So nib, what's your solution? Logans Run style euthanasia or we support a pension system that funds people from 65 till they die (which, like it or not could be another 50 years after they retire)?
I don't disagree to an automatic retirement age increase based on increased life expectancy at the time, but I still think 15 years retirement is fine (based on the current average).
Having said that, instead of a flat rate, I am actually for some sort of vetting which basically lessens pension funding for those retiree's who essentially don't need it. Those who were on extremely high salaries or have saved ex amount etc. I know that opens up a can of worms (why should I be negatively affected for being safe with my money), but I'm not the politician, that's something they'd have to iron the kinks out of.
But again, it boils down to people getting what they don't need. This goes for the highest earners and millionaires, and also for pensioners who already have plenty tucked away and had very cozy jobs.
Pension aged people are the richest people in the country yet their personal allowance is higher than those aged under 65. The change I believe you're referring to is the one which ends age discrimination and brings it in line with the now increased personal allowance of everybody else over the next couple of years. We have a deficit to deal with.
Do you have facts and figures to back up that claim? About pensioners being the richest people in the country or did you just pull that one out of a hat? There are thousands of pensioners out there that can't afford living with the rising costs in food, rent, electricity, heating etc. But I'm open to new information which suggests they are instead the richest...
This is a completely separate issue to the top-rate of income tax. The budget is a whole package and no one thing pays for another, the state raises revenue in a number of different ways and spends it in a number of different ways. Rather than looking at what gets reduced and what gets increased, I think it better to look at what is the sensible level to set different taxes, whether than turns out to be an increase or a decrease is irrelevant except politically.
The top-rate of income tax was 40% from the late 80s through to the last couple of months of the previous government, raised by Brown to 50% despite him obviously thinking 40% is the better rate after keeping it for 10 years. As of next year, the current government is lowering it to 45% which is still higher than at nearly any point in the previous government, though they may seek to bring it in line with what Labour thinks (or thought) is best and what the previous Tory government preferred too.
I want a top-rate of income tax which, together with all other taxes, will cause the highest revenue for the Treasury as a whole in the long-term and have the greatest positive effect on the economy, jobs and the earnings and livelihoods of the majority long-term.
If the 40% rate or even 45% rate achieves that more effectively than the 50% rate, then so be it, but if there's better, more, let's say, economically efficient ways of taxing the rich, then let's push those instead. Thankfully, the government have pursued some of which measures in the latest Budget.
Trickle down doesn't work, it hasn't in the past and it's doubtful it will today. You've also very cleverly selected specific dates and tax rates omitting others.
You're glossing over the fact that before the Tories came in to power in 1979 the top tax rate was actually 83%, which they cut down to 60%, a figure which has dropped further to what it is today and clearly not reaped the trickle down benefits promoted.
You are right that no one thing in a budget (generally) pays for another, but if you make less revenue because of one thing, you do have to introduce something else that accounts for that loss. And millions that will be lost in revenue from the new tax cut benefiting the very richest is being taken in other ways. From pensioners, child benefit, welfare etc.
Some of the biggest or most common loopholes for tax avoidance haven't even been closed, (Sole Trader and dividends) so that's another issue. Though a few is still a start, but still not justification for this rich handout.
Honestly, for me this budget was unfair and rather vile. If any income tax cuts had to be made, it should
not have been to the wealthiest. Tax allowance increase is a start, but what about reducing tax to the middle 40% bracket earners? They gain shit all from this new budget, a small amount that barely covers the cost of inflation. The biggest handout here is by far to the richest. Add to that they've slyly dropped the 40% tax bracket from £37k down to an eventual £34k, so in a way they've nearly offset the benefit of the higher tax rate allowance for middle income earners.
I find it ridiculous that the jump from £34k to £150k and beyond nets only a 5% extra tax increase.
seriously, we've yet to see the effects of the changes made, but something tells me they won't be good. 