May's "ordinary working people"?

[BBMmk2]

:laugh::laugh:
She's lying and only trying to hang on to power
Don't for one minute think any of them care at all for self-employed people least of all musicians :sadface:
At least Ken Clarke actually listens to music

Trust no one

Ignore my comment.

[ardcarp]

By the way, there's no such thing as a "state pension" ad nor should the be; the many and varied things that government should do does not include acting as a professional pension provider and the so-called "state pension" is not and has never been a "pension" of any kind, since it is entirely different to all other pensions in which people invest into a fund for their ultimate personal (hoped-for) benefit and which can be vested by the investor at his/her discretion at a time of his/her choosing, subject to the legal provisions applicable thereto.

Why is there no such thing as a 'state pension'? One starts receiving it at a certain age, it is a fixed amount (vaguely inflation-proofed) and continues, come what may, until death. That, IMHO, is a pension. What really annoys me is the re-naming of it as a 'benefit'. Having negotiated the twists and turns life without hand-outs of any sort (with the exception, I admit, of Child Benefit) I find it rather demeaning to be told my state pension, to which I and most others are entitled, is now a 'benefit'. Why is it a benefit, may I ask? I suspect the government has some weaselly reason for this re-naming.

[french frank]

:laugh::laugh:
She's lying and only trying to hang on to power
Don't for one minute think any of them care at all for self-employed people least of all musicians :sadface:

??? I wouldn't describe it as 'good leadership' either, but it was 'politics'. Hammond probably did read the election commitment in too literal a way, May as well. But when they could see the policy wasn't carrying their own party with it, they had no option but a U-turn. 'Hanging on to power' doesn't come into it: if the budget had been voted down and there had been a vote of confidence, the government would have won comfortably. Not good leadership - just damage control.

But skipping nimbly away from any whiff of party politics :smiley: if you look purely at how government expenditure is allocated, it's 'obvious' [NB quotes] cuts must be made in welfare and health, followed by state pensions and education, since between them they account for approaching three quarters of all government spending. Abolish all defence spending and divide the savings between those four and they don't get a lot each. Meanwhile the other quarter of government spending is shared between Transport, Public Order and safety, Business and Industry, Environment, Culture, Housing, Overseas aid, national debt (that's slightly more than defence spending) - they even manage a smidgeon for our contribution to the EU which, if discontinued, would only make a real difference to the very smallest budgets - but to Welfare and Health, less than peanuts.

Mind you, higher tax revenues might ease things …

[french frank]

Why is there no such thing as a 'state pension'?

As Mr Hinton should know, the official HMRC name is "State Pension(s)".

[MrGongGong]

??? I wouldn't describe it as 'good leadership' either, but it was 'politics'. Hammond probably did read the election commitment in too literal a way, May as well. But when they could see the policy wasn't carrying their own party with it, they had no option but a U-turn. 'Hanging on to power' doesn't come into it: if the budget had been voted down and there had been a vote of confidence, the government would have won comfortably. Not good leadership - just damage control.

But skipping nimbly away from any whiff of party politics :smiley: if you look purely at how government expenditure is allocated, it's 'obvious' [NB quotes] cuts must be made in welfare and health, followed by state pensions and education, since between them they account for approaching three quarters of all government spending. Abolish all defence spending and divide the savings between those four and they don't get a lot each. Meanwhile the other quarter of government spending is shared between Transport, Public Order and safety, Business and Industry, Environment, Culture, Housing, Overseas aid, national debt (that's slightly more than defence spending) - they even manage a smidgeon for our contribution to the EU which, if discontinued, would only make a real difference to the very smallest budgets - but to Welfare and Health, less than peanuts.

Mind you, higher tax revenues might ease things …

If I was a believer in conspiracies I might think that what happened was the plan all along
Something like

1: People don't trust politicians
2: Propose something that could be twisted to appear not to be going against what they said previously
3: Say something about how, even though "technically" it wasn't breaking a promise they will go with what the "ordinary working people" understand to be what they meant
4: Appear to be listening and make a small change to try to appeal to everyone

I don't buy it for one minute

[french frank]

If I was a believer in conspiracies

Are you? You may work through all the conspiracies you like, but they are the product of your prejudices, aren't they? [So what's new?]

[MrGongGong]

[So what's new?]

Nothing is new
Just the same old people (though most are younger than me!) incompetently messing about with peoples lives with no consideration for those whom they are damaging.
:sadface:

(take no notice of me though, several bad/tragic things happened recently)

[french frank]

take no notice of me though, several bad/tragic things happened recently)

On that, commiserations :sadface:

[Bryn]

As Mr Hinton should know, the official HMRC name is "State Pension(s)".

Indeed, as this has been pointed out to him on at least one previous occasion here. As to combining NICs into Income tax, that would be something of an electoral non-starter, would it not? Which section of the electorate shows itself most ready to participate in voting? It's those of pensionable age. Who would be hit hardest by the incorporation of NICS into Income Tax? It's that same tranche of voters, who are currently exempt from paying NICs.

