government stopping pension increase claims for dependant adults

lovelyjubbly

Just read this on the direct gov website, it says that if you retire after this year you will not be able to claim extra for your better half (as you do now) if they are under pensionable age and not working they seem to have kept this very quiet! I am sure it will affect quite a few people

Quote:-

If there is an adult who depends on you financially
From 6 April 2010, it will no longer be possible to claim an increase of your State Pension for another adult. This is called an 'Adult Dependency Increase'. It is an increase in your State Pension for a wife, husband or someone who is looking after your children, if he or she is considered to be financially dependent on you.
If you are already entitled to this increase on 5 April 2010, you will be able to keep it until you no longer meet the conditions for the increase or until 5 April 2020, whichever is first.
If you claim your State Pension on or after 6 April 2010, you will not be able to claim an increase for an adult who depends on you financially when you finally claim your State Pension.

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Pensionsandretirementplanning/StatePension/DG_069498

deferred_pensioner

Thanks for that.

I thought it was too good to last

I picked up on this in Feb 2008 from the Dear Liz column in the Sunday Telegraph and was rather hoping that it would carry on a bit longer as I don’t reach 65 for another three years.

The beauty of it was that you only lost this extra pension if your spouse had taxable earned income which meant that you could still load your other half with the income from savings up to her tax allowance and thereby reduce your overall tax bill and claim the extra pension.

Damn.!

lovelyjubbly

Hi deferred pensioner

thank god someone got what I was trying to say, I posted the same article on the silver surfers forum and nearly every reply thought it was great that it was being stopped!

margaretclare

deferred_pensioner wrote: »

Thanks for that.

I thought it was too good to last

I picked up on this in Feb 2008 from the Dear Liz column in the Sunday Telegraph and was rather hoping that it would carry on a bit longer as I don’t reach 60 for another three years.

The beauty of it was that you only lost this extra pension if your spouse had taxable earned income which meant that you could still load your other half with the income from savings up to her tax allowance and thereby reduce your overall tax bill and claim the extra pension.

Damn.!

This is an obvious injustice. If you can earn the equivalent of a personal tax allowance in interest alone then you must have a lot of savings, and do not need extra money to 'support a dependant adult'.

I lobbied for individual tax allowances over many years because I resented my earnings being treated as husband's income for tax purposes. This change did not come about until 1990. Of course there will have been people who turned it to their own ends.

I am very glad that this is being stopped.

deferred_pensioner

I have only just spotted this.

What a miserable rant Margaret Clare.

I have worked for 40 years full time and some paid a FORTUNE in tax and NI followed by another 5 years self employed paying more tax and NI.

Never had a penny left to me and never will have I have supported my parents not the other way round.

The fact that I have enough savings to earn the equivalent of the tax threshold and pass this over to my wife is a miracle.

I will never cost the state a penny they will tax me when I die ..

This is a Money Saving web site you know .!!

seven-day-weekend

I too am glad it is being stopped.

This applies to women (and men) who are below retirement age who CHOOSE not to work (I.e they are not UNABLE to work through age, illness, disability or caring responsibilities). They are not registered Jobseekers.

Whilst they have every right to chose not to work, I see no reason why the State should support their choice.

I agree with Margaret Clare.

seven-day-weekend

deferred_pensioner wrote: »

I have only just spotted this.

What a miserable rant Margaret Clare.

I have worked for 40 years full time and some paid a FORTUNE in tax and NI followed by another 5 years self employed paying more tax and NI.

Never had a penny left to me and never will have I have supported my parents not the other way round.

The fact that I have enough savings to earn the equivalent of the tax threshold and pass this over to my wife is a miracle.

I will never cost the state a penny they will tax me when I die ..

This is a Money Saving web site you know .!!

Whilst acknowledging your hard work and contributions to the public coffers, you HAVE actually 'cost the state a penny' if you have been claiming what amounts to a State Pension for a fit and heathy non-working spouse of under retirement age.

