Equality and Diversity Laws, should these be scrapped??

Pension Reform approach that is..

But that would bring people in the top 20% down by £15k pa or so, despite the fact that they will have paid more tax and NI than most, and in some cases the money they should have got will be redirected to those who have paid little or nothing. Where is the incentive to work with a policy like that? A salary of £50k would put someone in the top 20%, and that is not enough even to buy a house in some parts of the country unless their partner earns a similar salary.

Also, as ever, geographical inequality means that the top 20% in some areas might only earn £30k or so - are people really saying that should debar them from getting a pension they've contributed to?

And yes - using household income is most unfair. Someone could have paid in for decades and get nothing because their spouse is a high earner. I would be furious in that situation. Why should someone who has never been dependent in their life be made so in retirement?

Doodledog

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.

As you are constantly complaining about people who don't pay income tax, notably SAHMs, I can only conclude that you don't think that they can be considered as valuable citizens.

And you don't seem to think that any other taxes exist apart from income tax and NI as you won't allow that anyone who spends pays tax in one way or another.

What am I supposed to think?

The stance of current parties in relation to Sate Pension is nowhere yet near David49"s suggestion. Grans in Wales and Scotland please feel free to add:

Reform UK is fully committed to maintaining the state pension triple lock, ensuring pensions rise annually by the highest of inflation, average earnings, or 2.5%. The party intends to fund this commitment by enacting tens of billions of pounds in wider welfare and public spending reductions.

The Conservative party also appears to be committed to maintaining the triple lock.

The Labour Party commits to maintain the Triple Lock Protection throughout the current Parliament to protect retiree incomes. However it proposes * Pension Landscape Review* It has pledged to review workplace pensions and wider savings to improve outcomes. It sparked controversy by restricting the Winter Fuel payment strictly to those on Pension Credit or qualifying benefits.

The Green Party supports protecting the value of the state pension through a double lock ensuring payments rise in line with inflation or average wage growth. Additionally, the party has historically campaigned for broader overhauls to the welfare system and staunchly defends universal entitlements for older citizens. They do not include the fixed 2.5% ratcheting mechanism found in the traditional triple lock. The Greens strongly support preserving universal elderly benefits. For instance, they have actively opposed means-testing the Winter Fuel Payment and advocate for it to be restored automatically to all eligible pensioners to prevent poverty and protect health.

The Greens also propose Funding and Broader Pension Reform e.g. Equalising Tax Relief. To help fund social care for elderly and disabled individuals on low incomes, the Green Party proposes reducing higher-rate pension tax relief. They would set pension tax relief to a flat rate of 20%, aligning it with the basic rate of income tax. In the long term, the party advocates transitioning toward a Universal Basic Income to provide permanent financial security for all residents, which would interact with and reshape retirement income foundations.


*The Liberal Democrats* are committed to protecting the state pension triple lock, ensuring payments rise in line with inflation, average wage growth, or 2.5% (whichever is highest). The party heavily criticised reductions to pensioner benefits—such as restrictions on the Winter Fuel Payment—and advocates for broader support to shield older people from the cost of living and rising utility bills. It's broader retirement policies- the party focuses on reducing the gender pension gap within private and workplace pensions and ensuring working-age carers can save adequately for retirement. They advocate for investing in state pension administrative helplines to resolve underpayments and process top-ups (such as voluntary National Insurance contributions) much faster. They propose requiring major pension funds to disclose and prove their portfolio investments align with the Paris Agreement criteria on climate change.



David49

"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

Right, but what if, like mine, the house hasn't been valued for decades as it hasn't been sold? Obviously selling prices are easy to find, but that only works if the house is sold.

I was talking about a formula that would take account of home improvements, remember. So that when working out profits expenditure could be subtracted from simple profit. I'm not following your logic at all, but I'm not sleeping so that might explain it.

I would support free television licences for the over 75s, who incidentally are the BBC's most loyal viewers. Stopping this was very shortsighted as it meant except for the poorest pensioners, all the others were hit with a £175 bill.

MaizieD

Doodledog

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.

As you are constantly complaining about people who don't pay income tax, notably SAHMs, I can only conclude that you don't think that they can be considered as valuable citizens.

And you don't seem to think that any other taxes exist apart from income tax and NI as you won't allow that anyone who spends pays tax in one way or another.

