Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY
You mean, like people paying towards the NHS who rely on private health care? Like people whose tax goes towards education despite them having no children themselves?
We are all taxed to provide essential services to the population for the common good, and State pension contributions are no different. A lot of our taxes go towards various State benefits that many of us have never claimed, but you don't hear many people moaning about that principle. As long as it doesn't go to scroungers, of course.
|
As others have stated paying for private healthcare is a choice that doesn’t deny you access to the NHS. People who don’t have children presumably received an education themselves, so at least benefitted themselves at some time.
The number of people with private healthcare, or no children, is quite small compared to the sizeable chunk of the population you would propose to deny a state pension. The fact that there is an NHS and we all fund education as the accepted norm, as is a State Pension. By going against this with a huge set of the population is political suicide as I said.
If we chose an arbitrary line at say, today’s 30 year olds, you’d target the same people for whom housing is unaffordable. Some got hit with tens of thousands in tuition fees and saving for retirement is difficult enough without telling them the minimum state baseline is being taken away. Target anyone too close to State Pension age and there will be outrage at how little time they have to prepare.
Any such changes would need to be accompanied by a solving the problems such as in work poverty, house prices, and probably require higher levels of taxation to pay for these solutions to make it acceptable to the people you propose to hit. Inheritance tax could be used to claw back amounts paid to those retired now and receiving it. Again, this would be hugely unpopular, but at least the burden would be shared this way.