The Labour Government

[Kompany Car]

You partly misunderstood what I meant, I agree with the above but the top 1% will generally be earning something for sitting around doing nothing, pension pot, savings, house value, assets. It would be unusual tbh not to. Im not sure one can claim investment profit is earnt. The original.capital may well be.

If money in pensions is sat around doing nothing and needs to be taxed more, we might as well all give up, as everyone in the private sector who isnt fortune enough to have a final salary pension is reliant upon it.

To get the equivalent of a 40k pension from 67 which increases in line with inflation with a 50% dependant pension annuity you would need at least £1m even in todays rather good annuity market. A few years back you would need almost double that.

On that basis should we be increasing taxes on people with final salary schemes which pay out over 40k ? After all the government has to raise the money from somewhere to pay it and it could be better spent on public services. Yes it might be a straw man argument but in terms of wealth, the outcome is the same if an annuity is bought.

Of course the person with the DC scheme could leave it invested and it might do well or we could have another 2000, 2008 financial crash where its wiped out overnight, thats a big gamble.

 

[Vic]

Yes I’m a pensioner so tell me how my life is better, all my bills have gone up, lost the heating allowance as soon as they came into power also now paying tax so do enlighten me.

Have your free prescriptions and bus pass gone up?

 

[melrose40yarder]

The "party of the people" are trying to make sure the people don't endure another bout of austerity.

I don't know where you get your news but there's been absolutely no mention in the "normal" press about any changes on pensions left to spouses.

Which "members" are you referring to?

Thier union paymasters

 

[Vic]

If money in pensions is sat around doing nothing and needs to be taxed more, we might as well all give up, as everyone in the private sector who isnt fortune enough to have a final salary pension is reliant upon it.

To get the equivalent of a 40k pension from 67 which increases in line with inflation with a 50% dependant pension annuity you would need at least £1m even in todays rather good annuity market. A few years back you would need almost double that.

On that basis should we be increasing taxes on people with final salary schemes which pay out over 40k ? After all the government has to raise the money from somewhere to pay it and it could be better spent on public services. Yes it might be a straw man argument but in terms of wealth, the outcome is the same if an annuity is bought.

Of course the person with the DC scheme could leave it invested and it might do well or we could have another 2000, 2008 financial crash where its wiped out overnight, thats a big gamble.

I may have misunderstood but why would anyone need a £40k pension?

 

[Norbert D]

One thing I hope Labour bring in is PR. Now I voted Labour but admit they fluked a huge majority on the basis of voters being very pissed off and in effect choosing “none of the above”. Unless they want to hand over to a ragtag of chancers and conmen aka Reform and the Tories, they need to accept they are likely to get stuffed at the next GE and at least give us a chance of a coalition of compromise.

 

[Norbert D]

Thier union paymasters

The same Union paymasters who anointed Ed Miliband and plunged Labour into a fifteen year wilderness. You should be thanking them !

 

[melrose40yarder]

The "party of the people" are trying to make sure the people don't endure another bout of austerity.

I don't know where you get your news but there's been absolutely no mention in the "normal" press about any changes on pensions left to spouses.

Which "members" are you referring to?

Well it was not in the red tops.
They are forecast to go after pensions with more taxation.You could lose up to 67% of the money some one worked hard and was taxed on.The labour party are the party of the unions which equals high taxation.The tories and labour are both useless.Just wait till Farage gets in u think its bad now
Just wait!
Our country is completely fucked.
Everyone needs to take responsibility for themselves and not rely on the state.

 

[Kompany Car]

I may have misunderstood but why would anyone need a £40k pension?

You haven't misunderstood, its quite conceivable that a head teacher for instance could have a final salary pension of over £40k, in fact I know 2 who are married who live about 50m down the road who each get significantly more. As I explained to get an equivalent one in the private sector you would need a very large pot of money to get an equivalent annuity.

I mean I may have misunderstood you, are you inferring we should cap pensions for everyone at 40k because nobody needs more than that ? If so does that include doctors, headmasters, senior people in the civil service etc ?

 

[Kompany Car]

Interesting little tool from Yougov which allows you to see which issues are worrying the electorate. You can also do it based in age demographic.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/society/trackers/the-most-important-issues-facing-the-country


Theres also a poll result looking at what tax reforms are supported by the electorate.

https://yougov.co.uk/economy/articles/53245-what-tax-reforms-would-britons-support

 

[hilts]

If money in pensions is sat around doing nothing and needs to be taxed more, we might as well all give up, as everyone in the private sector who isnt fortune enough to have a final salary pension is reliant upon it.

