot of tax during their lifetime are you really surprised that they don’t want more taken when they die?

Of course Doodledog is aware. Your posts tend towards mansplaining and patronising.

”As for the idea that this is news we do not want hear, having been on GN more or less since it started the predominant impression I have always had is that the better off on GN, to the extent that one knows peoples circumstances, have always indicated their willingness to pay their share. of taxes”

Mm, not sure that was the impression I got in the run up to the last GE M0nica

There were many threads on GN with posters saying they were going to spend their wealth asap (new cars, expensive holidays etc) to avoid paying a wealth tax, which they believed a Labour government would introduce.

Then we had the furore about removing the tax break on private schools and the farmers IHT.

Nevertheless, I hope you’re right, and the more well off in society willdemonstrate their willingness to pay more tax if the situation arises.

Perhaps we shall find out!

David
You are completely unaware that those with wealth above the IHT threshold are gifting and using whatever allowances they can to avoid tax, accountants and lawyers make a good living advising them how they can make best use of the legal allowances

I am not unaware of that, what I am unaware of, and you haven't convinced me, is that 'wealthy' people, whatever that may mean are doing this wholesale and that those who do not are not are the exception.

To begin with I would like to know your defintion of 'wealthy' What income level do you have in mind, what capital value, How much of that is likely to be the house they live in? People fling these terms around and if you believe some being wealthy means being on the average income and having a large mortgage on a £200k rabbit hutch.

Even if people aredoing what you say. Ecerything they are doing is strictly legal. The government can change these rules at any moment.

Barleyfields

Of course people with ‘wealth’ above the IHT threshold are gifting and using allowances. If they have paid a lot of tax during their lifetime are you really surprised that they don’t want more taken when they die?

Of course Doodledog is aware. Your posts tend towards mansplaining and patronising.

I think one of the problems is that a great many people are above the IHT threshold because they haven’t paid a lot of tax in their lifetime.

UK taxation tends to be regressive, the more money you have the smaller percentage of it is taken in tax.

“I am not unaware of that, what I am unaware of, and you haven't convinced me, is that 'wealthy' people, whatever that may mean are doing this wholesale and that those who do not are not are the exception.”

The key is “wholesale” it’s a fact that a disproportionate amount of wealth is held by a small proportion of the population, possibly only 10% have wealth over £1m, during their lifetime, that gets reduced to 4% when IHT becomes due, by the many legal avoidance devices that are available.

It’s not just about tax it’s about services, should a person with assets over £1m get a state pension, should they get free health care?. If they pay, their wealth reduces until they fall below whatever threshold and free services resume. Those with high value property can downsize or take equity release to provide the funds for retirement or healthcare .

If someone has made the requisite NI contributions they are entitled to a state pension and we are all entitled to NHS care. I have worked for my entire adult life, was a 45% taxpayer and I still in retirement pay a chunk of income and capital gains taxes. Kindly don’t tell me that my (old) state pension should be means tested and that I should receive no healthcare on the NHS David.

There are not, btw, ‘many’ legal IHT avoidance schemes.

I admit I've not read all the comments on this subject but my concern is that many young people appear to be finding it hard to find work that has a decent salary. It takes a long time to find a small suitable home and then there are travel costs to work for many people. In theory I appreciate that we need to pay more taxes but how can young people afford this? I feel I've been very lucky in my life but the pressure today and the poor quality of those in Parliament [my opinion!] is making life very concerning.