Brexit and the Consequences

[seekingTruth16]

We all take the NHS for granted. But so too state pensions. These are the most expensive benefits available form any government, and with an ageing population, the outlook is bleak.

Isn't it worth a debate as to why these are universal benefits and why we have universal benefits in the first place?

Well it's a bit rich to debate whether you should provide the service or not after you've taken the money for decades! You'd make a great politician.

State pension is manageable. You just need to adjust the age at which you receive it, or adjust the amount, or encourage young migrants to come to this country and work and pay for the ageing population. It doesn't need to be eliminated or have massive tax increases to fund it.

Until we eliminate the budget deficit and start paying down the debt, taxes will always go up and what you get for your taxes will go down. This is irrespective of any privatisation.

 

[counter_violent]

Fear not, May will be leader according to the betting odds, which are shortening by the hr. So, Brexit will mean Brexit 🙂

https://www.oddschecker.com/insight...onates-with-punters-ahead-of-general-election

 

[tomorton]

Well it's a bit rich to debate whether you should provide the service or not after you've taken the money for decades! You'd make a great politician.

State pension is manageable. You just need to adjust the age at which you receive it, or adjust the amount, or encourage young migrants to come to this country and work and pay for the ageing population. It doesn't need to be eliminated or have massive tax increases to fund it.

Until we eliminate the budget deficit and start paying down the debt, taxes will always go up and what you get for your taxes will go down. This is irrespective of any privatisation.

Why is there a state pension?

 

[seekingTruth16]

Why is there a state pension?

It's a social contract. At some point, some people will not have enough money to pay their way and they will be unable to work. Society gives them this means as a pension, as opposed to just leaving old people to starve and die.

In terms of this sort of social contract, I think either you do away with all tax, and privatise everything, or you have these sort of government provided functions and pay tax for them. What I take objection to is the political trickery that convinces some people that if they privatise such and such, you will pay less tax. Evidence is to the contrary. You will pay just as much or more tax, but now you will also have to pay more to the private company. And a large part of that more will be profit and paid to shareholders, rather than reinvested to improve the thing you privatised. You will pay more to get the same thing you had. We see this in railways, education, tax, even healthcare.

If the government wants to take away the NHS and the state pension, ok, but we all want to have our NI and income taxes back for all the years we've worked, thanks.

 

[counter_violent]

Why is there a state pension?

Not to make light of what is supposed to be a safety net in old age.

But you have to question the motivation of the political classes around at the time it was introduced, along with other developments like, NHS, welfare, etc etc.

Rather than create a better, more cohesive nation where no one slipped through the net. The consequences now are, that it created a dependency on ever more govt, of either persuasion, where those offering the moon were more likely to get elected.

And so the seeds of the great decline into perpetual debt were sown.

 

[tomorton]

It's a social contract. At some point, some people will not have enough money to pay their way and they will be unable to work. Society gives them this means as a pension, as opposed to just leaving old people to starve and die.

In terms of this sort of social contract, I think either you do away with all tax, and privatise everything, or you have these sort of government provided functions and pay tax for them. What I take objection to is the political trickery that convinces some people that if they privatise such and such, you will pay less tax. Evidence is to the contrary. You will pay just as much or more tax, but now you will also have to pay more to the private company. And a large part of that more will be profit and paid to shareholders, rather than reinvested to improve the thing you privatised. You will pay more to get the same thing you had. We see this in railways, education, tax, even healthcare.

If the pension is to support people who can't physically work, why is it paid to people who can? And those who can pay their way?

 

[Jason101]

Why is there a state pension?

Exactly, or the NHS

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1337155249702638&substory_index=0&id=1333919483359548

Just look at the link to what the NHS is costing us for the immigrants and how we are struggling.

 

[seekingTruth16]

Not to make light of what is supposed to be a safety net in old age.

But you have to question the motivation of the political classes around at the time it was introduced, along with other developments like, NHS, welfare, etc etc.

Rather than create a better, more cohesive nation where no one slipped through the net. The consequences now are, that it created a dependency on ever more govt, of either persuasion, where those offering the moon were more likely to get elected.

And so the seeds of the great decline into perpetual debt were sown.

I think you're right. As I said, either you get rid of it all, or you accept it. Just don't be naive enough to think the government is interested in saving you some tax.

If you get rid of it all, you'll have problems of a different kind.

 

[seekingTruth16]

If the pension is to support people who can't physically work, why is it paid to people who can? And those who can pay their way?

Because you need to incentivise people working and paying for it and also incentivise saving extra for your retirement. Also it's not something that you can easily judge. If you have 100k, do you have enough to pay your way? Maybe for some years, but then no. Do you propose waiting until someone has nothing left before they get benefits? Maybe something like the dole, where you can't claim if you have more than £x,000 in savings. It could work, but I know I'll still be paying just as much tax, and at the end I'll be getting less. Why would you want this sort of thing?

