Retirement

[teamsaint]

Well I haven't been so inclined... and doubt if I shall be. Complete retirement is proving a joy, and I've no current plans to shoehorn any sort of work into the schedule...
[/QUOTE]

Great to hear this.

Beyond that , this is a good lesson in how the government, instead of taking the axe to what is for many people a vital part of their finance, would be better off investing in ways to help people work in more appropriate was as their circumstances allow.

As we already see, many people either dont have a problem with, or accept having to do some work into what used to be thought of as retirement age. But full time work to 68 or 70 is either impossible , or very difficult for many people, or undesirable for the economy. The More older people there are working, for example, the fewer opportunities there are for young people.
I expect Caliban's former role is now being done by somebody much younger and even better suited to the demands of modern day legal practice.

[teamsaint]

Taxes are a sign of a civilised and caring society.

They are a way of taking money from individuals and businesses , and passing it to the state.
They can be used for good or bad purposes. They can be well thought out, or badly constructed, so as to be unfair.
I expect North Korea has taxes.
(Edit ;actually it claims not to have income taxes and raises its revenue through sales taxes.)
Marginal deduction rates of 40% for young workers on moderate incomes, who are suffering extortionate housing costs aren't at all civilised.

[Nick Armstrong]

Great to hear this.

Beyond that , this is a good lesson in how the government, instead of taking the axe to what is for many people a vital part of their finance, would be better off investing in ways to help people work in more appropriate was as their circumstances allow.

As we already see, many people either dont have a problem with, or accept having to do some work into what used to be thought of as retirement age. But full time work to 68 or 70 is either impossible , or very difficult for many people, or undesirable for the economy. The More older people there are working, for example, the fewer opportunities there are for young people.

I expect Caliban's former role is now being done by somebody much younger and even better suited to the demands of modern day legal practice.

[french frank]

I expect North Korea has taxes.
(Edit ;actually it claims not to have income taxes and raises its revenue through sales taxes.)

Interesting. In fact, a report by the Equality Trust found that income tax and NIC were 'broadly progressive' but the tax inequalities came in with indirect taxes, on consumption (VAT) and council tax.

'The report said the higher percentage paid by the poor at the moment was down to a number of taxes. "While income tax and national insurance are broadly progressive, the bottom 10% of households pay roughly 23% of their gross household income in indirect taxes on consumption and more than four times as much of their income in council tax as the top 10%," it said.'

So not so good in N. Korea.

[Beef Oven!]

Interesting. In fact, a report by the Equality Trust found that income tax and NIC were 'broadly progressive' but the tax inequalities came in with indirect taxes, on consumption (VAT) and council tax.

'The report said the higher percentage paid by the poor at the moment was down to a number of taxes. "While income tax and national insurance are broadly progressive, the bottom 10% of households pay roughly 23% of their gross household income in indirect taxes on consumption and more than four times as much of their income in council tax as the top 10%," it said.'

So not so good in N. Korea.

I find it disappointing that studies like this so often leave so much to be desired from a research/analysis perspective. This report doesn’t tell us much more than 1) well off people have more money than the less well-off. 2) There is a fairly fixed base-line to basic living costs that affect all people in a pretty similar way. 3) If you don’t spend all your money, or don’t have to spend it all, you will spend relatively less on expenditure taxes. Doesn't it?

[Richard Barrett]

[COLOR="#0000FF"] The more older people there are working, for example, the fewer opportunities there are for young people.

It depends on what they're doing of course. But, as you said before, there is enough wealth around to ensure that everyone's ok, they have somewhere to live, they don't have to work until they drop dead etc. Further to this, there's an increasing number of fairly tedious jobs in manufacturing etc. which don't actually need to be done by humans. And at the same time, as David Graeber has pointed out, an increasing number of jobs people do that don't really need to be done at all. And all of this while wealth inequality is increasing. Really there shouldn't be anyone struggling to survive, especially in a rich country like the UK.

[french frank]

I find it disappointing that studies like this so often leave so much to be desired from a research/analysis perspective.

That report was only mentioned in response to the narrow point which had been made about income tax (none in N. Korea) v taxes on consumption (sales taxes). I'm sure there is further research and analysis if one looks for it.

[ardcarp]

Taxes are a sign of a civilised and caring society.

Agreed. The Scandinavian countries all appear to accept higher levels of personal income-based taxation as the corner-stone of a 'caring' state. How taxation doesn't become a political football in Norway, Sweden and Denmark is interesting. It's something to do with universally civilised social attitudes, I think, and I wonder why we haven't got them? I suppose population size is a factor too, though I can't put my finger on why that is........

[Beef Oven!]

That report was only mentioned in response to the narrow point which had been made about income tax (none in N. Korea) v taxes on consumption (sales taxes). I'm sure there is further research and analysis if one looks for it.

One would hope. IMV, this sort of report does not get to the heart of the matter (I’ll not repeat it, but it’s pretty much what RB says in post #423).

[ahinton]

Only this morning I overheard a remark (I think on the Today programme on R4) that there has been a substantial increase in the number of women over 70 in UK still working; I didn't catch what the reasons for that were supposed to be or even what the figures were, but I imagine that at least some of them do this out of choice although most probably out of a necessity brought about in part as a consequence of the proportion of women who are not currently entitled to full state retirement benefit.

