In todays news...

[Cousin Jack]

It also ignores the fact UK welfare spending has been increasing steadily for the last 5 decades, so "putting our country first" is exactly what the budget has been doing.

I would go further, we have been ignoring reality and overpaying ourselves for the last 50 years. The total benefits bill now, compared to then, is astronomic. Not just in £, but in all the things you can now get 'support' for. All very commendable stuff, but that magic money tree is getting tired, and we have spent all the money from 'windfall, like North Sea oil and gas.

[Cousin Jack]

What we need, but won't get, is a total re-write of the whole taxation juggernaut. Make it simple, make it fair, and sweep away all the historic crap. It would also be a lot cheaper to collect.

Don't hold your breath.

[Taipan]

You have to pay to qualify, but AFAIK ALL taxation goes into the Treasury pot, and separate funds for this and that no longer exist.

It's bollox, that what it is. I doesn't cover the cost of pensions, let alone anything else on top. It's just no-one has the motivation/nads to bin it off and increase income tax instead. Can't have a simpler tax, can you?

Then they could 'means test' state pension payments and stop this 'I've paid my money into the pension scheme, I demand the return on my investment...for 30+ years' nonsense.

But for up to 39 years they've been paying into it and propping up the welfare system, so now it's time to get something back. Change the system and hit the younger ones by all means, as I agree the whole system needs reform, but don't hit the ones who paid in on the understanding it'd benefit them when their time comes. PAYE is a main contributor, is the self-employed they should target here.

[Cousin Jack]

But for up to 39 years they've been paying into it and propping up the welfare system, so now it's time to get something back. Change the system and hit the younger ones by all means, as I agree the whole system needs reform, but don't hit the ones who paid in on the understanding it'd benefit them when their time comes. PAYE is a main contributor, is the self-employed they should target here.

THAT ^^ is why we have such a byzantine tax system. Must be 'fair' to those who have been in it for 10/20/30/40/50 years, so nothing EVER changes except for tinkering at the edges.

As for the self-employed versus PAYE, you do realize they don't get stuff like sick pay, holidays, etc. I have done both, and self employment is not that much different. It is easier to cheat, but a decent system would crack down on cheats rather than blame all self employment.

[Count Steer]

It's bollox, that what it is. I doesn't cover the cost of pensions, let alone anything else on top. It's just no-one has the motivation/nads to bin it off and increase income tax instead. Can't have a simpler tax, can you?

Then they could 'means test' state pension payments and stop this 'I've paid my money into the pension scheme, I demand the return on my investment...for 30+ years' nonsense.

But for up to 39 years they've been paying into it and propping up the welfare system, so now it's time to get something back. Change the system and hit the younger ones by all means, as I agree the whole system needs reform, but don't hit the ones who paid in on the understanding it'd benefit them when their time comes. PAYE is a main contributor, is the self-employed they should target here.

Why shouldn't benefits be assigned according to need? If you've made a mint/got a fur lined company pension why take a state benefit too when that cash could go where it would do more good? The only argument is that the payments in (NI) have become inextricably linked to pensions. Scrap NI and break that (false) link and pay benefits based on need rather than by default.

[Taipan]

But for up to 39 years they've been paying into it and propping up the welfare system, so now it's time to get something back. Change the system and hit the younger ones by all means, as I agree the whole system needs reform, but don't hit the ones who paid in on the understanding it'd benefit them when their time comes. PAYE is a main contributor, is the self-employed they should target here.

THAT ^^ is why we have such a byzantine tax system. Must be 'fair' to those who have been in it for 10/20/30/40/50 years, so nothing EVER changes except for tinkering at the edges.

As for the self-employed versus PAYE, you do realize they don't get stuff like sick pay, holidays, etc. I have done both, and self employment is not that much different. It is easier to cheat, but a decent system would crack down on cheats rather than blame all self employment.

No, just bring in the changes with a start date and not retrospectively for past contributors. Yes, I do realise as I try and get back at the builders I know that have loads of undeclared earnings and tax write-offs the PAYE people don't get. So I like to remind them I'm being paid in full to sit on the beach where as they are losing wages!

[Taipan]

Then they could 'means test' state pension payments and stop this 'I've paid my money into the pension scheme, I demand the return on my investment...for 30+ years' nonsense.

