Equality and Diversity Laws, should these be scrapped??

What is it that pensioners 'covet', David? Covet means to desire something that belongs to another. I don't see that in pensioners so much as in younger people resenting the fact that people at the end of their lives have more than those starting out, just as was the case when the 'oldies' were young.

Pensioners may want to hold on to what they, themselves, have worked for, such as their pensions - which, after all, most of them have contributed to for decades, and are the basis on which they based their retirement planning.

I do agree that something needs to be done about the fact that wealth is concentrated in parts of the South, though. It's not just about the money itself, although I can't think of a justification for public spending being higher in London, for instance, than in most other areas, but in the lack of opportunity it causes. It is all but impossible for people from many areas of the UK to go to London for work, or to improve their chances of getting work by taking up internships as property prices are so high. As many of the best jobs are based in the capital, they are denied to those who can't afford to take them up, and the cycle continues.

I don't know what the answer is. A tax on housing profit would have to take account of expenditure on the house, or people might stop upgrading older properties. Also, people often need to move within their own areas, which a tax on profit would impede. Ok, it might level the playing field for jobs, but it would also deter people from getting new ones, which would be bad for the economy, and the point should be to level things up for all, not down for anyone. The only way I can think of is through IHT, but it would be difficult to make that fair, as some will have saved money they've earned, and others not, and the savers shouldn't be penalised.

Perhaps a formula for taxing house profit on death is the answer? People could keep receipts for works done, and they could be fed into an invoice and deducted from the taxable amount. It would probably have to start now, as not everyone will have receipts going back years (we certainly don't), but with modern technology it should be easy enough to make it as fair as it can be by using local averages before a cutoff date. As an added bonus, it would cut down on jobs done on the black market, too.

That way, the housing market in expensive areas should settle down a bit, as fewer heirs will get large 'unearned' sums as inheritance, but the people who bought houses years ago won't be impacted at all.

Chardy

^Far too much of the nations wealth is held by pensioners paying little tax on it^

David, could we have some statistics and references for tge things you say, please

Actually, it appears the age group between 55-64 hold the most wealth, on average, in the UK. Most of them will still have incomes from jobs rather than pensions and a large percentage will have older children and will have paid off their mortgages.

Although those retired may comprise some wealth, the fact that they have pensions rather than income may mean they are not as cash rich as those in lower age groups still working.

All those with average or higher personal/private/workplace pensions will be paying tax, as will those having savings over £20,000 (assuming this amount is held in an ISA).

I’m not sure if there’s something in the water in your neighbourhood David but you’ve certainly posted some extremely contentious and inflammatory statements this week!

🤣🤣🤣

Far too much of the nations wealth is held by pensioners paying little tax on it

David, could we have some statistics and references for tge things you say, please

I didn't expect anyone to agree with having to loose the pension any more than you all were outraged at giving up the WFP and that was a much smaller amount.

Far too much of the nations wealth is held by pensioners paying little tax on it. Our generation consume a very high proportion of the social spending, those that can should contribute more, we are never going to have money too invest in infrastructure and growth while we covet so much.

I agree Chocolatelovinggran....

Well, Lemonjam, I cannot imagine that those in cheaper areas are going to be delighted at the prospect of lots of retired people moving near to them, and cluttering up the GPs surgeries, hospitals, and buses with their " very selfish" attitudes .
I foresee a cluster of petitions!

sundowngirl

David -
Nearly half of all properties in the South East are worth £500,000 or more. Would homeowners in these properties be expected to sell their homes or take out equity release in order to qualify for the State Pension?

Living in the South East does not automatically make someone wealthy. Property values are significantly higher than in many other parts of the country, and an equivalent home elsewhere could be worth considerably less.

Under such a proposal, would people in higher-value regions be forced to downsize simply to receive the pension they have contributed towards throughout their working lives, while those living in lower-value areas could continue to receive the full State Pension without any change to their circumstances? That hardly seems fair or equitable.

Agree that many homes in the South East are valued above £500,000. If they move out of the home and wish to stay in their area near family and long standing social networks after moving costs and land tax on new home, in same area there will not be sufficient equity released to fund retirement from age 66/67 till date of death after hey have paid for new home.

It would be unfair and unwise health wise to expect retired adults in South was to move to an area of the country with cheaper houses far away form family and social networks

Good grief David you are on a mission to upset people!

My parents both worked very hard all their lives, they were both incredibly generous people with both their time and their finances.

We’ve also done our best to help all our children with financial help, but we are far from wealthy. We have modest personal pensions and state pensions and are mortgage free and own a small static caravan, hardly wealth. We are not selfish in any way shape or form, providing free dog care, free child care and free chauffeuring!

Shame on you!

