Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

A tax on the poor ? Utter rubbish !

18th Jan 2013
Save content
Have you found this content useful? Use the button above to save it to your profile.

As you know I do not read a daily paper but whilst waiting in the barber (yes, I do have hair) I picked up a Daily Mail out of boredom. They were all in a lather about the price increase of a Lotto ticket from £1 to £2 , decrying it as a regressive tax on the poor and taking away people's right to dream.

Now, this got me thinking - on the one hand what right to "the poor" have to spend scarce disposable income (often supplied by the state) on gambling , and on the other hand perhaps this potential route out of their rut is a good thing for society.

Time to declare an interest ; I have never purchased a ticket for the National Lottery or Lotto.

Whatever the answer is , it is certainly not a tax , it is a purchase that is freely made without necessity or compulsion.

Is it a sound commercial move ? We'll see how ticket sales are affected

I think we have the basis for a socio-economic study  here....

Tags:

You might also be interested in

Replies (57)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By chatman
18th Jan 2013 11:25

I have never bought a lottery ticket either, but if an entire socio-economic group is doing it more than another, then it is clearly not just down to personal qualities like stupidity, laziness, greed and poor judgement (unless you believe that these things are related to wealth, which sociologists do not).

If it is not down to personal qualities, then we need to consider external factors such as, for example, lack of education, desperation, inability to get money by the means open to other social classes, susceptibility to advertising.

I don't know which, if any of the above, are the cause, but I would say that for the reasons given in my first paragraph, we cannot just blame the poor.

Regarding what right the poor have to buy lottery tickets, I think they have every right. The fact that some of them receive benefits is irrelevant; many benefit recipients work and pay or have paid tax, and people earning up to £60k can get benefits too.

When some people talk about benefit recipients, they mean intentionally unemployed benefit recipients, a tiny proportion of the total, but even if this tiny number of people managed to spend their £71 dole money on lottery tickets after paying for food, clothes and bills, that money is only going back to the state coffers anyway (well, apart from the huge amounts paid to Camelot for running it).

I think the lottery is a con, and should be banned, but we can't blame the poor for participating in it.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Roland195
18th Jan 2013 11:38

Running Numbers

I recall watching some Yank Cop TV show (forget which one, they are so alike I can't tell the difference - even the forensic techs seem to conduct investigations, interview witnesses and shoot/arrest the bad guys) that had some elderly gangster discussing how he used to "run numbers" (illegal lottery) which the cops tried to get him for and "put him away for life" etc but nowdays they sell tickets in every corner shop.

 

 

Thanks (0)
Replying to emanresu:
avatar
By chatman
18th Jan 2013 11:59

@Roland195

Yeah, it is funny how people illegal with immoral.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Chipette:
avatar
By Roland195
18th Jan 2013 12:17

Inconsistent

chatman wrote:

Yeah, it is funny how people illegal with immoral.

I can never understand on what logical basis the sale of alcohol is allowed but cannabis, cocaine etc is not. The health, public disorder etc effects of alcohol must be at least as worse if not worse than most of the other illegal drugs yet no Western country would contemplate it's outright ban.

Every argument against drugs seems to me to apply just as much to alcohol, tobacco etc. This does not even approach the idea that legalising drugs and subjecting them to the same controls and taxation as the others would have significant impacts on crime, revenue, employment etc.

 

 

 

 

Thanks (0)
Replying to Kent accountant:
avatar
By chatman
18th Jan 2013 21:33

Drug Policy

Roland195 wrote:
I can never understand on what logical basis the sale of alcohol is allowed but cannabis, cocaine etc is not

No logical basis, but a very strong political one, not least unleashing the wrath of the US.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Kent accountant:
avatar
By chatman
18th Jan 2013 21:35

Drug-addled Brain

Roland195 wrote:

chatman wrote:

Yeah, it is funny how people illegal with immoral.

I appear to have missed out the word "equate" in my post. Must stop drinking and smoking crack whilst posting.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
18th Jan 2013 12:09

Condition of claiming benefits ..

Of course people have every right to purchase a lottery ticket - the question is what should happen to any winnings

Should be that any winnings for any benefit claimant (claims of whatsoever nature; job seeker to child benefit) is claimed by the state as part of the conditions for claiming in the first place?

