Equality and Diversity Laws, should these be scrapped??

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!

I agree Chocolatelovinggran....

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.

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

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!

🤣🤣🤣

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.

Contentious, yes, it's meant to set everyone thinking. If pension were withdrawn from the top 20% of wealth it would yield savings of £36 billion if we are serious about improving equality changes like this are going to be needed.

Anyone with assets over £500k is well able to support themselves, the UK has plenty of wealth if we don't start using it efficiently we are going to sink further and the equality gap is going to get wider.

"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."

No problem about establishing historic cost the Valuation Office routinely monitor transactions.

David49

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.

Please don't paint all posters as sharing the same views David. That clearly isn't the case.

Your *I want this and I want if now" style of thinking actually puts the break on change. Some changes could be made now but you would have to be careful and decide what could be done now and what and when changes could be made in the future.

When the Age Pension was introduced in Australia in 1909, it was intended as a safety net for older people who lacked resources. Because means testing was already part of the benefits system, there was no urgent need for a wholesale transition from a universal system to a means-tested one.

After World War II, Australia became wealthier. More retirees owned homes, had savings, and later had occupational pensions. Governments periodically adjusted the means test to decide how much support should go to people with private resources versus those who depended entirely on the pension.

Life expectancy rose substantially during the twentieth century. As more people lived longer after retirement, pension costs increased. Governments looked for ways to target spending at those most in need rather than simply increasing expenditure across the board.

Pension reform is politically sensitive because retirees vote in large numbers. Major changes often faced resistance from pensioners' groups, opposition parties, and sometimes members of the governing party. As a result, governments often preferred incremental adjustments rather than radical reform.

For example in Australia:

The means test was relaxed in the 1970s.
The assets test was abolished in 1976.
It was reintroduced in 1985 when concerns about equity and cost grew.

These shifts reflected changing political priorities rather than a single long-term plan.

Improving administrative capability
Early in the twentieth century, governments had limited ability to verify people's income and assets. As tax systems, record-keeping, and financial reporting improved, it became easier to administer more sophisticated means tests.

The development of superannuation
A major turning point came with compulsory superannuation in the 1990s. Once most workers began accumulating retirement savings, governments increasingly viewed the Age Pension as a targeted safety net rather than the sole source of retirement income.

The bigger picture
If you look back from today, the 1909–1985 period can appear to be a 75-year transition. But Australians at the time would not have seen it that way. They experienced a series of separate reforms, each responding to contemporary issues such as:

the Great Depression,
post-war growth,
inflation in the 1970s,
budget pressures,
population ageing,
and the emergence of private retirement savings.

So the reason it "took 75 years" is largely that there was no master plan being implemented over 75 years. Instead, successive governments made adjustments whenever economic conditions, demographics, or political priorities changed. The current Australian system is the cumulative result of those many incremental decisions.

We may and should learn from this but we cannot stop it being the case that, in order that a government can make fundamental changes, they have to take enough voters with them or they will no longer be in a position to make ANY changes.

Thank you for your well informed, reasoned and balanced post DAR 👏

Equality of opportunity I agree with. Equity, that is, equality of outcomes as between different socio-cultural groups, seems problematic.

David49

"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."

No problem about establishing historic cost the Valuation Office routinely monitor transactions.

Really? I'm unaware of any monitoring of anything we've done in the 30 or so years we've lived here. Even I don't know how much we've spent, and I've never reported it to anyone as we've never needed planning permission for things we've done.

The house was last valued when we bought it, which says nothing very helpful, as we had to spend more than a third of the sales price to bring it up to date. All the same, the CT is the same as the other houses in the small street, so nobody had actually valued it in 1991 either. There have been no transactions (as in house sales) in the street since we moved in, and the street is different from those surrounding it, so there are no obvious comparators there, either.

David, surely any pensioner with an income above £12500 pays tax, exactly the same as everyone else over this threshold?

Everyone with an income over £12,500 pays tax thus those over SP age are currently not treated any differently to any other citizen apart from they do not pay NI) and continue to contribute. This is open to debate and review.

Similarly those over SP age are already subject to IHT rules in the same way everyone is subject to IHT rules, whether they own their home or reside in a nursing home, care home or rented accommodation at the time of death. This is open to debate and review.

Anyone above SP age that is no longer able to live independently may be admitted to a care/nursing home and will be subject to a financial assessment by the Local Council. If their capital (including an house equity) and savings is above the threshold for their region they must pay for their own care unless they meet the eligibility criteria for NHS Continuing Health care requires a in depth assessment by a Multi Disciplinary Team- usually a CHC Nurse Assessor and a Social Worker. The majority of care home residents do not meet the complex eligibility criteria.

The capital and savings thresholds this year are:
1) England and Northern Ireland £23,250
2) Scotland £35,000
3) Northern Ireland £50,000

The average nursing home fees in my area typically range from £1,500 to £2,200 a week thus annual fees could easily amount to £100,000.

Chocolatelovinggran

David, surely any pensioner with an income above £12500 pays tax, exactly the same as everyone else over this threshold?

Everyone pays tax regardless of income because income tax is only one kind of tax. That’s one reason I don’t like people talking about taxpayers - as though they are a distinct group in society.