David -
Nearly half of all properties in the South East are worth £500,000 or more. Would homeowners in these properties be expected to sell their homes or take out equity release in order to qualify for the State Pension?

Living in the South East does not automatically make someone wealthy. Property values are significantly higher than in many other parts of the country, and an equivalent home elsewhere could be worth considerably less.

Under such a proposal, would people in higher-value regions be forced to downsize simply to receive the pension they have contributed towards throughout their working lives, while those living in lower-value areas could continue to receive the full State Pension without any change to their circumstances? That hardly seems fair or equitable.

Have I understood correctly that you include the value of a person's main residential home is included in the £500,000 sum?

If so and the person has no other income, personal pension or savings other than the £500,000 equity ( which would need to be independently verified) - they must either sell their home or apply for equity release for a designated period until the equity falls below £500,000- at which stage they then become eligible top receive full state pension?

Then when their equity ( following independent valuation) remaining falls below £500,000 as

LemonJam

David49

DaisyAnneReturns

One really important fact that anyone following David's thinking seems happy to ignore is that more than half of UK welfare spending goes to pensioners, and the State Pension is the single largest welfare programme by a wide margin. Fairy obviously, the majority of these people are "non-working". Attack the benefits system in the way David has and the most likely return argument will be that we should abandon the triple-lock. Well done David!

Yes, the triple lock is far too generous to the wealthiest section of the population, in fact I would go further and withdraw state pension above a certain wealth level.

Why on earth are we giving more money to those that have plenty, we are the golden generation never have retired people had so much, yet we are very selfish and don't want to share anything.

David49- Where would you place the threshold for the wealthiest section of the population- ie above which you suggest withdrawal of the state pension

You may feel that you as a person of state pension age and others you know personally are "very selfish and don't want to share anything" but what measures/data do you use to be satisfy your self that the majority of UK residents of state pension age are "very selfish and don't want to share anything"/

If you have wealth above £500,000 at retirement you have enough to fund your retirement yourself, you would use any private pension and the equity in your house to pay for living expenses, when your wealth fell below the threshold, you would get the state pension again.

If a wealth tax is imposed I don't believe that a tax on the "Ultra Rich" is going to yield enough revenue, a contribution has to come from the wider population, hoarding wealth in domestic property without taxation has been very bad for the economy.

David49

Discrimination and equality has gone mad there is only one group that is not vulnerable, white males, assuming they are not gay, disabled or some other disadvantage.
It doesn't affect me Im old and vulnerable now, so enjoying the advantages, that women, migrants, ethnic this or that and all the other groups have been getting.

You should be on your knees David giving thanks to a woman that you are even alive !

Wyllow3

(You only need to talk as I do to some young women in sectors of work still dominated by men that not only discrimination but also mocking and bullying still does take place).

Remember the report on attitudes as regards race and gender in the Fire Service not too long ago? Quite shocking. *There is very much still work to be done*

I agree with this. Where I live we have a strong 'old boys' network' where particular captains of industry, government and law, went to the local public school. They speak, act, and dress in a certain way and if a younger member of the 'tribe' wants to get on in our community they have to dress and act like their 'uncles'. Fascinating stuff once you get the key to unlock this discourse. And it isn't going to change any day now.

David49

DaisyAnneReturns

One really important fact that anyone following David's thinking seems happy to ignore is that more than half of UK welfare spending goes to pensioners, and the State Pension is the single largest welfare programme by a wide margin. Fairy obviously, the majority of these people are "non-working". Attack the benefits system in the way David has and the most likely return argument will be that we should abandon the triple-lock. Well done David!

Yes, the triple lock is far too generous to the wealthiest section of the population, in fact I would go further and withdraw state pension above a certain wealth level.

Why on earth are we giving more money to those that have plenty, we are the golden generation never have retired people had so much, yet we are very selfish and don't want to share anything.

David49- Where would you place the threshold for the wealthiest section of the population- ie above which you suggest withdrawal of the state pension

You may feel that you as a person of state pension age and others you know personally are "very selfish and don't want to share anything" but what measures/data do you use to be satisfy your self that the majority of UK residents of state pension age are "very selfish and don't want to share anything"/

Means testing is a waste of resources, too, David.

Better to make taxation more progressive; raise the personal allowances which have been frozen for a number of years and increase the higher rates of tax on earned and unearned income.

Rosie51

I agree Chardy who decides what is enough wealth to kick in removal? Also people have been paying contributions on the basis they will receive a state pension in time, the state should not be reneging on that contract. Means testing is a very expensive way to administer anything. The wealthy pay tax on anything over the personal allowance, so presumably paying 40% tax on the state pension. Whether there should be a higher tax band is another question, but on present figures would the recovered net sum enjoyed by the 'wealthy' be outweighed by the cost of administration? I don't know that answer, just musing.