What am I supposed to think?

Well, you are supposed to look at what I write, not taking account of chips on your shoulder or assumptions you are making?

I'm actually quite insulted by the idea that anyone would think I assume that not paying tax makes someone a lesser human being. In all the years I have posted on here I have never said anything remotely like that.

That comment has really upset me, so for the record I would like to repeat what I have said many times before, which is that when I have commented on tax/NI/contributions, it is in the context of policies, not people. I don't think it's fair that people who don't put in should take out, and I think it is often forgotten that 'taking out' is not always in terms of cash. Using facilities and benefitting from things like the NHS, defence and law and order are also taking out, and there are many who don't pay towards them, often because they can afford not to do so. If someone is unable to work because of illness, disability or caring responsibilities for those who are sick or disabled, then of course there should be provision for them - in fact IMO it should be better than it is now, and could be if the system wasn't paying out to those who choose not to work.

If people can afford not to work, that's fine, but IMO, they should pay a contribution towards living in a country like the UK, where many things are universally provided, and they should not expect to get pensions after a lifetime of not working, or benefit from the contributions of those who work because they have to.

None of that means that I think they are lesser beings. We all do what works best for us at the time that we do it, and I certainly don't think less of people for making choices that are perfectly legal and harm no-one. It is the system I don't like, not the people. I have said that several times, too.

I’m late to this, as ever. It’s been a very busy week.
Anyway, back to the OP, I’m opposed to scrapping EDI (and the ECHR which to me goes hand in hand)

Confession, my 35 years in public service, plus paying add ons to the pension scheme means I’m ok. Not wealthy but combined with my state pension means I can eat and more importantly, afford to keep my dogs. I started work at 17 retired at 63 because RA stopped me.

Any savings I had with mr I (bless his soul) have been distributed to our adult children. They’re working, contributing , paying tex and looking after the next generation. I’m a simple soul, I expect that’s the case for other fortunate people like me.
David, I don’t white understand how cross, negative, cold and critical you are about our generation. Generally speaking, we grew up far from the lap of luxury, we’ve worked throughout our lives, managed in many cases to buy our houses. I hope never to need residential care. If I do, I expect my adult children to lose the little I’ve left to leave them, our family home.
I’ve mixed feelings about this despite my leftie leanings. I’d like them to inherent the home they grew up in, still refer to as home. Is it fair that those of us who worked etc etc to subsidise those who made different choices. I’m not talking about those who need our welfare state….. shoot me now

Doodledog

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.

Income tax is paid by those who earn above the threshold- currently £12,750- this is a direct tax. Capital Gains tax is applied to profit when a person disposes of assets ( other than their primary residence). Inheritance tax is paid on aa person's estate after death if it exceeds the IHT threshold.

Stamp duty tax is paid when buying property, Business rate tax and Corporation tax levied for those in business etc.

The there are indirect taxes or consumption taxes- e.g VAT applied to most goods, Excise duties tax on alcohol, fuel, tobacco and gambling and Council tax.

It would be extremely rare for anyone not to pay any of the direct or indirect taxes listed above.

If people can afford not to work, that's fine, but IMO, they should pay a contribution towards living in a country like the UK, where many things are universally provided, and they should not expect to get pensions after a lifetime of not working, or benefit from the contributions of those who work because they have to.

How are they supposed to 'make a contribution' if they're not earning?

Doodledog "I don't think it's fair that people who don't put in should take out":

1) SP- Not everyone automatically gets a state pension in the UK- it's strictly based n National Insurance contributions.
2) Legal aid is means tested.
3) Health care is free at the point of delivery for all UK residents.
4) State education is available universally for all school age children

What would you like to see change if anything?

Careful, Iam. You'll be accused of being a eugenicist or something before long 🙄.

I won't shoot you - I agree, and think that many others will too. It is the feeling that some work and others don't (but then get as much as the workers) that is, IMO, turning people to parties like Reform. Whether or not everyone pays tax, it tends to be income tax that is increased to raise funds, so workers' efforts are less and less fruitful, prices go up more and more, and if workers are then told that pensions are to be given to those who have not contributed instead of those who have, I'd expect to see strong objections.