To all accounts the total number of the population getting state support in one form or another is running at a huge level (possible 1/3 of the population or more) and this is simply not a sustainable level to maintain. So anything retuned to the state coffers if welcome

Thanks (0)
Replying to raycad:
avatar
By chatman
18th Jan 2013 21:49

Tax and Benefit

JC wrote:
To all accounts the total number of the population getting state support in one form or another is running at a huge level (possible 1/3 of the population or more) and this is simply not a sustainable level to maintain.

Yes, it is a bit mad, isn't it. As I mentioned in an earlier post, many people receiving benefits are actually in work and paying tax (up to £60k for Child Benefit and up to about £50k for Child Tax Credits), so we could therefore reduce the welfare bill by taxing them less and reducing their benefits by an equivalent amount.

Another way would be to provide some jobs for the unemployed (a bit radical, I know, but we have to think out of the box in these desperate times).

I read recently that the government estimates that benefit fraud is responsible for 0.7% of the total welfare budget, so catching the fraudsters would save a bit, but probably not as much as most people think.

Thanks (0)
By ShirleyM
18th Jan 2013 12:43

Escape

I can understand why the very poor buy lottery tickets. The desire to escape the benefits system must be pretty high (with very little chance of success), so to them it may be worth making a small sacrifice. The chances of winning may be low, but their chances of getting a really well-paid job may be non-existent.

Thanks (0)
Norman Younger
By Norman Younger
18th Jan 2013 13:22

Lottery

Some very interesting views here but my point is that the way the story has been depicted is that this is a lottery for "poor" people . It is a lottery for everybody

In terms of education has anybody ever published a survey of lottery participant to see what the average return on their investment has been ? I know Camelot will have a figure for acorss the board but it woudl be interesting to speak to ordinary folk to enage with them and see if they understand the odds.

To strecth my comment a little wider - if you gave a person charity and saw him go straight into a bettign shop to have a flutter , would you stand idly by or remonstrate with him ? Is  he or she "entitled" to spend your donation as they see fit ? Probably , but you wouldn't give them again would you ?

But we continue to throw benefits at people who are undoubtedly in need of help but we're not educating them as to how they can maximise that money. I set up a charity that help the less well off in a variety of ways, but often I only give out funds once they have had a chat or are to be supervised in their finances

I do like the suggestion that part or all of winnings of people on benefits should go to the state - let's wean people of the "take take take" attitude

 

Thanks (0)
Replying to morgani:
By ShirleyM
18th Jan 2013 20:15

What do you expect?

Flying Scotsman wrote:

Some very interesting views here but my point is that the way the story has been depicted is that this is a lottery for "poor" people . It is a lottery for everybody

The article was in the Daily Mail .... need I say more?

Thanks (0)
Replying to morgani:
avatar
By chatman
18th Jan 2013 22:01

Education and the Lottery

Flying Scotsman wrote:
But we continue to throw benefits at people who are undoubtedly in need of help but we're not educating them as to how they can maximise that money.

I'm not sure it is necessarily benefit claimants doing the lottery; but with regard to education, I agree: we are actually uneducating people with all these TV adverts encouraging them to do the lottery. I am amazed that it is illegal to advertise cigarettes on the telly but legal to advertise gambling.

Flying Scotsman wrote:
let's wean people of the "take take take" attitude
Absolutely, starting with the bankers, the royal family and the trustafarians in government.
Thanks (0)
avatar
By chatman
18th Jan 2013 21:53

Is the lottery evil?

Call me a raving commie (I'm sure someone will), but is it right make someone extremely rich, when inequality is so bad for society (http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/ )?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
19th Jan 2013 17:06

The gambling advertising ...

... is becoming intrusive, you can't watch a sporting event without Ray Winstone inviting you to bet on the colour of the referee's underpants or how many blades of grass there are. That is if he can get a word in between the adverts for pay day loans on "affordable" terms.

It amused me the surprise with which it was announced Wonga are starting to appiont debt collectors due to a rising level of defaults - Hello-oh!!

I am waiting for product placement by Durex to appear, might reduce the teenage pregnancies and inexorable  spread of STD's!

