Immigration and Asylum (7 Viewers)

wingy

Well-Known Member
Taking it to keep the billionaires happy,, give a Grant to build a stadium?
Don't sound right to me?
 

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
Why? If they've paid in all their lives why shouldn't they? I'd reduce it (probably 2/3 rate seems fair) as they'll be spending it in another economy and not reinvesting, but I do think they should still be entitled.
We can’t afford to pay people who have left the country
Our ni contributions are paying for their pensions not our own
They want to move away that’s fine benefits will stop then
 

rob9872

Well-Known Member
We can’t afford to pay people who have left the country
Our ni contributions are paying for their pensions not our own
They want to move away that’s fine benefits will stop then
That's always been the case and an ageing population is why the threshold age is increasing. Still think it's not fair to penalise someone who has paid into the pot for others for 50 years. Especially when you're happy to pay to feed, house and clothe those who haven't contributed a bean.
 

Ccfcisparks

Well-Known Member
That's always been the case and an ageing population is why the threshold age is increasing. Still think it's not fair to penalise someone who has paid into the pot for others for 50 years. Especially when you're happy to pay to feed, house and clothe those who haven't contributed a bean.
Its not penalising, if they don't want to be part of our society why should we pay them
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Its not penalising, if they don't want to be part of our society why should we pay them

So I assume they also shouldn’t pay tax on a uk sourced private pension either?
 

ccfcno9

Well-Known Member
Its not penalising, if they don't want to be part of our society why should we pay them
If you paid into a UK based private pension as younger people now do would you be happy if that the provider declared it nil and void if you left the country after retirement. Most people over the age of 67 weren't in a supplementary scheme when they started work as it was presumed that the NI would cover it if they paid in for 45 years. Nobody imagined the benefits bill would escalate as it has, In more recent years obviously folks were encouraged to have AVC's or employment funded pensions.
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
Ironic really. Just that you're talking about people who have worked and paid tax all their life.

And those with private pensions still have to pay tax before they receive any income
 

Nick

Administrator
We can’t afford to pay people who have left the country
Our ni contributions are paying for their pensions not our own
They want to move away that’s fine benefits will stop then
We can't afford to pay people who have worked here all their life but we can for people who will likely never pay anywhere near as tax.

Make it make sense b
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member
We can't afford to pay people who have worked here all their life but we can for people who will likely never pay anywhere near as tax.

Make it make sense b

It really is amazing when you look at this thought process
 

Skybluefaz

Well-Known Member
We can’t afford to pay people who have left the country
Our ni contributions are paying for their pensions not our own
They want to move away that’s fine benefits will stop then
That'd really fuck my family over.
My wife and I paid plenty of NI for 20+ years before moving our family to Australia to try and give my kids a better life.

Don't know if we'll stay here forever but we know we're entitled to a state pension at the moment when we reach retirement age.

Not all people that move away are rich people dodging tax in dubai.
 

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
We can't afford to pay people who have worked here all their life but we can for people who will likely never pay anywhere near as tax.

Make it make sense b
I thought benefits were a problem
Who says we should give benefits to people who haven’t paid in?
 

Sky Blue Pete

Well-Known Member
That's always been the case and an ageing population is why the threshold age is increasing. Still think it's not fair to penalise someone who has paid into the pot for others for 50 years. Especially when you're happy to pay to feed, house and clothe those who haven't contributed a bean.
Pension is by far and away the largest benefit isn’t it?
 

Grendel

Well-Known Member

Sky_Blue_Dreamer

Well-Known Member
That'd really fuck my family over.
My wife and I paid plenty of NI for 20+ years before moving our family to Australia to try and give my kids a better life.

Don't know if we'll stay here forever but we know we're entitled to a state pension at the moment when we reach retirement age.

Not all people that move away are rich people dodging tax in dubai.
IF such a thing were ever considered I doubt it would apply to those that had already moved. However, it could be brought in from a particular future point and anyone moving abroad after that would have to factor in the loss of that income when considering whether to go.

It is of course a bit swings and roundabouts as although it would reduce pension payments, they wouldn't be using local services like health or social care (although they could feasibly come back later on when they were getting old and in more need of such services), and it frees up housing in this country. Maybe the argument could be made for a reduced pension for those living abroad, as if you have the means and ability to move abroad chances are you're not going to be living on the breadline.

I can sort of see the argument for it, but I can also see why it would be considered unfair. I certainly think there are other things we could change before this.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top