Site Logo

Worried by Government's idea of an 'ageing tax'

12:56pm Friday 16th May 2008

It is mooted that Gordon Brown has in mind introducing some form of "ageing tax" to force working families to meet the cost of care home places in the last stages of their lives.

Although this proposal seems laudable, and it has to be acknowledged that the way we treat the elderly and mentally ill in this country is a disgrace, I have serious reservations whether this Government can be trusted to handle such a complex issue.

Having steered through the bureaucracy that followed the diagnosis of my mother's Alzheimer's disease that led to her being held in a secure unit and my father's failing health that necessitated transfer to a care home, I am aware that those of us that have endeavoured to make provision for the future are likely to be penalised. The speed with which the local authority closed in to tease out meagre savings and to value their property was nauseating.

Most state employees' pay has increased significantly since the decision was made at the Downing Street summit in 2001 to boost public service remuneration. Reports indicate that, including doctors, up to seven million people are paid by the taxpayer - with no meaningful calculation of value provided. Most state sector workers are guaranteed an early retirement with 90% of them expecting final salary indexlinked pensions. Reports also indicate that median public sector pay is estimated at 3% more than the private sector equivalent and that the number of public employees earning more than £100,000 has doubled in recent years.

In 2005, ministers told state sector workers that they must abandon their right to retire at 60 on full occupational pensions. The unions, without apparent consideration of the long-term funding issues, threatened strikes and an irresolute Alan Johnson capitulated.

As a result public sector workers retained retirement at 60. Most of the remaining workforce, many of whom have seen their pension schemes decimated by a ruthless Chancellor, will have to work to 67 and beyond to obtain a decent retirement.

Against a background of onesided and unsustainable policies and where there are increasing demands on our resources, including the support of immigrants, where rest homes are being closed and people with mental illnesses are wandering the streets, is it likely that Gordon Brown will come up with practical solutions?

In response to Mary S Coward (Letters, May 12), I feel compelled to put pen to paper to remind people of the disadvantages of having Gordon Brown as our Prime Minister.

Mr Brown may not be responsible for world oil prices but his Government is responsible for the excessive level of taxation at the pumps which is in turn having an increasing effect on our cost of living and quality of life. Unemployment figures are down because there are claimants now on disability benefits who are capable of work but, due to reclassification, are now excluded from the list of unemployed.

This Government did nothing to prevent house prices spiralling out of control meaning people have borrowed against their prized asset which is starting to backfire as the credit crunch takes hold. A whole generation has been denied the right to afford a property.

Numerous Government hashes and misdemeanours have been bailed out with taxpayers' money and every time there is a problem, new taxes are burdened on the already hard-pressed working man - the latest being the huge rise in road tax to pay for the scrapping of the 10p tax rate fiasco.

You may wonder what I voted at the last general election. It was Labour because I thought they could do better than the previous Conservative government but now I realise that you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone. I for one will not be voting Labour at the next election.

Gordon Brown deserves no defenders. He is to blame for not taking the opportunity to reform the tax system, which is clearly not fit for purpose and hasn't been for decades.

All Mr Brown could do on taxes was tinker with a system that is nothing more than a structure of fines and penalties for successfully engaging in legal economic activity, the effect of which is to punish those who are not quite poor.

It is incapable of raising anything like the amount of revenue needed to provide public services of a decent standard. It costs the country about 15% of gross domestic product in lost wealth creation and, by neglecting to tax what ought to be taxed, stokes up the boom-and-bust cycles in land prices the harmful effects of which we currently see.

With the Conservatives having failed to produce any plausible policies during their 11 years out of office, Labour still has a chance of winning the next election. But for that to happen it would need to jettison Mr Brown, stop listening to focus groups and come up with some radical ideas. The party could do worse than look at some of the policies it had in its earlier years before it became infected by Marxism and an overwhelming desire for power at any price. I doubt if that will happen but would love to be proved wrong.

Back