Thanks (0)
Norman Younger
By Norman Younger
19th Jan 2013 21:17

Betting

The reason betting is not as banned as ciggies and portrayed as the devil, like drink is, could be to do with the fact the nobody dies from passive betting or wrecks the town centre after a bet too many

I have fun on the stockmarket but I do not bet . Some equate my market activity with betting but by its nature it is not feasible for somebody with only £10 a week disposable income to play on the stockmarket whereas Lotto et al can suck you in at any level , and the lower the threshold the more addictive it is.

It is easy to spend £1 after £1 chasing the "big one" but after a drubbing on the market it's a different matter especially as the broker can limit your spend (stake) . And my lousy choice of share may recover (ha) or pay a dividend (dream on)

How did we manage pre-Camelot ?

I think the entry level of Premium Bonds should be brought down and prizes more widely distributed. That is currently something closed to the poor and a far cry from a traditional  punt

 

Thanks (0)
Replying to FirstTab:
avatar
By chatman
21st Jan 2013 10:32

Premium Bonds; Death v Other Social Harm; Premium Bonds;
I agree with Flying Scotsman about Premium Bonds. I assume they are not pushed because there is no private profit to be made from them.

With regard to banning alcohol v gambling, I do not think it is right to base the decision to ban solely on the probability of death or vandalism. Gambling causes terrible social problems, and needs to be addressed. I am not in favour if banning (not even cigarettes, the worst drug of all, in my book), but we don't need to allow it to be advertised.

Interesting to see a justification of gambling based on being able to afford to participate. I always think we are on dodgy ground when we find ourselves explaining why our own vices should be allowed, while others' are banned. One can easily ruin oneself gambling on the stock market, and I don't think it is acceptable to ban someone from doing something on the grounds that they are too poor; we do enough of that anyway.

Flying Scotsman wrote:
How did we manage pre-Camelot ?

Better than we do now, I think.

Thanks (0)
Norman Younger
By Norman Younger
21st Jan 2013 10:49

Ban on gambling

Indeed ruin can come to anybody who does not set limits or have the discipline to manage their indulgences.

The grounds for a ban is not becasue somebody is poor , it is along the lines of "is it right that somebody receving handouts should spend them on gambling" . For that matter we could also include cigarettes.

If the state sees fit to legislate on a raft of personal choices , eg seatbelt wearing , it can make rules governign those who benefit from its largesse  

Thanks (0)
avatar
By chatman
21st Jan 2013 11:10

Who are we talking about here?

I think we are confusing the poor with benefit recipients here, and benefits with handouts. The poor are not necessarily in receipt of benefits and benefit recipients may be working people who have just paid so much in tax they need some of  it back, or people who have paid National Insurance for years and are now drawing down on some of their contributions; not  what I would call a handout.

We need to decide who we are talking about here: the poor; benefit recipients; people on £50k getting child benefit; those who receive other things free from the government?

I receive free treatment on the NHS and free use of the roads when I cycle. Should I be banned from enriching the shareholders and directors of Camelot on the grounds that I get these freebies?

Thanks (0)
Replying to DJKL:
avatar
By User deleted
22nd Jan 2013 11:49

This:

chatman wrote:

I think we are confusing the poor with benefit recipients here, and benefits with handouts. The poor are not necessarily in receipt of benefits and benefit recipients may be working people who have just paid so much in tax they need some of  it back, or people who have paid National Insurance for years and are now drawing down on some of their contributions; not  what I would call a handout.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
21st Jan 2013 11:13

Keep playing it free - but ....

All winnings for people on any form of 'state assistance' revert to the State

Therefore it is not a ban 'per se' - just choice, if they wish to play knowing full well there is no personal reward

Also, they might even win, which would be a bonus for the State

In addition a really 'hot potato' is no State Benefits in cash - use vouchers instead that have to be redeemed. At which point it would be simple to say they cannot be redeemed for [***] / booze/ iPhone's etc.

But then one would get an outcry about stigmatising the poor etc. when in fact the primary use is control & identifying spending.

Also don't forget that all the supermarkets do this at the moment with their loyalty cards which track every purchase and everyone seems quite happy with Tesco knowing their spending profile - so what is the difference?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Ruddles:
Norman Younger
By Norman Younger
21st Jan 2013 14:41

Benefits

I think a preloaded card that can only be spent on certain types of things is a good idea. With chip and pin nobody need see the card so there is no stigma

With regards to winnings, any thing up to your benefit should go to the state and the balance you can keep - so we don't take away a person's dreams

It is time to move the benefits debate forward to the 21st century - why not have a focus group / survey to discuss this ?