This is what I mean coveting what you have got and diverting to the billionaires as an easy target.

The Winter Fuel Payment is an example probably 75% of pensioners can manage quite well without it, they screamed blue murder at the thought of loosing the money, whether they needed it or not.

It's a waste of resources amongst many others, and ensures that the UK will never have any money to invest in infrastructure and growth we really need.

I agree Chardy who decides what is enough wealth to kick in removal? Also people have been paying contributions on the basis they will receive a state pension in time, the state should not be reneging on that contract. Means testing is a very expensive way to administer anything. The wealthy pay tax on anything over the personal allowance, so presumably paying 40% tax on the state pension. Whether there should be a higher tax band is another question, but on present figures would the recovered net sum enjoyed by the 'wealthy' be outweighed by the cost of administration? I don't know that answer, just musing.

The idea that the very rich shouldn't get a state pension is a slippery slope
While we could all agree that Paul McCartney doesn't need his, we know from past experience that successive govts will reduce the line at which people are deemed rich. So is someone with a private pension of £100k too rich? Reduce that to £50k - is that too rich to 'need' the state pension? How about £30k or £20k...
When govts have bankers to support (I believe our NICs were used in 2008) or wars to support, will they drop the threshold? Or just not let it keep up with inflation like the current personal tax allowance or the 1972 Christmas bonus?!
Lastly how many more people will be needed to deal with all this and with those who've been wrongly assessed? How much will that cost?

Chocolatelovinggran

David, of course, each of us can only speak from a position of knowledge, so perhaps your friends and family group " are very selfish and don't want to share anything". However, I think that you might struggle to support this with any viable data.
I am happy to give an alternative view.
In my friendship and family group we have
volunteers ( foodbanks, school governors, National Trust , English Heritage, information kiosk, RNLI shop etc)
donors ( national charities, local charities, foodbanks etc)
child carers ( grandparents and friends)
people who share their home ( children and grandchildren, a sister in law, a charity worker)
I will stop there, but I wanted to challenge your negative assertions about my generation.

As you are on GN you are probably my generation - retired. In general we are very selfish not willing to give up anything at all. Well done you doing lots of charity work, most dont, they just want to leave everything to the children

David, of course, each of us can only speak from a position of knowledge, so perhaps your friends and family group " are very selfish and don't want to share anything". However, I think that you might struggle to support this with any viable data.
I am happy to give an alternative view.
In my friendship and family group we have
volunteers ( foodbanks, school governors, National Trust , English Heritage, information kiosk, RNLI shop etc)
donors ( national charities, local charities, foodbanks etc)
child carers ( grandparents and friends)
people who share their home ( children and grandchildren, a sister in law, a charity worker)
I will stop there, but I wanted to challenge your negative assertions about my generation.

Yes, the triple lock is far too generous to the wealthiest section of the population, in fact I would go further and withdraw state pension above a certain wealth level.

Why on earth are we giving more money to those that have plenty, we are the golden generation never have retired people had so much, yet we are very selfish and don't want to share anything.

There are many who would agree with you and many who are horrified at the thought. The biggest problem is that we haven't prepared for a change of any kind.

"I have no objection to women or any other group taking jobs on merit my issue is positive discrimination where jobs are deliberately given to women or others regardless of ability to do the job."

If someone is appointed regardless of their ability to do the job, that's simply a poor appointment. Do you really think that is how this works or are men just scared of reasoned competition, feeling they are entitled to jobs even if a women can do it better?

DaisyAnneReturns

One really important fact that anyone following David's thinking seems happy to ignore is that more than half of UK welfare spending goes to pensioners, and the State Pension is the single largest welfare programme by a wide margin. Fairy obviously, the majority of these people are "non-working". Attack the benefits system in the way David has and the most likely return argument will be that we should abandon the triple-lock. Well done David!

Yes, the triple lock is far too generous to the wealthiest section of the population, in fact I would go further and withdraw state pension above a certain wealth level.

Why on earth are we giving more money to those that have plenty, we are the golden generation never have retired people had so much, yet we are very selfish and don't want to share anything.

One really important fact that anyone following David's thinking seems happy to ignore is that more than half of UK welfare spending goes to pensioners, and the State Pension is the single largest welfare programme by a wide margin. Fairy obviously, the majority of these people are "non-working". Attack the benefits system in the way David has and the most likely return argument will be that we should abandon the triple-lock. Well done David!

"But I remember David backing out of a similar argument some time ago by saying he had enjoyed winding us all up, so I am a bit reluctant to give this part if the discussion any more candle."

That I have never said you have a very poor memory.

I have no objection to women or any other group taking jobs on merit my issue is positive discrimination where jobs are deliberately given to women or others regardless of ability to do the job.