 

[seekingTruth16]

Exactly, or the NHS

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1337155249702638&substory_index=0&id=1333919483359548

Just look at the link to what the NHS is costing us for the immigrants and how we are struggling.

So you want to get rid of the NHS and the state pension. Police are struggling for money too, as are teachers. Do you want to get rid of free education and policing as well while you're at it?

 

[tomorton]

Because you need to incentivise people working and paying for it and also incentivise saving extra for your retirement. Also it's not something that you can easily judge. If you have 100k, do you have enough to pay your way? Maybe for some years, but then no. Do you propose waiting until someone has nothing left before they get benefits? Maybe something like the dole, where you can't claim if you have more than £x,000 in savings. It could work, but I know I'll still be paying just as much tax, and at the end I'll be getting less. Why would you want this sort of thing?

Wouldn't it incentivise people more to work and save if they knew they were going to receive less in state pension?

I don't mind paying a progressive income tax. And I'm happy if this helps support those who physically can't work. But I think I can object to my tax helping maintain the lifestyle of the retired gentlefolk of Budleigh Salterton.

 

[dbphoenix]

Wouldn't it incentivise people more to work and save if they knew they were going to receive less in state pension?

I don't mind paying a progressive income tax. And I'm happy if this helps support those who physically can't work. But I think I can object to my tax helping maintain the lifestyle of the retired gentlefolk of Budleigh Salterton.

Do you object to your taxes being used to help maintain those with inherited wealth? Do you object to corporate welfare?

 

[Jason101]

So you want to get rid of the NHS and the state pension. Police are struggling for money too, as are teachers. Do you want to get rid of free education and policing as well while you're at it?

You may not agree with me, but a lot of people quietly will.
For those that do then:
VOTE CONSERVATIVES tomorrow.

On paying for education see this link-

https://m.facebook.com/conservativevotersfortheresamay/?refid=13

 

[tomorton]

Do you object to your taxes being used to help maintain those with inherited wealth? Do you object to corporate welfare?

To Q1, Yes.

To Q2, I don't understand your meaning.

 

[counter_violent]

To Q1, Yes.

To Q2, I don't understand your meaning.

In DB's socialist utopia, inherited wealth is a massive problem because not everyone has the same standard of living, ie, not everyone is living in poverty.
Hard to see why this inherited wealth thing is such a problem. It's like saying, we are going to penalise you because your parents or grandparents had the foresight to scrimp and save and defer purchasing power in order that they might have a more secure future for themselves and their dependants. It's the politics of envy and should be dismissed out of hand. Weather we like it or not, investment has to come from somewhere and it is most likely to come from those with money, who seek a return on their investment.

In a socialist state run system, what you have is misappropriation of capital, which doesn't always seek a return on investment according to free market principles. The result being that the state can and does run up massive deficits which in turn have to be financed and paid for by the tax payer.

DB will try and persuade us that we are operating under free market principles. Nothing could be further from the truth.

What we are operating under is a crony capitalist system, where lobbying for govt money (tax payers) cos govts don't have any money of their own, which they then use to subvert free market principles by means of regulation (barriers to entry) or by buying up the competition in order to maintain higher prices and in some cases, near monopolies.

 

[seekingTruth16]

Wouldn't it incentivise people more to work and save if they knew they were going to receive less in state pension?

I don't mind paying a progressive income tax. And I'm happy if this helps support those who physically can't work. But I think I can object to my tax helping maintain the lifestyle of the retired gentlefolk of Budleigh Salterton.

I'm sure it would incentivise if they were getting nothing in pension. Point is, you still need to be able to look after people, and some people are struggling to make ends meet, never mind actually save money. Incentives are moot there. And even if they could save some, do they really know how much they need to save? It's not straightforward, inflation and governments taking away things you thought you'd get forever, can have quite an impact on the accuracy of your forecast of what you need. Plus you don't know how long you'll live.

If your argument is that it should only go to those that really need it, and only when they need it, there's some validity to that. But it gets messy. Someone who owns a house that's worth half a million...well do they now need to sell the house they worked 40 years to pay for, because otherwise they have no income - as technically they have wealth of half a million? Seems quite unfair, not to mention it's not what they were told when they were paying tax into the state pension pot.

For me, I don't begrudge anyone this sort of thing. Those who worked all their life deserve something at the end of their career. Those who need some help, I'm glad that we live in a system that catches them. And it's not as if we don't get benefits from it. Who wants to live in a world where tens of thousands of people have 0 money and 0 income. Their options soon narrow to something none of us wants to live with.