Like you, ( Iam ) I am fairly comfortable, but only because I (and Mr Dog) both worked from 16 - 66. We have inherited nothing, and know that if we need care (as MIL does currently) we will leave little behind for our children, who both work and pay tax too. It does make you wonder why you bothered, sometimes.

Twisting that to suggest that we don't support a welfare state is preposterous.

Lemonjam I agree with your first post, and am well aware of the points in it, other than - as I said earlier - I don't think that people who have no money of their own are paying tax, but never mind.

In the second:
1) People do get Pension Credit if they don't qualify for a SP based on contributions (I'm sure you know that). this often makes them better off than those who have paid in for decades. Also, they will get free social care if they need it, whilst others have to pay.

2) Yes, so those with savings may get less by way of legal help than those without, which I think is wrong - income and disposable income are different things. Anyway, by 'law and order' I meant living a country with a police force/parliament etc.

3) Yes, I know! But not all pay towards that provision (and I absolutely am not advocating that there should be a two-tier health service - just saying that capable adults should contribute towards expenditure in some way).

4) I am aware of that, too . This is a strange line of questioning.

I would not want to see any of that change, apart from wanting legal aid and post-school education to be universally free so society is fairer and offers more equal opportunity to all.

I repeat - what I object to is people not paying taxes who are capable of doing so. Whether they have rich partners, offshore accounts, good accountants, I don't know - anyone who could work but doesn't is 'taking out' but not contributing to the things we all get free in the UK. The things you are pointing out, basically.

That doesn't mean I don't think they should get those things - just that they should pay towards them. If they don't want a paid job, they could be expected to do voluntary work or something. Just 'do their bit'.

It worries me that so many people feel so disillusioned that they are turning to parties that will make things so much worse for all of us. IMO there needs to be a social contract, so that everyone can expect to get healthcare, housing, education etc when we need them, and to make a contribution towards that if we are capable of doing so. Then people won't resent working 40 hours a week for a wage that leaves them reliant on benefits, and paying high rents to pay landlords' mortgages. Too many people have nothing left at the end of the week, never mind the month, and when they see those who don't work getting as much or more than they do, they resent that.

Please don't lecture me about the welfare system, or the benefits of working to the wellbeing of those who do it? Those things may be obvious to people who have had rewarding jobs, but less so to those who have to declare their inheritance of £3k and have it deducted from their UC, and to those who work nightshift in a factory so that they can get the children to school and sleep while their partner is working days.

I repeat - I am talking about policies, not individual people.

Thanks Doodledog for your clarification: "what I object to is people not paying taxes who are capable of doing so. Whether they have rich partners, offshore accounts, good accountants, I don't know - anyone who could work but doesn't is 'taking out' but not contributing to the things we all get free in the UK. The things you are pointing out, basically.

If someone has a rich partner who provides for them I would imagine the rich partner is paying tax act 40% or 45% and they are both likely to be big consumers paying high amounts of VAT etc etc. Shares, savings and purchases of high value homes will attract tax payments also. Plus they are more likely to pay for private health care, education etc and might not be accessing many universally available UK services.

I agree it's frustrating that people with good accountants and offshore accounts can reduce the amount of UK tax they pay (Tice and Farage come to mind!)

There are a lot of 'maybe's in there . Also, the rich partner will be paying his or her own tax, not that of the spouse. The point of a graduated tax system is that the more you earn the more you pay, not to take some people out of the system altogether. And paying for expensive items for their own use doesn't make that ok, in my book. I really don't want to have every financial argument in one post, but it isn't easy to pay for all healthcare - most private care uses NHS staff and facilities, so those who pay just jump the queues. Also, there is no private university system, so those buying private education are taking teachers from the common pool (paid for by all) in the same way as doctors are trained by the NHS then often practise privately.

If a partner provides for another, they should pay their share of tax, too. Maybe at a lower rate - say an extra 60%? The high spending couple can save on childcare, for a start - something that takes a lot out of the earnings of the lower-paid.

Anyway, I am not on trial here, and I don't know all the answers - I just gave an opinion on how not everyone does pay tax, which is how I see it. And yes, Tice and Farage come to my mind, too .

LemonJam

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.

👍👏👏👏👏👏👏

Yes, means testing reduces incentive at all levels- whether to go for promotion, to work more hours and lose benefits at one level, or to cut hours and keep taxation below additional rate at another.