Thanks (0)
Replying to Glennzy:
avatar
By User deleted
22nd Jan 2013 10:50

You're going soft

Flying Scotsman wrote:

I think a preloaded card that can only be spent on certain types of things is a good idea. With chip and pin nobody need see the card so there is no stigma

With regards to winnings, any thing up to your benefit should go to the state and the balance you can keep - so we don't take away a person's dreams

It is time to move the benefits debate forward to the 21st century - why not have a focus group / survey to discuss this ?

Anything up to the benefit plus 50% of the excess to the state seems fairer!

Thanks (0)
Replying to Glennzy:
avatar
By chatman
22nd Jan 2013 11:22

Preloaded Card

I think we are all in agreement on the pre-loaded card.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
22nd Jan 2013 08:58

Another little gem ....

Azil Nadir

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/law/article3664097.ece

Can someone explain what is going on here with legal aid?

This is all part and parcel of the overall problem with State spending

Especially since Mr Nadir was accused of lifting £30m in the 1980's (todays value?) and cleared off to Northern Cyprus (no treaty)

Of course the next question is - what is the ulterior motive for 'coming clean' today - all very shady

Just to recap -

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9795df1a-ec4a-11e1-a91c-00144feab49a.html

 

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
22nd Jan 2013 10:50

Chatman's having a laugh ...

... I've paid tax and Ni etc. If I was unfortunate enough to need benefits i would not expect any more than I needed to house, feed and clothe my family.

If people in receipt of benefits have surplus income for cigarretes, alcohol or gambling then they clearly haven't paid so much tax they need some of it back!

As for "drawing down" on NI contributions, it is "Insurance". If you crash your car you expect the insurers to pay for the repair, you don't expect a holiday in the Caribbean too!

Thanks (0)
Replying to mabzden:
avatar
By chatman
22nd Jan 2013 11:21

Right with you OGA

Old Greying Accountant wrote:
If I was unfortunate enough to need benefits i would not expect any more than I needed to house, feed and clothe my family.

Quite right, and they wouldn't give you any more. Not sure that explains why I'm "having a laugh".

Old Greying Accountant wrote:
If people in receipt of benefits have surplus income for cigarretes, alcohol or gambling then they clearly haven't paid so much tax they need some of it back!

Quite right again.

Old Greying Accountant wrote:
As for "drawing down" on NI contributions, it is "Insurance". If you crash your car you expect the insurers to pay for the repair, you don't expect a holiday in the Caribbean too!

Again, quite right, but I'm not sure what point is being made.

Thanks (0)
Norman Younger
By Norman Younger
22nd Jan 2013 10:56

Getting your money out

NI has evolved into a tax , it isn't seen any longer as an insurance policy. Why should it , as benefits are given out willy nilly to every man and his dog , even if that dog barks in a foreign language ?!

The linkage between what goes and what you get out is not there , unlike "real" insurance cover

It is no longer "pc" to be poor or have less material wealth than the people next door , society is broken and it's a long downhill ride. Count your blessings you won't be around in 100 years to witness the total breakdown (if it takes that long)

 

 

Thanks (0)
Replying to TomMcClelland:
avatar
By chatman
22nd Jan 2013 11:26

Willy Nilly Benefits

Flying Scotsman wrote:
benefits are given out willy nilly to every man and his dog

What sort of people are you thinking of here Flying Scotsman? I agree that the benefits system is a bit random, but I wouldn't say "every man and his dog".

Thanks (0)
Replying to Accountant A:
Norman Younger
By Norman Younger
22nd Jan 2013 14:11

Every man and his dog

Believe me , there are many working people legally receiving benefits.

Step 1 - set up a your own limited company ....you can guess the rest

Thanks (0)
Replying to mrme89:
avatar
By chatman
22nd Jan 2013 14:33

Everyman and hisdog willy nilly.

Flying Scotsman wrote:
Believe me , there are many working people legally receiving benefits.

I suppose I just didn't understand your original point. Can you give us an example of the sort of person you are talking about?

