Ending of age allowance for pensioners in budget

Newly_retired

It really is not "middle income" pensioners who are worst affected.
Those with income just over the £10,500 threshold are hardly middle income. Those whose income is over £24000 start to lose the age allowance anyway and before long it's gone completely.
Personally I am not totally against bringing the personal allowance to a decent level for everyone. But I do not see how reducing the tax bill from 50% to 45% is fair in any way.
I am far more bothered about the low interest rates on savings. That IS eroding my income.

Rollinghome

There's been some impressive smoke and mirrors techniques used so the actual changes for pensioners over the last couple of budgets has already been more than many people realise.

Up to April 2011 the standard personal allowance was £6,475 and the allowance for over 65s was £9,490. So a difference of £3015 and therefore a loss worth £615 per year for a 20% tax payer with income under about £24k when it goes. Still more for those over 74 (but no loss for pensioners with higher levels of income who are uneffected).

Those getting the rise in the standard allowance will gain little or nothing in reality due to inflation because other tax and duties will go up and more formerly free services will be charged for. The budget is claimed to be 'neutral'. Due to losing the additional allowance the hit on over 65s will be still greater.

The much hyped "record pension increase" is only in-line with inflation for the year to November of 5.2% so not an increas at all in real terms. In fact, it's only the CPI figure; had they not fiddled the numbers by switching from using the RPI to the CPI, the increase would have been 5.6%.

Seems they're counting on all pensioners being gaga when they tell us we won't be any worse off.

dougs

there's a petition been started to try and force a Commons debate on this issue. You can read about this here

The actual petition for signing is here

I've just been and signed it so if you feel strongly about this follow the link and sign up

seven-day-weekend

pineapple wrote: »

I think you stuck an extra 6 on there
I managed to collect my pension at the age of 60 plus a few months so consider myself lucky.
One thing that has annoyed me - Channel 4 News in it's headlines announced that 'middle income' pensioners had been raided. Scuse me? The extra personal allowance is being frozen out for age 65 plus - some of those affected may just be on a state pension. No 'middle income' about it! Sheesh.... :mad:
The other thing is there has been more talk on linking pension age to life expectancy. So who knows whether people will have to work even longer. Ironically those who need the income most and who are likely to be in poorer health will have to keep on grafting.
And what about our state of health during our latter years? I took the hit at 60 and left my job because I didn't feel able to do my job any longer. But at least I got a pension. And what is a man to do if say he has been in a hard physical job all his life...? Is he expected to continue to nigh on 70? How much chance does he have of finding something else? Ghrr...

In which case they won't be paying any tax anyway, so it won't affect them.

It WILL affect my husband who is 65 in January 2014.. But having said that, why did people ever get more allowance anyway just for being 65?

Whilst being disappointed my husband won't get it, I can't honestly find it in me to get up in arms about it.

However, my husband and I have both signed the petition mentioned above, as I think about those to whom it is a big issue.

zygurat789

Rollinghome wrote: »

There's been some impressive smoke and mirrors techniques used so the actual changes for pensioners over the last couple of budgets has already been more than many people realise.

Up to April 2011 the standard personal allowance was £6,475 and the allowance for over 65s was £9,490. So a difference of £3015 and therefore a loss worth £615 per year for a 20% tax payer with income under about £24k when it goes. Still more for those over 74 (but no loss for pensioners with higher levels of income who are uneffected).

.

You have to remember that most of this differential was due to GB getting rid of the 10% tax rate which hit those on low incomes hardest. So having been hit once they are now being hit again.
What did Osborne say about the broadest shoulders should bear the burden?

DavidLaGuardia

NAR wrote: »

Because over 65's are not earning a salary any more, only getting pension(s) income, which is considerably less. So IMHO it is only right that the tax allowance for over 65's should protect a little more of that income.

I'm not saying there are no arguments for the age allowance, but the above comment pretty asinine
1. Some people are retired at 60 and others are working at 66.
2. Some people have combined pensions that are more than others who are working
3. The whole principle of a progressive tax system (allowances and tax bands) means that a greater percetnage of income at a lower level is received

I would argue for a 10k limit for everyone

Jennifer_Jane

If removal of the Age-related allowance is for simplification and fairness (ie why should over 65's get the benefit of an increased tax allowance), then I ask why should workers on about the same income (ie under £12,000) get Working Tax Credits. WTC is simply a tax allowance but it does indicate that pensioners' tax-payments are less worthwhile than workers'. Why is that?

wannasave_2

dougs wrote: »

The actual petition for signing is here

thanks, passed the info on to affected rellies. The amount of signatures is getting up there fast, it's at 49k now :T

Not bad for just a few days!

Dunroamin

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

If removal of the Age-related allowance is for simplification and fairness (ie why should over 65's get the benefit of an increased tax allowance), then I ask why should workers on about the same income (ie under £12,000) get Working Tax Credits. WTC is simply a tax allowance but it does indicate that pensioners' tax-payments are less worthwhile than workers'. Why is that?

Perhaps because they're - well - working?

WTC is not a tax allowance.

Savvy_Sue

DiggerUK wrote: »

I just missed being clobbered with the upping of the state pension age, to 666,

<snip>

Am I the only one who is on the verge of losing the will to live.
..._

:rotfl: I think we'd all lose the will to live if that were the case, lovely typo!

Byatt wrote: »

If I ever reach pension age which is continually being extended, all other benefits will have been eroded. And because I was led to believe I would retire at 60 all of my working life, it is too late to try and get anything decent in the way of a pension for these extra years. Missing out by a matter of 3 months.

I'm a bit confused by what you say here: I may well be younger than you but I've known for some years that I wouldn't be getting my pension at 60.

So while I may have been expecting a pension at 60 for the early years of my working life, it's now no surprise that the age keeps going up, and up, and up, for everything!