Budget no £1k increase in personal allowance for pensioners

olliebar

At Prime Ministers Question time shortly after the budget proposals were announced David Cameron replied specifically to a question from Harriet Harmon.

In his reply he stated that ALL Basic Rate Taxpayers would receive the additional £1K increased Tax Allowance.

No exceptions were mentioned and Basic Rate Tax Paying Pensioners need this allowance just as much as other Basic Rate Taxpayers.

zygurat789

olliebar wrote: »

At Prime Ministers Question time shortly after the budget proposals were announced David Cameron replied specifically to a question from Harriet Harmon.

In his reply he stated that ALL Basic Rate Taxpayers would receive the additional £1K increased Tax Allowance.

No exceptions were mentioned and Basic Rate Tax Paying Pensioners need this allowance just as much as other Basic Rate Taxpayers.

Do you believe everything politicians say?

zygurat789

The age allowance can be an administrative nightmare and requires taxpayers over 65 who earn more than £22,900 to communicate with HMRC every year to agree their tax liability which cannot be done through a PAYE code. If either the age allowance or the income limit were abolised then it would "simplify" some OAP's tax situation and reduce the workload of HMRC. It looks as if this is the longterm goal, maybe OAPs will be left with a small age allowance and no income limit.
At present OAPs with an income between £22,900 and £28,930 pay 30% tax on this income, if the income limit is unchanged next year the 30% will be payable on income from £22,900 to £26,930. So OAPs with an income greater than £28,900 will benefit to the tune of the full £200 and OAPs with an income between £26,930 and £28,900 will benefit to a lesser extent.
So the poorest OAPs get nothing, whilst others on the same income get more, and the richer OAPs get the full wack.
What else would you expect from a Tory budget?

KxMx

I think with the retirement age (and therefore free bus pass age) on the up, today's pensioners need to realise how lucky they are to get these things at 60/65.

zygurat789

KxMx wrote: »

I think with the retirement age (and therefore free bus pass age) on the up, today's pensioners need to realise how lucky they are to get these things at 60/65.

But those who get them later in life have a longer life expectancy and will, therefore, enjoy them for the same length of time.

antenna

artha wrote: »

If the immigrants are illegal then how does the system know they exist in order to give them benefits?

Many thousands of illegal immigrants are on benefits,it seems anyone that thinks that illegal imigrants dont qualify for every benefit going is living in cloud cukoo land,so if you "thanked" the quoted post then wake up and smell the coffee!!!!!
An illegal immigrant once discovered and awaiting up to 5 years of appeals against deportation is entitled to legal aid,living allowance,childrens benefits,housing benefits,free medical care including free glasses,free dental treatment....and so on and on and on....................including schools for their children,maternity care,the list is endless.............all claimed while tucked up quite nicely in a redecorated and newly furnished (by the local council) free flat,or perhaps a 3 million pound house in hampstead with no rent to pay.

KxMx

zygurat789 wrote: »

But those who get them later in life have a longer life expectancy and will, therefore, enjoy them for the same length of time.

Sorry I don't see the logic. With the criteria for them judged by a single day this won't work in many cases.



If you were born before 6 April 1950, you are eligible from your 60th birthday.
However, if you were born after 5 April 1950:

• for women the eligible age is pensionable age
• for men the eligible age is the pensionable age of a woman born on the same day

Also someone who is worn out by the years of extra work will not be in the same shape as someone who retired at 60.

krisskross

zygurat789 wrote: »

But those who get them later in life have a longer life expectancy and will, therefore, enjoy them for the same length of time.

Absolutely agree. my husband left school and started work at 15. Retirement age for him was 65, so he was expected to work for 50 years. This when life expectancy was much less and a lot of men worked in mining and other heavy industries which further shortened their lives.

Now that hardly anyone leaves education and starts work much before 18 it seems that the 50 years working life is just the same.

pollypenny

KxMx wrote: »

I think with the retirement age (and therefore free bus pass age) on the up, today's pensioners need to realise how lucky they are to get these things at 60/65.

Guess what - we paid for these pensions! A lot, in fact!

exil

krisskross wrote: »

Absolutely agree. my husband left school and started work at 15. Retirement age for him was 65, so he was expected to work for 50 years. This when life expectancy was much less and a lot of men worked in mining and other heavy industries which further shortened their lives.

Now that hardly anyone leaves education and starts work much before 18 it seems that the 50 years working life is just the same.

The people affected by the increasing retirement age will have started work in the 1970s, not 10 minutes ago. Some of them will have been miners too!

Life expectancy has been increasing steadily ever since the pension age was set to 65 in the 1920s yet the pension age has only started increasing this year (for women) and will not increase for men until 2016. Therefore, successive generations of pensioners have been getting pensions for longer and longer (on average!) with no suggestion the pension age should be increased. The approach seems to be that no-one minds their pension age being increased if they're young (no-one under 40 can even imagine being old enough to retire). This seems to be borne out by the fact it's only now the protests have started even though these plans have been know for at least 15 years.