Thanks (0)
avatar
By chatman
22nd Jan 2013 13:09

Fraud Estimated to Account for 0.7% of the Welfare Budget
@JC - Great excuses; loved them. I am sure you are not presenting those articles as statistically valid evidence, but many people appear to take them as such, and assume that this type of behaviour is rampant. As mentioned before, the government estimates that benefit fraud accounts for 0.7% of the welfare budget. Demonising the enemy (the poor in this case) is the first step in any war, and the media are at the forefront of the attack.

Thanks (0)
By ShirleyM
22nd Jan 2013 13:34

Benefit fraud

I watched a TV program on benefit fraud a year or two ago.

Virtually all of the cheats were quite wealthy but had lied about their assets (some owned several houses but were claiming housing benefit!) and their circumstances and shouldn't have been on benefits at all.

I suppose a system that linked property ownership, savings, and tax records, etc., to benefit claimants, then some of this fraud may be discovered much sooner. Then again, it would also result in the cheats complaining about 'Big Brother' & 'Government spying', too!

Thanks (0)
Replying to lionofludesch:
avatar
By chatman
22nd Jan 2013 14:37

Anti-poor Propaganda

ShirleyM wrote:

I watched a TV program on benefit fraud a year or two ago.

Virtually all of the cheats were quite wealthy but had lied about their assets (some owned several houses but were claiming housing benefit!) and their circumstances and shouldn't have been on benefits at all.

The problem with these programmes ShirleyM is that they make no attempt to present a balanced view. If they want you to think everyone on benefits is a fraudster they just show you loads of benefits fraudsters. They make no mention of the 0.7% fraud statistic.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Pirate0:
avatar
By User deleted
23rd Jan 2013 11:38

The key is

chatman wrote:

ShirleyM wrote:

I watched a TV program on benefit fraud a year or two ago.

Virtually all of the cheats were quite wealthy but had lied about their assets (some owned several houses but were claiming housing benefit!) and their circumstances and shouldn't have been on benefits at all.

The problem with these programmes ShirleyM is that they make no attempt to present a balanced view. If they want you to think everyone on benefits is a fraudster they just show you loads of benefits fraudsters. They make no mention of the 0.7% fraud statistic.

it is a statistic, they have no clue, because the system is so open to abuse how do we know it is not 70%.

Also, does the 0.7% only refer to genuine fraud, i.e. does it include those who opt for legal benefits because they are on a better standard of living, like the large family in the link - they are not commiting fraud but do/are being allowed to abuse the system.

Allowing benefits to equate to a gross salary of £72,000 is not relieving inequalities and poverty, it is creating inequalities and resentment!

Thanks (0)
Replying to NeilRH:
avatar
By chatman
25th Jan 2013 10:18

Statistics v Anecdotes

Old Greying Accountant wrote:
it is a statistic, they have no clue, because the system is so open to abuse how do we know it is not 70%.

You are correct that statistics can be manipulated, but they are considered to be of much more use than anecdotes as evidence, and if we are going to ignore statistics, on what can we base our opinions? If contributors to this thread are not basing their opinions on the figures, then what are they basing them on?

Statistics must be taken in context. If they support the view taken by the commissioning body then they can be viewed with some suspicion, but in this case they are government statistics, and this government is the one pushing the benefit-scrounger message. Why would they fake a statistic that contradicted the view they are trying to get across? I am sure that if the figure were 70% it would be splashed all over the media.

Old Greying Accountant wrote:
Also, does the 0.7% only refer to genuine fraud, i.e. does it include those who opt for legal benefits because they are on a better standard of living, like the large family in the link - they are not commiting fraud but do/are being allowed to abuse the system.

The figure refers to fraud, so I doubt it includes anything legal.

Old Greying Accountant wrote:
Allowing benefits to equate to a gross salary of £72,000 is not relieving inequalities and poverty, it is creating inequalities and resentment!

I do not know the details of the £72k equivalent; there may be circumstances of which we are unaware. I any case, I know of no reason to believe that this level of benefit is the norm, and isolated cases are not worth worrying about. They seem to be used simply to tar all benefit claimants with the same brush.

