Care fee`s and the sale of a home

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Are compulsory pensions "popular & sensible" ?

I doubt it. The state pension, funded through taxation (and NI - which is a tax in everything but name), is however.

But with pensions, the state provides a non means tested basic state pension to those who don't die before being eligible to receive it. Do you think people who have saved shouldn't get the basic state pension?

The charge(s) can still be enforced against a child who has emigrated.

tim

taxation...

incomes).

Oh, so you're now twisting things to fit your initial mistake. You're assuming that everyone who gets the means tested benefit pays no tax, and that everyone else will pay 1% extra tax on their entire income, which is clearly skewed bullshit to try to make things fit.

In the real world the major income and spending taxes have a threshold below which taxes aren't paid and that is *why* in your example above only 75% of people pay tax (in the case of income tax, an allowance, in the case of VAT, no VAT on some essentials such as most food, rent, mortgages). So the reality is that an increase in these tax rates would cost rich people a higher % of their income than average income people.

I really CBA getting into your usual pedantic bullshit arguments, the principle that you initally question that "Means testing benefits ... benefits the rich at the expense of average income people" is correct and you know it's correct.

Bye bye Timmy.

"tim (not at home)" wrote

How, if they emigrate to a country without any treaties with Germany to co-operate? And they certainly can't be enforced against a child who has *died* !!

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Do you think that the basic state pension is really sufficient?

"Andy Pandy" wrote

What mistake? You haven't shown that I've made one!

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Err, no - that was *your* assumption... You said: "... it'll be neutral for the poorest ..." (the poorest being those that already getting the means-tested benefit). They'll be getting the benefit under either the 'means-tested' or the 'universal' scenario, so the only way that it can be "neutral" for them is if they pay no more tax to make the benefit universal.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

I had to assume something, just to give illustrative figures.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

Well, how would you skew it to make *your* opinion fit?

"Andy Pandy" wrote

So now you're saying that I'm right?

"Andy Pandy" wrote

That only explains why "Means testing benefits ... benefits the rich" -- not that it's "at the expense of average income people".

Making the benefit universal would benefit the rich, it would be about *neutral* for average income people, and it'd be worse for those people who earn less than average but who are earning enough to be paying some of the extra taxes required.

"Andy Pandy" wrote

No, I believe it's not correct. [See above.] It's at the expense of lower-paid people than average-earners.

Sufficient for what? It might not suffice as one's sole source of income in retirement (though in some circumstances it might do), but it is significant enough (and therefore suffices) to make up a major portion of one's income. This in turn means that it can be taken into account when people are planning for retirement, and need to work out what steps to take to secure additional pension income.