When anyone mentions the E&D words, I’m taken back to my compulsory ‘training’ when I worked for the local council, Every single employee had to do it, and it was provided by some outside organisation, for which the perennially cash-strapped council presumably paid ££££.

It consisted of IIRC 3 online sessions that took a max of about 15 minutes each, and consisted of questions with a choice of answers. If you got one wrong, it said, ‘Not quite right, try again!’
TBH it was a farcical joke.

Tuliptree

Chocolatelovinggran

David, surely any pensioner with an income above £12500 pays tax, exactly the same as everyone else over this threshold?

Everyone pays tax regardless of income because income tax is only one kind of tax. That’s one reason I don’t like people talking about taxpayers - as though they are a distinct group in society.

I think we may have had this discussion before, but I don't see how someone with no income is paying tax. If they spend money that someone else has given them, it is the giver who is paying the tax, surely? If I give someone the money to buy me a bag of potatoes, or to get themselves a box of chocolates (or whatever), I am still paying the tax, I think. It has come out of my taxed income already, but when it is spent I am paying tax again - regardless of who goes to the shops.

Well that begs lots more questions Doodledog.

But I’m about to go out so will continue later.

I think we may have had this discussion before, but I don't see how someone with no income is paying tax.

I think that you're more likely to have had this discussion with me, seeing that Tt is a relative newcomer to this forum.

As far as I can see, the only people who have 'no income' are those who may be financially supported by a spouse or partner. While they are in this position they may well be doing 'work' which, if it were being done by someone paid to do it, such as childcare and domestic work, would count as economic activity and included in GDP figures. Does this make them any less valuable as citizens just because it isn't paid and subject to taxation?

I can see that you might count welfare recipients as having no taxable income, but while they are paying nail bars, and buying humungous TV sets and cigarettes they are contributing to the nation's tax take as the providers of those things will be paying tax on their profits.

We also have pensioners living solely on their pension, which is below the taxable level. What of them?

Tulip's point is, I think, that there are indirect taxes as well as tax on incomes which everyone pays whether they have 'earned income' or not.

Income tax alone contributes just over a third of total tax revenue...

I wasn't for a moment saying anyone was less valuable as a citizen than anyone else😳. That is really putting words in my mouth.

I was responding to the idea that everyone pays tax, when clearly they don't, and it doesn't matter who they are. The idea that this is relevant to their value as citizens is in your head, not mine.

"Really? I'm unaware of any monitoring of anything we've done in the 30 or so years we've lived here. Even I don't know how much we've spent, and I've never reported it to anyone as we've never needed planning permission for things we've done."

The Valuation Office does this for all property for CGT, if you sell, transfer or gift property you have to register an accurate value, otherwise sellers could put whatever value they wished. The surest way is to have a professional valuation, it is relevant to residential property because some become rental which are subject to CGT.

If you make substantial improvements to the property you can claim for that, but not for decorating or a new bathroom etc

David49

Contentious, yes, it's meant to set everyone thinking. If pension were withdrawn from the top 20% of wealth it would yield savings of £36 billion if we are serious about improving equality changes like this are going to be needed.

Anyone with assets over £500k is well able to support themselves, the UK has plenty of wealth if we don't start using it efficiently we are going to sink further and the equality gap is going to get wider.

Well I’m afraid I disagree. We have a modest home in the South East probably worth around £410,000 add this to our static caravan and our car, both pretty new and that added to our very modest pensions would probably bring our joint assets to £500,000. We are far from “wealthy” we have no savings and any spare money we did have was given to children.

So for me, it’s an agree to disagree situation, mainly because 1) I think you’ve set the bar far to low, 2) I don’t think many pensioners are selfish, 3) we covet nothing. We simply want to be able to live a life now without financial worries, we don’t live an extravagant lifestyle, eat out occasionally, holiday fairly modestly.

My response about taxation, Doodledog, was to David talking about how pensioners are contributing less than he feels that they should.
I was pointing to the fact that income tax, at the lowest level, starts at a set sum, whether we be young and working, or older and retired.

Cossy raises an interesting point about "joint assets" and measuring wealth by household rather than individual. But sticking with that...

ONS data- April 2020 to March 2022 calculated top 10%, top 20% and Median household wealth in the UK:
1) Top 20% threshold required a net worth of roughly £600,00 per household.
2) Top 10% threshold required £1.2 million or more
3) Median wealth, ie the average adult's net worth hovered around £400,000 household wealth in that period.

The problem therefore David49 is your provocative suggestion that a household with £500k wealth in 2026 constitutes the top 20% of wealth holders win the UK- it doesn't. It did not even meet the top 20% threshold 4 to 5 years ago and is more likely hovering around the average wealth in 2026.

I doubt anyone would support anyone forfeiting SP eligibility if they hold average household wealth.

IF the UK decided to go down your suggested route David49 the more sensible threshold would be top 10% wealth households forfeiting SP eligibility. There could be consideration of state pension payment reductions tapered downwards to the top 15% households over time. Over further time tapered downwards to top 20% households as part of a planned Reform approach over time.