One problem with accessing that entitlement for those who have not worked and paid sufficient NICs is that the only way in which to do so is to fund NIC3s, which are so expensive that only better off people would be able to afford to do this in order to make up their 35-year qualifying period.

Obviously, the longer people live, the more money will be required to pay out state retirement benefit because people will be entitled to receive it for longer periods of time unless the entitlement age is increased; that's not to say that I advocate such increases in entitlement age, but the increasing lifespan argument will likely be put forward incessantly by those "in charge" as an excuse for seeking to raise that entitlement age. It also looks increasingly as thought the triple lock that's applied to annual increases in state retirement benefit is under fire, though what the outcome of that might be remains to be seen.

[Serial_Apologist]

Agreed. The Scandinavian countries all appear to accept higher levels of personal income-based taxation as the corner-stone of a 'caring' state. How taxation doesn't become a political football in Norway, Sweden and Denmark is interesting. It's something to do with universally civilised social attitudes, I think, and I wonder why we haven't got them? I suppose population size is a factor too, though I can't put my finger on why that is........

The Scandinavian countries would I imagine carry less of a mixed burden of ideological baggage when it comes to dealing with a legacy such as ours, advantaged from having been first in line in many areas of 'progress', including the Industrial Revolution, having an empire, all that these things allowed, including parliamentary democracy and the welfare state. What does it do to be told you're better than anybody else, and tourists flock to experience the experience, meanwhile you've priced yourself out of a job, and only by working the longest hours in the advanced world in a service industry-dominated economy that works on the principle of gambling? I don't imagine Scandinavians are told by their media they have choice, which is morally strenghtening as against interferences from a namby-pamby state - euphemism for a state which controls against the excesses of laisser-faire free enterprise practices a la Hayek - but at the same time are too stupid/uneducated/lazy/greedy to deserve what they can only 'afford' by going into debt. As with the "'brain drain', others have profited. Tying in with this, the other side of capitalism - its inherent insecurities, the wealth/income gap and fact that those at the top have the wherewithal to secure themselves against them, and that affordable merchandise for the ordinary masses is, like their gains in secure employment terms - are all evanescent and unsustainable unless they really do take power and control and plan things for need in the first instance.

[Dave2002]

Agreed. The Scandinavian countries all appear to accept higher levels of personal income-based taxation as the corner-stone of a 'caring' state. How taxation doesn't become a political football in Norway, Sweden and Denmark is interesting. It's something to do with universally civilised social attitudes, I think, and I wonder why we haven't got them? I suppose population size is a factor too, though I can't put my finger on why that is........

I'm not sure it's quite as simple as that. If you visit Sweden you'll probably wonder how people manage to live there, but it is possible, and if you break down the taxes into components, and compare with the UK then it might not turn out to be too dissimilar. It's no good just comparing the obvious published tax rates - you have to take into account extras, such as National Insurance contributions, which may not apply in other countries, and to look at comparable examples.

[Lat-Literal]

Neither of today's reports are as radical as:

- the Adair based reforms of 2007
- the Webb/Freud reforms of 2011 (Freud retired at Christmas aged 66)
- the opinions of Adair in 2017 which are for pensions only at age 70 for people currently in their 50s.

My immediate reaction was that by modern day standards the recommendations are mild.

But there is a question about whether people aged 40-70 with parents aged 70-100 are more of a burden on the state if they continue to be in full time employment.

And as is often the case there are no answers about what is for the best or worse.

Baroness Altmann is generally helpful in providing some suitable nuances.

[teamsaint]

Perhaps they should put somebody in charge who isn't too well off.
Or ask people what they want.

Or something.

Amyway here are manifesto pledges for 2010.

http://www.cartlidgemorland.com/articles/election-manifesto-pensions-comparison-may-2010/

and 2015.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11493802/Welfare-and-pension-policies-General-Election-2015-and-where-each-party-stand.htm

I can't see much from any party about further raising the age in the 2015 article.

Personally, I would think a sensible cost saver would be to abandon the triple lock, and keep increase to the higher of CPI or earnings increases, and abandon the 2.5% .

[Lat-Literal]

Perhaps they should put somebody in charge who isn't too well off.
Or ask people what they want.

Or something.

Amyway here are manifesto pledges for 2010.

http://www.cartlidgemorland.com/articles/election-manifesto-pensions-comparison-may-2010/

and 2015.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11493802/Welfare-and-pension-policies-General-Election-2015-and-where-each-party-stand.htm

I can't see much from any party about further raising the age in the 2015 article.

Personally, I would think a sensible cost saver would be to abandon the triple lock, and keep increase to the higher of CPI or earnings increases, and abandon the 2.5% .

The triple lock can go as it was always a con - perhaps replace it with a double lock.

Realistically, if we have to have 50% at university, we need to get them there at 17, "graduated" and into employment at 20, married at 21 and all children born to them by 23, probably with big financial (housing?) incentives, so after 40 they can do the caring role, thereby saving the state whatever the difference is between care costs and a pension.

(Where inheritance is a factor, it seems right the offspring care for those from whom they will inherit and arguably they are more in need of a pension before that inheritance!)