What can we do to change the minds of decision makers and people in general to actually do something about preparing for the forthcoming economic/energy crises (the ones after this one!)?
johnhemming2 wrote:The pension is a contract between the state and the individual where the individual pays national insurance expecting a pension to be paid over time. It is taxed.
Means testing it would break that contract.
I'm happy with the idea that my NI contributions are spent by today's government today. I certainly don't expect payments I make today to be squirrelled away somewhere to fund my pension in a couple decades time. I do have a problem with millionaires being paid today's public money though.
Today's pensioners need to realise that their NI payments have already been spent and that their pensions are coming out of today's tax receipts. At that point the justification for wealthy people to receive this payment evaporates in my opinion.
johnhemming2 wrote:The pension is a contract between the state and the individual where the individual pays national insurance expecting a pension to be paid over time. It is taxed.
Means testing it would break that contract.
The gov is perfectly prepared to change conditions affecting long term decisions, such as student costs. The decisions about pensions are due to lobbying [private pensions/exemptions] and vote winning [state pensions].
The overall gist of what you are saying is this: "There is nothing we can do about the growing disparity between rich and poor in the western world. This is just the way it has to be."
You are wrong. It does not have to be this way. All that is required is the political will to take on the rich, wealthy and powerful vested interests who want things to remain the way they are.
You aren't willing to do this, and neither are the three "mainstream" Labour party leadership candidates. Corbyn is willing to do it, and that is why he is ahead in the polls and his three opponents are dying a very public death.
I am not saying that. I am arguing that the issue is more complex than you present it as being.
However, I would also make the point that I am more concerned about the need to ensure that everyone participates in the economy in some form (and ideally a form they are content with - taking into account things like retirement) and that those at the bottom end have enough of an income to cope than I am concerned about how equal things are on a financial basis.
To me a society where everyone has the same amount, but the amount is less than the current minimum is not a better society.
johnhemming2 wrote:The pension is a contract between the state and the individual where the individual pays national insurance expecting a pension to be paid over time. It is taxed.
Means testing it would break that contract.
I'm happy with the idea that my NI contributions are spent by today's government today. I certainly don't expect payments I make today to be squirrelled away somewhere to fund my pension in a couple decades time. I do have a problem with millionaires being paid today's public money though.
Today's pensioners need to realise that their NI payments have already been spent and that their pensions are coming out of today's tax receipts. At that point the justification for wealthy people to receive this payment evaporates in my opinion.
Surely the issue can be addressed by higher rates of taxation. My preference, of course, is for a rate of 100% for earnings above four times the minimum wage. Plato would have approved.
biffvernon wrote:My preference, of course, is for a rate of 100% for earnings above four times the minimum wage. Plato would have approved.
I would be interested to know how you would deal with the financial crisis in government that would result from the consequent shortage of tax revenue.
fuzzy wrote:We could stop paying people to copulate.
Turns out Israel is the only 'rich' country with a fertility rate above 2.1.
Also interesting is that state-funded childcare is the only financial incentive that actually leads to more children - which is also the incentive the government is pushing.
biffvernon wrote:My preference, of course, is for a rate of 100% for earnings above four times the minimum wage. Plato would have approved.
I would be interested to know how you would deal with the financial crisis in government that would result from the consequent shortage of tax revenue.
Everything would have to change, but then everything has to change.
biffvernon wrote:My preference, of course, is for a rate of 100% for earnings above four times the minimum wage. Plato would have approved.
I would be interested to know how you would deal with the financial crisis in government that would result from the consequent shortage of tax revenue.
How could such a move possibly result in a shortage of tax revenue!!??
Because all the rich people would leave?
That would leave lots of job vacancies and free up plenty of land and properties. Ho hum....
The Rolling Stones left for France. The Beatles incorporated a lot of their income and also spent time abroad. Lots of people organised income to turn into capital gains (as did the Beatles).
The important question, therefore, is how much tax was raised compared to a lower marginal rate.
