Year income tax free to tempt over 50s back to work ?

[James]

This policy would be demented. A gift to the richest in society.

How about one of these policies:

1) Fund free childcare for parents returning to work.

2) Tell the retired over 50s that they will be liable for income taxes on an assumed £30k of wage earnings whether they work or not. They can then choose whether to pay the tax or return to work and earn tax free.

At the risk of being accused of wokery, option 2 sounds rather like slavery, i.e., being forced to work against your will.

[Spet0789]

This policy would be demented. A gift to the richest in society.

How about one of these policies:

1) Fund free childcare for parents returning to work.

2) Tell the retired over 50s that they will be liable for income taxes on an assumed £30k of wage earnings whether they work or not. They can then choose whether to pay the tax or return to work and earn tax free.

At the risk of being accused of wokery, option 2 sounds rather like slavery, i.e., being forced to work against your will.

Not at all. You are being paid to work and end up paying precisely the same tax as a 40 year old. If you are in the fortunate position of not wishing to work, you are obviously one of the broad-shouldered ones who should contribute a little more in tax.

[Lootman]

If you are in the fortunate position of not wishing to work, you are obviously one of the broad-shouldered ones who should contribute a little more in tax.

So welfare recipients should pay more tax?

Finally something we agree on!

[Spet0789]

If you are in the fortunate position of not wishing to work, you are obviously one of the broad-shouldered ones who should contribute a little more in tax.

So welfare recipients should pay more tax?

Finally something we agree on!

Lootman old chap, read my posts. I’m no lefty. I have no sympathy at all for anyone who chooses not to work and expects me to pay for it. As an aside, the state pension is the most costly welfare benefit there is.

You and I agree on lots of things (other than Brexit)!

[ayshfm1]

It does make me chuckle.

Successive chancellors Rishi included implement policies their socialist civil servants recommend without properly thinking about the full consequences of their measures, then when too significant a minority of the cash cow, higher rate tax payers decide that they can both afford not to work and will equally be screwed over if they continue to do so, take a rational decision to stop working.... Panic sets in and they come up with more ill thought out knee jerk short term proposals to address the problem.

The issue is structural, this measure won't work. The first thing that needs to happen is large scale removal of the left wing luvvies in the treasury and then a proper re-think.

First and foremost, either have a contribution limit or a pot limit on pensions, don't have both and I would suggest the LTA be the thing to dump. For many people me included it turned into a finishing line, get there as fast as you can and you won the game so you can stop playing.

Secondly once someone retires and takes benefits, they can't really work again, the tax system was designed to prevent it being gamed, they never expected to be presented with the opposite problem trying to get these people back into the work force - fix it so they can? The year tax free works round it for a year, but it doesn't fix the real reasons, but I guess they don't actually want to do that.

Being brutally honest I think they'll struggle, once retired it's very hard to go back. They may have to settle for not encouraging anymore out of the work force. I love retirement, whish I'd done it sooner and had I been able to access the SIPP I likely would have done.

My personal view, the luvvies won't be sacked, policy errors will not be admitted, short term measures will be applied and to address the long term issue, the state pension age will rise steeply and the age at which personal pensions becomes accessible will follow it up in sympathy. For most of the well heeled who can get out at circa 55-57 their personal pension is the key and that can be fixed, by simply increasing the age at which access is permitted.

[Alaric]

For most of the well heeled who can get out at circa 55-57 their personal pension is the key and that can be fixed, by simply increasing the age at which access is permitted.

Not totally. The increases in the personal allowance introduced by the coalition ten years ago or so made it easier to live off accumulated wealth.

[Wuffle]

Late 50's happens to be the age that a lot of people come into a waterfall of cash from dying parents, South East residents especially.
It is clearly outside the social norms to discuss this, because this board contains a wealth of discussion and forensic analysis of peoples financial position but almost never mentions coming into a sh#t ton of inheritance despite the self evident presence of vast property wealth in the SE. Everybody is a bit shy, possibly because of the inequity of it all.
As an aside, how anybody thinks you can level the North up when this disparity exists is laughable.