But for up to 39 years they've been paying into it and propping up the welfare system, so now it's time to get something back. Change the system and hit the younger ones by all means, as I agree the whole system needs reform, but don't hit the ones who paid in on the understanding it'd benefit them when their time comes. PAYE is a main contributor, is the self-employed they should target here.

Why shouldn't benefits be assigned according to need? If you've made a mint/got a fur lined company pension why take a state benefit too when that cash could go where it would do more good? The only argument is that the payments in (NI) have become inextricably linked to pensions. Scrap NI and break that (false) link and pay benefits based on need rather than by default.

I'm not against means testing for any benefit, be it pensions or child benefit etc. I am against bringing in changes that affect people that should be able to draw on the system they paid into expecting to be able to do so.

[Count Steer]

But for up to 39 years they've been paying into it and propping up the welfare system, so now it's time to get something back. Change the system and hit the younger ones by all means, as I agree the whole system needs reform, but don't hit the ones who paid in on the understanding it'd benefit them when their time comes. PAYE is a main contributor, is the self-employed they should target here.

Why shouldn't benefits be assigned according to need? If you've made a mint/got a fur lined company pension why take a state benefit too when that cash could go where it would do more good? The only argument is that the payments in (NI) have become inextricably linked to pensions. Scrap NI and break that (false) link and pay benefits based on need rather than by default.

I'm not against means testing for any benefit, be it pensions or child benefit etc. I am against bringing in changes that affect people that should be able to draw on the system they paid into expecting to be able to do so.

Understood and there's no reason they shouldn't be able to....if they need to ie it's actually an insurance rather than a universal benefit. Unless there's a shift in understanding of what a benefit actually is things will NEVER change.

Look what happened when they removed the winter bribe/fuel payment. You'd think they'd gone out and killed the firstborn son of every household.

[Taipan]

Why shouldn't benefits be assigned according to need? If you've made a mint/got a fur lined company pension why take a state benefit too when that cash could go where it would do more good? The only argument is that the payments in (NI) have become inextricably linked to pensions. Scrap NI and break that (false) link and pay benefits based on need rather than by default.

I'm not against means testing for any benefit, be it pensions or child benefit etc. I am against bringing in changes that affect people that should be able to draw on the system they paid into expecting to be able to do so.

Understood and there's no reason they shouldn't be able to....if they need to ie it's actually an insurance rather than a universal benefit. Unless there's a shift in understanding of what a benefit actually is things will NEVER change.

Look what happened when they removed the winter bribe/fuel payment. You'd think they'd gone out and killed the firstborn son of every household.

No, not the first born, but possibly the nan and/or grandad of some families!

[Rockburner]

You have to pay to qualify, but AFAIK ALL taxation goes into the Treasury pot, and separate funds for this and that no longer exist.

It's bollox, that what it is. I doesn't cover the cost of pensions, let alone anything else on top. It's just no-one has the motivation/nads to bin it off and increase income tax instead. Can't have a simpler tax, can you?

Then they could 'means test' state pension payments and stop this 'I've paid my money into the pension scheme, I demand the return on my investment...for 30+ years' nonsense.

My Dad was always pissed off that he'd paid into the NI scheme since it started and he was never going to live long enough to get it back.

[Dodgy69]

The point i was trying to get at was, it doesn't really matter where the NI money goes, be it, state pension or champagne. If your paying NI contributions you are in line for a state pension, eventually.

[Horse]

It's bollox, that what it is. I doesn't cover the cost of pensions, let alone anything else on top. It's just no-one has the motivation/nads to bin it off and increase income tax instead. Can't have a simpler tax, can you?

Then they could 'means test' state pension payments and stop this 'I've paid my money into the pension scheme, I demand the return on my investment...for 30+ years' nonsense.

Isn't that what they're doing with the fuel payment?

[Taipan]

It's bollox, that what it is. I doesn't cover the cost of pensions, let alone anything else on top. It's just no-one has the motivation/nads to bin it off and increase income tax instead. Can't have a simpler tax, can you?

Then they could 'means test' state pension payments and stop this 'I've paid my money into the pension scheme, I demand the return on my investment...for 30+ years' nonsense.

My Dad was always pissed off that he'd paid into the NI scheme since it started and he was never going to live long enough to get it back.