I hasten to add that I do not know your circumstances so this may not be the case. Nor am I saying you should not have claimed it if it was there to claim. I'm just glad it is being stopped, much fairer to all.

margaretclare

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Whilst acknowledging your hard work and contributions to the public coffers, you HAVE actually 'cost the state a penny' if you have been claiming what amounts to a State Pension for a fit and heathy non-working spouse of under retirement age.

I hasten to add that I do not know your circumstances so this may not be the case. Nor am I saying you should not have claimed it if it was there to claim. I'm just glad it is being stopped, much fairer to all.

I agree with 7DWE.

What deferred pensioner calls a 'miserable rant' from me is in response to the much more miserable rant from him. He's like a child whose sweets have been taken away from him.

Deferred pensioner has worked for more than 40 years, paid tax and NI etc etc (bring out the violins). It may amaze him to know that this is the case with the majority of us. DH and I both worked from the ages of 16 to 67, paid tax and NI and, in fact, we are still paying tax. So what? It's the price of living in a civilised society. I may not approve of the way some of my tax money is used, but that's another question, let's not go there.

[QUOTE]The fact that I have enough savings to earn the equivalent of the tax threshold and pass this over to my wife is a miracle.[/QUOTE]

This may well be a miracle, but the point is, it should not entitle you to claim a benefit on the basis of your savings. Many people find that if they have savings beyond a certain limit, far from being able to claim a benefit, they are refused any benefits. Claiming a benefit because you have savings which accrue enough interest up to the personal allowance level is an obvious injustice.

seven-day-weekend

As you say Margaret Clare, most of us Pensioners (still find it difficult to think of myself in that light ) have worked and paid into the coffers for many years. So Deferred Pensioner needn't try to take the moral high ground here, he is no different to the rest of us.

My husband worked from 15-55 (paying tax and NI) before he had to take early retirement on health grounds. He now claims a State Benefit (Incapacity Benefit) because he is UNABLE to work and is still under his State Pension age. He also still pays tax.

I stopped wortk at the same time as he did . I was 54. Nothing was paid by the State to me or for me - and why should it be? I was a fit and healthy woman of working age with nothing that stopped me working. It was our choice and as I said above I see no reason why the State should support it.

Having recently reached 60, I am now a very grateful recipient of my State Pension which I earned in my own right.

margaretclare

Thank you for this, 7DWE.

It always amazes me that some people are able to claim that they 'paid taxes and never cost the state a penny'. Of course they did, in some shape or form. We all did.

I feel quite strongly about this present discussion because I was one of those who lobbied very strongly, submitted written evidence etc, to bring about individual taxation. I worked for many years when my late husband couldn't work because of heart disease, and the tax office always wrote to him about my tax affairs. Arguing with them about it was useless, as was quoting the Married Women's Property Acts of the 1880s, because at that period in history it was never envisaged that women who worked would have enough income to pay tax - most women in menial and low-paid jobs - and their earned income, if any, was classed as part of their husband's income. It is amazing that this anomalous and humiliating state of affairs continued until 1990. I even spoke to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson, on Election Call, and he agreed it was an anomaly which must be rectified, and it was, at the next Budget following the election.

The change being discussed is yet another of those anomalies which is being rectified, not before time. However any discussion always brings out those 'I worked for years and paid tax and NI' etc etc. We've all done so, and anyone who does a job of any kind is in the same boat. I can't see where the 'moral high ground' exists in all of this, because as I said, it's just part of living in a developed country and a civilised society.

I don't mean you, 7DWE, so don't take this personally. But I have never in my life - except for a very short period in the early 1960s - been supported by a man, and I would think shame to have him claim a benefit on the basis that I was an 'adult dependant'. Just too humiliating for words. Have my arms and legs dropped off? No, of course they haven't.

I'm not coming back here, I've said all that needs saying on this particular topic. Some people will be aggrieved at a change in the law and will start throwing their teddies out of the pram. Let them get on with it.