Why would people want to contribute to what has always been a universal system if they are going to be excluded from it? The charitable of heart are always free to donate to good causes- and many do, whether rich or poor. If systems are fair, people are more likely to be willing to stay within them, I assume. It’s when people feel taken advantage of that they feel resentful.

If a partner provides for another, they should pay their share of tax, too.

I am biting my tongue

No need - just don’t respond to what I haven’t said, or twist what I have!

You don’t agree with me, which is fine, but I do have a right to an opinion. I have often said it - to me, a fair society is based on ‘from each according to ability, and to each according to need’. Not in any extreme sense, but as an underlying principle of a welfare state that provides for all of us.

It's OK. I have no intention of replying.

"Right, but what if, like mine, the house hasn't been valued for decades as it hasn't been sold? Obviously selling prices are easy to find, but that only works if the house is sold."

If the property hasnt actually been sold or valued the valuation Office will use an index or comparison with the relevant class of property when the transaction was done

For example if you inherit or are gifted a property and rent it out for 20 yrs, there will probably be no formal value recorded. If you then decide to sell it CGT will need to be paid on the gain, VO will use the house price index to establish the original value. If the CGT rate is increased to income tax rates that will really hurt private landlords, so if you are thinking of getting out do it now.

Houses only qualify for zero CGT if they are your main residence, a second home doesnt

"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."

Pension paid is fixed per person 20% of pension fund cannot be the average wealth, it's very difficult to pin down the point that a 20% (or 10%wealth) threshold would apply threshold would apply, most of the statistics refer to income.
Clearly a lot of homeowners have properties valued at £200k or less and little private pension, others have houses worth £1m + plus and a private pension pot of £1m as well, where does the 20% threshold lie?

The principle that we should not give benefits to those that dont need them applies just as much the WFA, we know that wealthy families have enormous advantages over a poor family, if we are to have wealth tax it needs to apply to a much larger group than the ultra rich.
Obviously most of us would like any tax to apply to someone else, we all want as little tax and as many benefits as we can.

I can agree with that.

Google tells me that In the UK, the average income for a single pensioner is £282 per week (£14,664 per year). For retired couples, the average combined income is £595 per week (£30,940 per year). This total includes income from the State Pension, workplace or private pensions, and other investments.
The source for that is The Private Office, and I don't know what, or how reliable it is, and it's not clear what sort of average is being used, but it's a start.

As those figures include SP, it's very clear that cutting SP for people with above average earnings would make life impossible for average citizens. The figures take no account of property or other assets, but cutting pensions on the assumption that older people could sell up and release equity (so move away from the friends and family and other support networks) would be cruel, and wouldn't help much anyway. Also, it would mean that those in subsidised housing with nothing to sell would end up better off than those who had bought a house over many years.

Add to that the fact that people with houses are expected to sell them if they need care, that those with even small occupational pensions don't qualify for things that go to those on PC, and so on, there would be no point in saving anything at all for those who can't afford to save enough to lift them right out of that situation. People pay into pensions and savings so that they will be better off in older age than if they hadn't. If that's not going to happen, then why bother doing without when you're young enough to enjoy your money?

If large numbers of people don't see the point in paying into pensions, or saving for older age, as it will be taxed away or taken from them in care fees or whatever, the welfare bill will rise exponentially. More and more people will realise that they'd be better off on PC and spend their spare money on cars, holidays etc.

As usual, those with significant pensions and/or savings often can't imagine what that dilemma might be like, and nor can those who have always lived on benefits or minimum wage with no choices about how much to put aside for older age to be made.

It's the same people who are affected - the 'just above poor' and the 'not quite comfortable'. They are the ones who pay tax via PAYE (so no allowances for this and that), work long hours, pay rent to the better off or mortgages to the bank, and so on. Average people, basically. And they are the ones who are sick to the back teeth of finding that it was all for nothing, as they'd be just as well off if they hadn't bothered.

I really think that it is this group who need to be considered, as they are numerous, and getting more and more disenfranchised. They are, therefore, more likely to turn to Reform and so on than those who are comfortable (or wealthy). I don't know the answers, but we need to stop making tax on 'working people' the default way to raise money, and look at other ways of doing it.