W (autistic northern resident).

[ayshfm1]

Neither of those point's applied/made any difference to me, anecdotal and specific for sure. But I don't see them being material to high earners who targeted getting out. Moreover everyone of those is disproportionately valuable, given how few actually pay any tax. 43% pay no tax, which now includes me.

[James]

This policy would be demented. A gift to the richest in society.

How about one of these policies:

1) Fund free childcare for parents returning to work.

2) Tell the retired over 50s that they will be liable for income taxes on an assumed £30k of wage earnings whether they work or not. They can then choose whether to pay the tax or return to work and earn tax free.

At the risk of being accused of wokery, option 2 sounds rather like slavery, i.e., being forced to work against your will.

Not at all. You are being paid to work and end up paying precisely the same tax as a 40 year old. If you are in the fortunate position of not wishing to work, you are obviously one of the broad-shouldered ones who should contribute a little more in tax.

Okay, so a punishment for saving hard and living frugally? Be careful what you incentivise for.

[CliffEdge]

There is a cultural problem for older people (who remember the pre internet days) working in organisations governed by modern "thinking".

No sane person can tolerate the lunacy that the UK has been afflicted by. The UK really is the sick 'person' of Europe.

Tolerance pah! The rabble are revolting, without cause.

[CliffEdge]

If you are in the fortunate position of not wishing to work, you are obviously one of the broad-shouldered ones who should contribute a little more in tax.

So welfare recipients should pay more tax?

Finally something we agree on!

Lootman old chap, read my posts. I’m no lefty. I have no sympathy at all for anyone who chooses not to work and expects me to pay for it. As an aside, the state pension is the most costly welfare benefit there is.

You and I agree on lots of things (other than Brexit)!

The state pension is not a benefit, it is a right.

[servodude]

There is a cultural problem for older people (who remember the pre internet days) working in organisations governed by modern "thinking".

No sane person can tolerate the lunacy that the UK has been afflicted by. The UK really is the sick 'person' of Europe.

Tolerance pah! The rabble are revolting, without cause.

I'm not disagreeing
- but its fun to see policies pitched that aren't just "look scary foreign folk"!!

[Spet0789]

If you are in the fortunate position of not wishing to work, you are obviously one of the broad-shouldered ones who should contribute a little more in tax.

So welfare recipients should pay more tax?

Finally something we agree on!

Lootman old chap, read my posts. I’m no lefty. I have no sympathy at all for anyone who chooses not to work and expects me to pay for it. As an aside, the state pension is the most costly welfare benefit there is.

You and I agree on lots of things (other than Brexit)!

The state pension is not a benefit, it is a right.

I’m afraid whatever it is, it isn’t a right. Any future government could remove it at a stroke. It’s a benefit.

[Spet0789]

This policy would be demented. A gift to the richest in society.

How about one of these policies:

1) Fund free childcare for parents returning to work.

2) Tell the retired over 50s that they will be liable for income taxes on an assumed £30k of wage earnings whether they work or not. They can then choose whether to pay the tax or return to work and earn tax free.

At the risk of being accused of wokery, option 2 sounds rather like slavery, i.e., being forced to work against your will.

Not at all. You are being paid to work and end up paying precisely the same tax as a 40 year old. If you are in the fortunate position of not wishing to work, you are obviously one of the broad-shouldered ones who should contribute a little more in tax.

Okay, so a punishment for saving hard and living frugally? Be careful what you incentivise for.

Any tax is a “punishment” for something. Our biggest tax is a punishment for working.

[Lootman]

If you are in the fortunate position of not wishing to work, you are obviously one of the broad-shouldered ones who should contribute a little more in tax.

So welfare recipients should pay more tax?

Finally something we agree on!

Lootman old chap, read my posts. I’m no lefty. I have no sympathy at all for anyone who chooses not to work and expects me to pay for it. As an aside, the state pension is the most costly welfare benefit there is.