To get the equivalent of a 40k pension from 67 which increases in line with inflation with a 50% dependant pension annuity you would need at least £1m even in todays rather good annuity market. A few years back you would need almost double that.

On that basis should we be increasing taxes on people with final salary schemes which pay out over 40k ? After all the government has to raise the money from somewhere to pay it and it could be better spent on public services. Yes it might be a straw man argument but in terms of wealth, the outcome is the same if an annuity is bought.

Of course the person with the DC scheme could leave it invested and it might do well or we could have another 2000, 2008 financial crash where its wiped out overnight, thats a big gamble.

I don't know enough about pensions to have that discussion tbh:-) let me put it more simply money goes to money. The more you have the better the return, you do not earn that return you get it from just being wealthy. Basic examples I already gave there will be more.
To me some people who are very wealthy should maybe spend a bit more time considering how lucky they are(life is luck nothing else) and maybe also ponder what value they put on a better society.
Is it prudent to take a gamble on a broken society not knocking on their door for the sake of some cash they dont really need.
People need to realise things will not improve and will ptobably get worse until everyone does what they can.

 

[Kirkstall Blue]

What's the source for that last claim? Stats on prisoners absconding are kept separately.

I’ve read several sources all very different numbers. This is the ministry of justice the numbers seem excessive, far more in the last year

The mistaken release of Hadush Kebatu is a symptom of a failing system | Institute for Government

The problems in criminal justice run far deeper than one high-profile error.

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk

“The number of releases 'in error' has jumped dramatically, rising to 262 in 2024/25: more than double the previous year and almost four and half times what it was ten years before. Ministry of Justice, 'HMPPS Annual Digest, April 2024 to March 2025', 2025”

 

[hilts]

I’ve read several sources all very different numbers. This is the ministry of justice the numbers seem excessive, far more in the last year

The mistaken release of Hadush Kebatu is a symptom of a failing system | Institute for Government

The problems in criminal justice run far deeper than one high-profile error.

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk

“The number of releases 'in error' has jumped dramatically, rising to 262 in 2024/25: more than double the previous year and almost four and half times what it was ten years before. Ministry of Justice, 'HMPPS Annual Digest, April 2024 to March 2025', 2025”

Its been reported in the news that the figure is over 250 for the last year which was a large jump, no one has given the reason why yet unfortunately

 

[TinFoilHat]

Thier union paymasters

My favourite right wing trope.

Labour abandoned the unions years ago.

That's why UNITE are voting to withdraw their funding along with others such as ASLEF.

This year's labour party conference was bought and paid for by corporates.

 

[Vic]

You haven't misunderstood, its quite conceivable that a head teacher for instance could have a final salary pension of over £40k, in fact I know 2 who are married who live about 50m down the road who each get significantly more. As I explained to get an equivalent one in the private sector you would need a very large pot of money to get an equivalent annuity.

I mean I may have misunderstood you, are you inferring we should cap pensions for everyone at 40k because nobody needs more than that ? If so does that include doctors, headmasters, senior people in the civil service etc ?

You have misunderstood. I said need.

House paid for. Kids probably already set up. Who in retirement would need an income more than the average wage?

 

[We've got Guardiola]

Poor start to that post and just got worse. It's people on £100k who will be leaving generational wealth. 20% of MPs went to Oxbridge. Why would having a degree mean you've inherited money? And pensioners were "hit" with losing £4 a week WFA while getting £45 a week pension increase in two years.

Such incomes are not relative because somebody earning £100k in the NW is likely to be very comfortable whereas somebody living in Central London might think differently.

The tax system doesn't make this differentiation because income is a small part of the picture so you can't make the assumption that somebody on £100k will even leave anything. There will be tens of thousands if not more people on £100k who can only afford to rent a 1 bed flat in London for example.

Meanwhile there are people with zero income whatsoever who are sat in houses worth millions and those houses are appreciating faster in value than perhaps any other asset. That is true generational wealth and it has nothing whatsoever to do with income or salaried income let's say.

I would be looking at asset taxes and land taxes. If somebody has a £10m house then they pay no tax and they aren't exactly going to go out and spend that £10m on presents this Christmas. Take 5% more off the doctor on £100k though and that's just money lost that he/she would spend in the economy.

 

[Vic]

Such incomes are not relative because somebody earning £100k in the NW is likely to be very comfortable whereas somebody living in Central London might think differently.