The stats of how many men never lived to claim their pension compared how many do now is incredible. I don't have time to find the chart/graph thing but its out there. Also, the amount that died within the first year of retirement was a notable stat too. All of the numbers certainly highlight the need for reform, even if the dispute is over how it's rolled out.

[westers151]

Why shouldn't benefits be assigned according to need? If you've made a mint/got a fur lined company pension why take a state benefit too when that cash could go where it would do more good? The only argument is that the payments in (NI) have become inextricably linked to pensions. Scrap NI and break that (false) link and pay benefits based on need rather than by default.

I dunno why the government (any government) haven't set up an investment scheme with which to fund pensions, rather than trying to pay it out of the petty cash each year. Take the NI contributions (or portion of), chuck it into an investment and start using the earnings from it to help fund it.

Details, etc, need thrashing out, but you get the simple idea. Plus the scheme should be ring fenced from the actual ruling party of the time - i.e, they can't dip into it to fund other stuff, etc, etc.

Same with health

[JackyJoll]

I do hope the alleged extremely lucrative corruption in Bangladeshi matters doesn’t dull her shining credentials for tackling corruption in UK financial markets.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cp3zqen209go

A Labour minister has been named in an investigation into claims her family embezzled up to £3.9bn (Tk 590 billion) from infrastructure projects in Bangladesh.
Tulip Siddiq, who as the Treasury's Economic Secretary is responsible for tackling corruption in UK financial markets, is alleged to have brokered a deal with Russia in 2013 for a new nuclear power plant in Bangladesh that saw £1bn siphoned off into private hands.

[Cousin Jack]

Why shouldn't benefits be assigned according to need? If you've made a mint/got a fur lined company pension why take a state benefit too when that cash could go where it would do more good? The only argument is that the payments in (NI) have become inextricably linked to pensions. Scrap NI and break that (false) link and pay benefits based on need rather than by default.

I dunno why the government (any government) haven't set up an investment scheme with which to fund pensions, rather than trying to pay it out of the petty cash each year. Take the NI contributions (or portion of), chuck it into an investment and start using the earnings from it to help fund it.

Details, etc, need thrashing out, but you get the simple idea. Plus the scheme should be ring fenced from the actual ruling party of the time - i.e, they can't dip into it to fund other stuff, etc, etc.

Same with health

A sort of Sovereign Wealth Fund, like Norway, Saudi, and most of the other Gulf States have?

No, our governments, of whatever stripe, like to spend all the money they can get and sod the future. They call it 'kicking it into the long grass' - someone else's problem. Why should any PM care, in 5 years or less he is probably out on his (or her) ear.

[JackyJoll]

Why shouldn't benefits be assigned according to need? If you've made a mint/got a fur lined company pension why take a state benefit too when that cash could go where it would do more good? The only argument is that the payments in (NI) have become inextricably linked to pensions. Scrap NI and break that (false) link and pay benefits based on need rather than by default.

I dunno why the government (any government) haven't set up an investment scheme with which to fund pensions, rather than trying to pay it out of the petty cash each year. Take the NI contributions (or portion of), chuck it into an investment and start using the earnings from it to help fund it.

Details, etc, need thrashing out, but you get the simple idea. Plus the scheme should be ring fenced from the actual ruling party of the time - i.e, they can't dip into it to fund other stuff, etc, etc.

Same with health

Just as an example of why not: Gordon Brown. https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/com ... rrors.html

A government that wants short term gain will dip into it. They’ll create “dipping in” laws to do it, if they have to.

edit- As CJ said!

[westers151]

Yeah, a Sovereign wealth fund, and as for dipping into it, that's why I said it's ring fenced by law so they can't do that, in the same way companies can't (legally) dip into pension funds in the UK.

[Cousin Jack]

Yeah, a Sovereign wealth fund, and as for dipping into it, that's why I said it's ring fenced by law so they can't do that, in the same way companies can't (legally) dip into pension funds in the UK.

Yebut, governments make and change laws, and our unwritten constitution says no government today can restrict what the next one can do. So ring fencing works for people and companies, but not governments.

[westers151]

Yeah, a Sovereign wealth fund, and as for dipping into it, that's why I said it's ring fenced by law so they can't do that, in the same way companies can't (legally) dip into pension funds in the UK.

Yebut, governments make and change laws, and our unwritten constitution says no government today can restrict what the next one can do. So ring fencing works for people and companies, but not governments.

True, and it's quite sad really