Your point about inequalities and resentment is a very good one. Inequality does cause resentment, and massive inequality causes massive resentment. There is no reason why anyone should earn £1m more than another person; that really is inequality, and is the problem we should really be concerned about.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
22nd Jan 2013 17:09

So is the legal system not fit for purpose ...

because even when caught there is no real deterrent with punishment

@ShirleyM

Once one moves away from a sensible level of penalty for a crime (any crime) then people just balance risk .v. reward and make a judgement on whether to commit an offense; and in most instances nowadays the downside is minimal

Furthermore, if the whole process becomes rather too onerous for the authorities to manage then simply propose legalising it (i.e. drugs) - does wonders for the crime figures!

In this respect the legal system seems to have woefully fallen down on the job, because the only sentences handed out are fairly lenient; thereby encouraging an offense/re-offense

Now supposing that in your example, all those committing fraud knew that their entire existing wealth was at risk - would they be quite so keen to participate, because at that point they possibly stood to lose more than they would gain?

Simply asking them to pay back the fraudulent aspect is a complete waste of everyones time, because they are no worse off that when they started. On the other hand taking all they already own away from them would perhaps make them stop and think

Of course there are excessively draconian approaches taken by other countries that render crimes such as theft self limiting after being caught twice; but that is extreem

Thanks (0)
By ShirleyM
22nd Jan 2013 21:50

I agree JC

There is no real deterrent.

They get a little hand slap. Until they have committed the same crime about 30 times the police just let them off with a warning.

When you get your ill-gotten gains just make sure you spend it, and you won't have to pay it back!

https://www.accountingweb.co.uk/article/accountant-who-stole-500k-charity-ordered-repay-1/534398

Thanks (0)
Norman Younger
By Norman Younger
23rd Jan 2013 10:47

Penalties

Indeed this country is soft on crime and soft on the causes of crime

There is no deterrent and the risk is defintiely "worth it" for those inclined to chance it and are ordinary people.

 

In terms of examples requested by Chatman , I refer to self employed people who take a minimal wage from their own company OR who have lots of assets but little income . Totally legitimate within a set of poorly drafted rules. But  then again , it was all a big bribe so the rules did what was intended !

 

 

Thanks (0)
Replying to JCresswellTax:
avatar
By chatman
25th Jan 2013 12:20

I am sure the thread started off talking about poor people.

Flying Scotsman wrote:
In terms of examples requested by Chatman , I refer to self employed people who take a minimal wage from their own company OR who have lots of assets but little income .

Fair enough but I am sure the thread started off talking about poor people.

Thanks (0)
Replying to JCresswellTax:
avatar
By chatman
25th Jan 2013 12:24

Soft on Crime

Flying Scotsman wrote:
this country is soft on crime

Depends who commits the crime. Bring the economy to its knees, or kill a guy on his way home while you're wearing a police uniform, and you're laughing. Fail to pay your TV licence fee and you risk prison.

Thanks (0)
Norman Younger
By Norman Younger
23rd Jan 2013 16:10

The system

A classic case for reforming the system is the winter fuel allowance. My Mum gets it and rarely puts the ehating on ! And what about the oldies with a good pension who don't need it ?

Why is this universal - it is symptomatic of a broken system . Means testing , I hear you say , how can we means test the elderly for such a benefit ? Why not - I reply .

Surely we can devise a simple method , such as not giving to those filing tax returns with income above , say £50,000 a year , which would keep most elderly people reasonably comfortably off to say the least.

Those with "low" earnings are not filing tax returns so will automatically qualify

Thanks (0)
Replying to A.Mi_0:
avatar
By chatman
25th Jan 2013 10:22

Means Testing

Flying Scotsman wrote:
how can we means test the elderly for such a benefit ? Why not - I reply .

Because means testing is expensive. Family Allowance, for example, was considered to be very successful because it was not means tested.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
24th Jan 2013 08:56

Agreed - however, never forget ...

@Flying Scotsman

that all these 'addons' to the state pension have only come about because the UK state pension is one of the worst in the developed world and top-ups in one form or another have arisen to supplement a dreadful system

Not only is the UK lower than all but three of the developed nations but also Britons face having to wait longer than people in any other industrialised country before they can retire

Furthermore, comparisons show that pensioners in the UK only get state payments worth 41.5% of average after-tax earnings. Whereas in Spain and Italy, the state pension is worth 84.9 and 75.3% of average earnings respectively and in the US, which has one of the least generous welfare systems, the state pension there is worth 50% of average earnings. In France it is 60.4% and in Germany 57.9%.