The tax system doesn't make this differentiation because income is a small part of the picture so you can't make the assumption that somebody on £100k will even leave anything. There will be tens of thousands if not more people on £100k who can only afford to rent a 1 bed flat in London for example.

Meanwhile there are people with zero income whatsoever who are sat in houses worth millions and those houses are appreciating faster in value than perhaps any other asset. That is true generational wealth and it has nothing whatsoever to do with income or salaried income let's say.

I would be looking at asset taxes and land taxes. If somebody has a £10m house then they pay no tax and they aren't exactly going to go out and spend that £10m on presents this Christmas. Take 5% more off the doctor on £100k though and that's just money lost that he/she would spend in the economy.

Don't live in central London. But if you want to spend half your income on a flat in Mayfair...

Other than that, I'm with you on the idle rich.

 

[Kompany Car]

I don't know enough about pensions to have that discussion tbh:-) let me put it more simply money goes to money. The more you have the better the return, you do not earn that return you get it from just being wealthy. Basic examples I already gave there will be more.
To me some people who are very wealthy should maybe spend a bit more time considering how lucky they are(life is luck nothing else) and maybe also ponder what value they put on a better society.
Is it prudent to take a gamble on a broken society not knocking on their door for the sake of some cash they dont really need.
People need to realise things will not improve and will ptobably get worse until everyone does what they can.

I guess as always the difficult thing to define is what is very wealthy. Someone who is 30 with 2m in the bank and has another 30 years plus to grow it, is very different to someone who is 67 with 2m in a pension.

I dont disagree that excessive wealth should be taxed but also you need to have an incentive to do as best as you can in life. Everyone needs to pay more and those who are at the bottom end of the income spectrum need lifting out of tax completely and if you were brave enough and radical enough, it could be done, but it would mean putting around 5% on income tax at every level. The problem is politics gets in the way of doing what is necessary.

As regards luck, well luck is if you win the lottery or if you are born to wealthy parents. But purely by virtue of being born in the western world you have won relative to virtually everyone born in the developing world, yet most wouldn't say they are lucky.

Personally I could have left school and gone to work on a building site like most of my mates, probably earned a decent wage, but instead I went through A levels, Degree and then whilst working a Masters and a PhD (both of which I funded). By doing so that has afforded me a good job with a very good salary. I wasn't born into a family that were interested in accademia or had any money, my dad worked a manual job and my mam, when she could, worked part time in a sewing factory. Yes I had a stable home life and I have no serious ailments, so I suppose you could count that as luck, but thats about it. So in reality I'm probably as lucky as about 50% of the population. But if you view someone in isolation without any concept of how they got to where they are, then everything appears to be purely good fortune.

 

[johnnytapia]

I may have misunderstood but why would anyone need a £40k pension?

Have you tried following City abroad?

 

[Kompany Car]

You have misunderstood. I said need.

House paid for. Kids probably already set up. Who in retirement would need an income more than the average wage?

Who needs any more than 1200 calories a day and a roof over their head. You could survive, just about, on that.

Should that be the requirement for pensioners or those on benefits ? Or should people aspire to have something better ?

I note you didnt answer the question posed re capping public sector final salary pensions to 40k or as I think you are now saying 28k (taking into account the state pension).

Maybe we should go down the route of nobody being able to earn over 40k as they would be earning more than the average wage ? We could all then wear the same clothes, live in the same sized flat, with a selection of government approved meals. Sounds delightful, Chairman Mao would be proud.

 

[Vic]

Who needs any more than 1200 calories a day and a roof over their head. You could survive, just about, on that.

Should that be the requirement for pensioners or those on benefits ? Or should people aspire to have something better ?

I note you didnt answer the question posed re capping public sector final salary pensions to 40k or as I think you are now saying 28k (taking into account the state pension).

Maybe we should go down the route of nobody being able to earn over 40k as they would be earning more than the average wage ? We could all then wear the same clothes, live in the same sized flat, with a selection of government approved meals. Sounds delightful, Chairman Mao would be proud.

I've waited a long time on Bluemoon to quote Katherine Whitehorn in the Observer from maybe 60 years ago.

"You don't need 95% of what you buy. You just can't do without it."

I've no idea what the question was about public sector pensions. That's been done to death several times.

And I have no idea why you're extrapolating a simple point - how does anyone with no housing costs need an income of £40k? - into some imagined communist utopia of equality. Why would anyone need government approved meals when Tesco and Sainsbury's sell them at £15 (for two people) including a bottle of wine?