[ahinton]

As Mr Hinton should know, the official HMRC name is "State Pension(s)".

Calling you German Mark would not make you other than French Frank. How "official" the term "state pension(s)" might be is in any case open to question, since DWP (which pays out state retirement benefit) uses both "state pension(s)" and "state retirement benefit".

[ahinton]

Indeed, as this has been pointed out to him on at least one previous occasion here. As to combining NICs into Income tax, that would be something of an electoral non-starter, would it not? Which section of the electorate shows itself most ready to participate in voting? It's those of pensionable age. Who would be hit hardest by the incorporation of NICS into Income Tax? It's that same tranche of voters, who are currently exempt from paying NICs.

That would be true if unaccompanied by increased income tax personal allowances and I agree that merging income tax and NIC would be unfair to many taxpayers of state retirement age and above if their personal income tax allowances were not increased sufficiently to ensure that they would not be penalised by such a move. On the other hand, the amount of money that would be saved by such a merger along with other much-needed simplifications to the tax system would likely be considerable, not least in reducing the amounts of tax planning work done by accountants whose fees are offset against the taxes that they mitigate.

[vinteuil]

.

... I've never understood Mr Hinton's objection to our state old age pension being called a pension. There are various systems of funding for pensions - the French distinguish between un système de retraite par répartition and un régime de retraite par capitalisation - the former using the funds paid in now by current workers to fund the pensions of the current old (and thus encouraging a sense of 'solidarity' between the generations, n'est-ce pas?), in the latter the funds of the current workers are put in pots to fund their own eventual old age. But both systems lead to "old age pensions".

[ahinton]

Why is there no such thing as a 'state pension'? One starts receiving it at a certain age, it is a fixed amount (vaguely inflation-proofed) and continues, come what may, until death. That, IMHO, is a pension. What really annoys me is the re-naming of it as a 'benefit'. Having negotiated the twists and turns life without hand-outs of any sort (with the exception, I admit, of Child Benefit) I find it rather demeaning to be told my state pension, to which I and most others are entitled, is now a 'benefit'. Why is it a benefit, may I ask? I suspect the government has some weaselly reason for this re-naming.

I'd thought that I'd answered that in the remainder of my paragraph. Most people begin to receive it upon attaining state retirement age, although they can defer it if so they choose and state retirement age is an upwardly mobile figure anyway and might not last forever, especially in a climate when ever more people of that age and above are not actually retired. It is a benefit in the sense that its recipients have not invested in it and it is administered by the same government department as administers other welfare benefits. There's absolutely nothing "demeaning" about people receiving such benefit as they are entitled to for whatever reason/s.

As I wrote, government is not an investment house with the skills that should be attributable to pensions providers and trustees - and it does have more important things to do than pretend to be such. I don't know about a renaming in that I do not know when it was first described officially as state retirement benefit.

Even then, it's still misleading in that it is paid to people of state retirement age and above who have not chosen to defer it irrespective of whether or not they are retired; the only qualification for entitlement to it is age. There was a time when it was called the "old age pension" and its recipients "old age pensioners", albeit it never officially so in either case as far as I know; now that could be interpreted as demeaning as well as misleading to the extent that most people today would not regard those in their latter 60s as "old".

[ahinton]

.

... I've never understood Mr Hinton's objection to our state old age pension being called a pension. There are various systems of funding for pensions - the French distinguish between un système de retraite par répartition and un régime de retraite par capitalisation - the former using the funds paid in now by current workers to fund the pensions of the current old (and thus encouraging a sense of 'solidarity' between the generations, n'est-ce pas?), in the latter the funds of the current workers are put in pots to fund their own eventual old age. But both systems lead to "old age pensions".

I don't especially "object" to it as such; my reservations about it centre around the use of the term "pension" to define it while at the same time it that term is used to define investments made over years into pension plans by employers, employees and the self-employed which can be vested well before or well after the contributor reaches state retirement age; they're such different phenomena and accordingly deserve to be termed differently.

Of the two French examples that you helpfully cite, the former seems to be similar to the UK state retirement benefit system and the latter to UK pensions to which those in work contribute; the difference would appear to be to the former to the extent that, in UK, NICs are used to fund all state benefits, not just state retirement benefit whereas the way you describe it suggests that it is hypothecated by the French equivalent of NIC being allocated to French state retirement benefit.

However, two other major differences in principle in the state system in France are that (a) social charges are tax-deductible (which is largely why a smaller proportion of French people pay income tax compared to that in UK) and (b) they do not necessarily end at state retirement age as NICs do in UK, so I would be wary of trying to compare like with like.

[french frank]

How "official" the term "state pension(s)" might be is in any case opne to question, since DWP (which pays out state retirement benefit) uses both "state pension(s)" and "state retirement benefit".

QED. There are two points at issue:

1. Is the payment to retired citizens a pension?

2. Is it a benefit?

1. seems to be indisputable, being no more than a regular payment, and you appear to agree in the above quote. It therefore seems odd to 'correct' the usage as if it were wrong.

2. is it, on the other hand/also, a benefit: disputable but not the point at issue.