You have a contract with society. Granted you were entered into it without choosing to be. If you're fortunate enough to be able to support yourself for the rest of your life and all possible healthcare costs for you and your family, I suggest you spend some time reflecting on how you got where you got. Hard work, maybe. Did it alone without any help from anyone? Doubtful.

Just as there is a contract with society that the well off pay more and contribute to others well being, there are other forms of the social contract, like the police officer who when facing armed men, still tries to protect civilians, or the paramedics and doctors who go into dangerous situations to help people.


It's sad that people who have enough, and live under this secured umbrella, think that actually, they don't want to give up their taxes for that. Sign of the times I guess.

 

[Atilla]

In DB's socialist utopia, inherited wealth is a massive problem because not everyone has the same standard of living, ie, not everyone is living in poverty.
Hard to see why this inherited wealth thing is such a problem. It's like saying, we are going to penalise you because your parents or grandparents had the foresight to scrimp and save and defer purchasing power in order that they might have a more secure future for themselves and their dependants. It's the politics of envy and should be dismissed out of hand. Weather we like it or not, investment has to come from somewhere and it is most likely to come from those with money, who seek a return on their investment.

In a socialist state run system, what you have is misappropriation of capital, which doesn't always seek a return on investment according to free market principles. The result being that the state can and does run up massive deficits which in turn have to be financed and paid for by the tax payer.

DB will try and persuade us that we are operating under free market principles. Nothing could be further from the truth.

What we are operating under is a crony capitalist system, where lobbying for govt money (tax payers) cos govts don't have any money of their own, which they then use to subvert free market principles by means of regulation (barriers to entry) or by buying up the competition in order to maintain higher prices and in some cases, near monopolies.

What a load of rubbish.

Here we have another expert on capitalism who can determine what is socialism and what is crony capitalism and ultimately and I'm guessing here what is pure and free utopia capitalism - no government at all.


Comic book super expert hero. :clap::clap::clap:

 

[counter_violent]

What a load of rubbish.

Here we have another expert on capitalism who can determine what is socialism and what is crony capitalism and ultimately and I'm guessing here what is pure and free utopia capitalism - no government at all.


Comic book super expert hero. :clap::clap::clap:

Well if that's all you can come back with....I win again 😆

 

[tomorton]

I'm sure it would incentivise if they were getting nothing in pension. Point is, you still need to be able to look after people, and some people are struggling to make ends meet, never mind actually save money. Incentives are moot there. And even if they could save some, do they really know how much they need to save? It's not straightforward, inflation and governments taking away things you thought you'd get forever, can have quite an impact on the accuracy of your forecast of what you need. Plus you don't know how long you'll live.

If your argument is that it should only go to those that really need it, and only when they need it, there's some validity to that. But it gets messy. Someone who owns a house that's worth half a million...well do they now need to sell the house they worked 40 years to pay for, because otherwise they have no income - as technically they have wealth of half a million? Seems quite unfair, not to mention it's not what they were told when they were paying tax into the state pension pot.

For me, I don't begrudge anyone this sort of thing. Those who worked all their life deserve something at the end of their career. Those who need some help, I'm glad that we live in a system that catches them. And it's not as if we don't get benefits from it. Who wants to live in a world where tens of thousands of people have 0 money and 0 income. Their options soon narrow to something none of us wants to live with.

You have a contract with society. Granted you were entered into it without choosing to be. If you're fortunate enough to be able to support yourself for the rest of your life and all possible healthcare costs for you and your family, I suggest you spend some time reflecting on how you got where you got. Hard work, maybe. Did it alone without any help from anyone? Doubtful.

Just as there is a contract with society that the well off pay more and contribute to others well being, there are other forms of the social contract, like the police officer who when facing armed men, still tries to protect civilians, or the paramedics and doctors who go into dangerous situations to help people.


It's sad that people who have enough, and live under this secured umbrella, think that actually, they don't want to give up their taxes for that. Sign of the times I guess.

Should someone get state aid because they have converted their income into property? No.

Should someone get state aid because they don't have an adequate income and don't own property? Yes.

Should the state support someone who is physically incapable of working? Yes. As long as they can't support themselves.

Passing on inheritance to younger members of the family is a laudable thing. But I don't see why I need to contribute any of my tax so that families wealthy enough to own a property can inherit it.

So why is the state pension a universal benefit?

 

[seekingTruth16]

Should someone get state aid because they have converted their income into property? No.

Should someone get state aid because they don't have an adequate income and don't own property? Yes.

Should the state support someone who is physically incapable of working? Yes. As long as they can't support themselves.

Passing on inheritance to younger members of the family is a laudable thing. But I don't see why I need to contribute any of my tax so that families wealthy enough to own a property can inherit it.

So why is the state pension a universal benefit?

Are you unhappy with your lot in life, or are you happy, but just begrudge that others get some handouts? Why does it matter to you?