You and I agree on lots of things (other than Brexit)!

The state pension is not a benefit, it is a right.

I’m afraid whatever it is, it isn’t a right. Any future government could remove it at a stroke. It’s a benefit.

I think you are both right. The state pension does technically count as a "benefit" according to how the government organises things. The cost of it is bundled in with other benefits.

However it is at least ostensibly earned via contributions, not everyone gets it, and different people get different amounts according to contributions and not need. Nor is it means tested, like pension credit is.

So it is probably most accurate to see it as somewhere between a traditional welfare benefit and an earned pension scheme. Certainly those like me who receive it after a lifetime of contributing to it, see it as something we deserve and not as a handout. And I say that even though I don't need it. It is the only benefit I have ever had and it will be taken away from me over my cold dead body!

[scrumpyjack]

Not at all. You are being paid to work and end up paying precisely the same tax as a 40 year old. If you are in the fortunate position of not wishing to work, you are obviously one of the broad-shouldered ones who should contribute a little more in tax.

The trouble with that attitude, ie that the better off should always pay more than they currently are, is that it is a slippery slope that ended up with 98% tax in the seventies, with very bad effects on the economy. Laffer curve and all that, apart from the glaring unfairness of forever taking a higher and higher proportion of the wealth of those who were more productive (before they retired!).

[moorfield]

Might work better if it was an NI (a pernicious tax) exemption for both employers and employees, rather than income tax.

[Spet0789]

So welfare recipients should pay more tax?

Finally something we agree on!

Lootman old chap, read my posts. I’m no lefty. I have no sympathy at all for anyone who chooses not to work and expects me to pay for it. As an aside, the state pension is the most costly welfare benefit there is.

You and I agree on lots of things (other than Brexit)!

The state pension is not a benefit, it is a right.

I’m afraid whatever it is, it isn’t a right. Any future government could remove it at a stroke. It’s a benefit.

I think you are both right. The state pension does technically count as a "benefit" according to how the government organises things. The cost of it is bundled in with other benefits.

However it is at least ostensibly earned via contributions, not everyone gets it, and different people get different amounts according to contributions and not need. Nor is it means tested, like pension credit is.

So it is probably most accurate to see it as somewhere between a traditional welfare benefit and an earned pension scheme. Certainly those like me who receive it after a lifetime of contributing to it, see it as something we deserve and not as a handout. And I say that even though I don't need it. It is the only benefit I have ever had and it will be taken away from me over my cold dead body!

That’s precisely when it will be taken from you!

[Lootman]

those like me who receive it after a lifetime of contributing to it, see it as something we deserve and not as a handout. And I say that even though I don't need it. It is the only benefit I have ever had and it will be taken away from me over my cold dead body!

That’s precisely when it will be taken from you!

Indeed, although I believe that spouses and widow(er)s may continue to get benefits after the demise of the contributor, for as long as they live.

[Spet0789]

Not at all. You are being paid to work and end up paying precisely the same tax as a 40 year old. If you are in the fortunate position of not wishing to work, you are obviously one of the broad-shouldered ones who should contribute a little more in tax.

The trouble with that attitude, ie that the better off should always pay more than they currently are, is that it is a slippery slope that ended up with 98% tax in the seventies, with very bad effects on the economy. Laffer curve and all that, apart from the glaring unfairness of forever taking a higher and higher proportion of the wealth of those who were more productive (before they retired!).

To be clear, my comment was slightly tongue in cheek. I believe in low taxes. But if we must have taxes, let them be paid by those who can afford them. Giving tax breaks to those who need them least is mental.

Imagine this policy was enacted. Consider a 35 year old with two young children and a mortgage working alongside a 55 year old recently lured back to do the same job. The 55 year old lives in a paid-off house bought 30 years ago and with substantial savings. How can it be fair for the 35 year old to be paying taxes but the 55 year old not? There would literally be a revolt.

In my original post, I offered two alternatives, a sensible one and a daft one (but still less daft than the over-55s pay no tax proposal.)