In message , at 12:04:48 on
Sun, 23 Jun 2013, Recliner remarked:
I would not be surprised to either see the national scheme scrapped
altogether, or associated with some proof (via your tax return) that
you have actually retired, at some point before 2017.

How would my tax return show whether or not I've actually retired? I'm not
even sure myself!

Any income from employment or self-employment. (Or perhaps, any "taxable
income", which would give people their personal allowance as pocket
money).

But pensions are taxable income.

Not in the sense of "income from employment". I recommend you read the
HMR&C guidance on the matter.

But didn't you suggest that the eligibility might be based on any
"taxable income", which would include pensions?

"Taxable income from employment".

Although there's always going to be layer upon layer of corner cases.
Like how can you separate someone getting "unearned income" by
continuing to play the stock market as an occupation, rather than simply
as a way to manage their pension fund.

Meanwhile, the Tax Credits people seem to think they can pay different
amounts depending on the number of hours a week someone "works", which
I've never thought was a particularly useful concept for freelancers.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 12:07:41 on
Sun, 23 Jun 2013, Recliner remarked:
I'm still confused by your definition of "genuine retirees". You
seemed to suggest that it could be defined as people not receiving
taxable income -- would you have an age limit as well? Or would you
only include people not receiving "income from employment"? So you'd
not allow a 70-year old part-time worker to get a twirly pass?

The normal reason for proposing such restrictions is to avoid a person
with a twirly card using it was a subsidised means to "commute to work".

But if they only have a part-time job (which one can perhaps define by
the amount of income they get from it) then it might strike a better
balance than a 60yr-old merchant banker still working full time and
earning £200k having the run of London for free.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 12:08:44 on
Sun, 23 Jun 2013, Recliner remarked:
They just don't seem to understand the concept of someone who
lives comfortably off their investments.

It's called "independently wealthy" and several questionnaires do
recognise the concept.

Not the ones I seem to get.

They aren't common, but with means-testing making a comeback, maybe it
will be seen more often.

In any case, I wouldn't call myself
wealthy, just that I have enough to generate enough dividend income to
live on comfortably.

That's what it means. In general terms, "wealthy" in these circumstances
means "getting more income from investments etc than would qualify you
for benefits".
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

On Sat, 22 Jun 2013 17:17:45 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 08:39:16
on Sat, 22 Jun 2013, remarked:

The total allowances I receive are below the income tax threshold

Which I don't think should be enough to disqualify you in a hypothetical
future system which tried to restrict the 'Twirly-card" to genuine
retirees.

I'm still confused by your definition of "genuine retirees". You
seemed to suggest that it could be defined as people not receiving
taxable income -- would you have an age limit as well? Or would you
only include people not receiving "income from employment"? So you'd
not allow a 70-year old part-time worker to get a twirly pass?

It couldn't be "not receiving taxable income" because pensions are mostly
taxable (there are exceptions - my mother had one tax free pension).

--
Colin Rosenstiel

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 12:07:41 on
Sun, 23 Jun 2013, Recliner remarked:
I'm still confused by your definition of "genuine retirees". You
seemed to suggest that it could be defined as people not receiving
taxable income -- would you have an age limit as well? Or would you
only include people not receiving "income from employment"? So you'd
not allow a 70-year old part-time worker to get a twirly pass?

The normal reason for proposing such restrictions is to avoid a person
with a twirly card using it was a subsidised means to "commute to work".

But if they only have a part-time job (which one can perhaps define by
the amount of income they get from it) then it might strike a better
balance than a 60yr-old merchant banker still working full time and
earning £200k having the run of London for free.

It looks to me like you're dreaming up ever more complex rules that would
cost more than they'd save. The example of a high-full time worker getting
free public transport doesn't work very well, given that such a person
probably doesn't make much use of pt. In particular, your banker probably
lives outside London and commutes in using NR first class at peak times,
and so probably would hardly use it (he probably uses taxis to get round
town).

Freedom cards are cheap to administer, but would be a nightmare in your
scheme: they'd have to be renewed annually, with a check that someone
hadn't slipped into or out of the wrong category. Who would do this (hint:
not the post office clerk)? And what happens if someone gets into your
excluded category during the year -- do they lose it retrospectively? It
would also be politically unpopular, like all means tested benefits. There
would be people who lost it unfairly, for sure, whom would kick up a fuss.
They'd also not vote for the politician who proposed it.

In message

, at 08:34:58 on Sun, 23 Jun 2013, Recliner
remarked:
Freedom cards are cheap to administer, but would be a nightmare in your
scheme: they'd have to be renewed annually, with a check that someone
hadn't slipped into or out of the wrong category.

The Taxman, the tax credits man, and enormous numbers of people
administering various benefits manage to do it.

All it needs is the equivalent to the parental test of "does your child
qualify for free school meals" which is one of those benefits above
which are fine tuned day in and day out (and woe betide anyone whose
child gets one more free meal than they are entitled to).
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 07:56:10
on Sun, 23 Jun 2013, remarked:
It couldn't be "not receiving taxable income" because pensions are mostly
taxable

That's why I mentioned [taxable] earned income.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message ...

In message , at 12:07:41 on
Sun, 23 Jun 2013, Recliner remarked:
I'm still confused by your definition of "genuine retirees". You
seemed to suggest that it could be defined as people not receiving
taxable income -- would you have an age limit as well? Or would you
only include people not receiving "income from employment"? So you'd
not allow a 70-year old part-time worker to get a twirly pass?

The normal reason for proposing such restrictions is to avoid a person with
a twirly card using it was a subsidised means to "commute to work".

But if they only have a part-time job (which one can perhaps define by the
amount of income they get from it) then it might strike a better balance
than a 60yr-old merchant banker still working full time and earning £200k
having the run of London for free.

But then you could argue, why does a 60 year old banker who has taken early
retirement with a large pension get free travel, when a 60 year old who is
still working 40hrs a week on minimum wage gets nothing?

Peter Smyth

Roland Perry wrote:
In message
, at 08:34:58 on Sun, 23 Jun 2013, Recliner remarked:
Freedom cards are cheap to administer, but would be a nightmare in your
scheme: they'd have to be renewed annually, with a check that someone
hadn't slipped into or out of the wrong category.

The Taxman, the tax credits man, and enormous numbers of people
administering various benefits manage to do it.

We need fewer, not more, of the "enormous numbers of people administering
various benefits".

"Peter Smyth" wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote in message ...

In message , at 12:07:41 on
Sun, 23 Jun 2013, Recliner remarked:
I'm still confused by your definition of "genuine retirees". You
seemed to suggest that it could be defined as people not receiving
taxable income -- would you have an age limit as well? Or would you
only include people not receiving "income from employment"? So you'd
not allow a 70-year old part-time worker to get a twirly pass?

The normal reason for proposing such restrictions is to avoid a person
with a twirly card using it was a subsidised means to "commute to work".

But if they only have a part-time job (which one can perhaps define by
the amount of income they get from it) then it might strike a better
balance than a 60yr-old merchant banker still working full time and
earning £200k having the run of London for free.

But then you could argue, why does a 60 year old banker who has taken
early retirement with a large pension get free travel, when a 60 year old
who is still working 40hrs a week on minimum wage gets nothing?

Exactly. Roland is using his value judgments to restrict universal
benefits, without appreciating that not everyone shares his values.