A study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which represents 34 industrialised nations, found only Mexico (32.2% of average earnings), Ireland (35.8%) and Japan (39.7%) have lower state pensions than the UK

On the other hand Greece is 111.2% - which probably explains a lot about their current situation

By all means knock payments on the head to those over £50K, because that makes a lot of sense; but that would pale into insignificance aagainst successive Governments refusal to address Public Sector Pensions

All Public Sector Pensions (for new entrants) should be placed on the same footing as the Private Sector with immediate effect. After all if the Private Sector cannot afford Final Salary etc. why should the Public Sector be ring fenced at the expense of the taxpayer? Same basis is fair - otherwise pension inequality!

Thanks (0)
Norman Younger
By Norman Younger
24th Jan 2013 18:30

Pensions

European countries can afford to give away more to pensioners because taxes are so high

Public sector pensions are a real perk of the job and need to be addressed (ie made less generous) , but then again I would say that about civil servants wouldn't I ?

In terms of retirement age it was kept too low for too long . We need to wake up and smell the coffee - we live longer so we have to work longer , and as for women , well they want equality so they are getting it !

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
25th Jan 2013 08:23

Agreed but the issue is unfairness ...

Pensions are a long term issue and with this in mind there really needs to be an accepted approach to changing the rules for those within 10 years of retirement

Having worked for 20/30 years, making provision on the basis of one deal the rug is then pulled out from under them at the last moment; so any implied contract with the state is totally worthless if it can be arbitrarily changed at the 'last moment'

Often people in this situation are being unnecessarily penalised because they are not in a position to take action in response to Government changes to protect their position

Example A - Women pension age disadvantaged

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/pensions/article-2048619/Reprieve-33-00...

Women born between certain dates in the 1950's have just been completely stuffed buy having their pension age shifted disproportionately in relation to the rest of the community - in some cases this may have cost them a considerable amount in pension receipts

Example B - New Flat Rate

Contributions moved from 30 years (introduced April 2010) to 35 years to qualify.

What happens to those in their 60's, about to retire in 1-5 years, who have used up their back years and achieved 30 years under the previous requirement?

They now find they need 35 years but do not have sufficient years to retirement in order to top up their years to the required 35. Do they lose out?

Also, the interesting thing is that anyone who already had 30 years contributions has probably stopped paying any more NI (on Government advice), if they were making voluntary contributions to top up their years.

On this basis they have accepted advice from the Government and now seem to lose out because of this advice!

So where does it leave those hung out to dry?

Thanks (0)
Norman Younger
By Norman Younger
25th Jan 2013 09:24

Hung out to dry

Regrettably it seems every day another group finds that the government has shafted them. I've been there done it and got the T--shirt

I don't recall this happening 20 years ago , but I am sure it did. It is probably a drawback / advantage (depending on your view of ignorance) of the "information age"

 

Didn't you know that government advice isn't worth the paper it's written on ? Come on , surely ....

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
25th Jan 2013 11:18

The sensible approach to civil service pensions ...

... is what i think it was FS said, any new entrants go on a new scheme to stop the rot. You can then look at adjusting the rest fairly.

I think (hope) this is starting with the reduction in starting salary for a rookie copper. 

I would like to know the statistic for benefit claimants that drink, smoke, gamble and watch the full monte sky package on a 50"+ TV whilst texting their friends on the latest model i-phone and watching [***] on their i-pad, that is each family member simultaneously in different rooms!

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tim Vane:
avatar
By chatman
25th Jan 2013 11:57

We need evidence

Old Greying Accountant wrote:
I would like to know the statistic for benefit claimants that drink, smoke, gamble and watch the full monte sky package on a 50"+ TV whilst texting their friends on the latest model i-phone and watching [***] on their i-pad, that is each family member simultaneously in different rooms!

Me too. Until then I will continue to assume it doesn't happen unless someone presents me with evidence that it does.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By User deleted
25th Jan 2013 11:19

Ditty - **** the bankers .....

Perhaps the way forward

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0QuKc1qHB0

 

Thanks (0)

Pages