Ending of age allowance for pensioners in budget

Jennifer_Jane

Dunroamin wrote: »

Perhaps because they're - well - working?

WTC is not a tax allowance.

Well, a tax rebate then. Of course it's because they're - well - working.

I also understand that this is to help lower-paid people to encourage them to work and not claim benefits, which is not a problem with pensioners.

My question was: why is the pensioner tax payment considered to be worth less than the working person's tax payment?

It may be right that it is for simplification, but I don't see how it is for fairness when a section of the community are receiving an additional tax rebate.

zygurat789

THE RED BOOK

Budget 2011

Page 35

1.128 As announced in the June Budget 2010, the Government has reviewed how the CPI can
be used for the indexation of taxes and duties while protecting revenues. Consistent with this,
the default indexation assumption for direct taxes will be the CPI from April 2012. To
ensure employers and older people do not lose out, for the duration of this Parliament the
annual increases in the employer NICs threshold, and the age related allowance and
other thresholds for older people, will be over-indexed compared to the CPI, and will
increase by the equivalent of the RPI. The Government will review the use of the CPI
for indirect taxes once its fiscal consolidation plans have been implemented and the
duty increases it inherited from the previous Government have come to an end.

The above is taken, in its entirity from the main Budget document. I have highlited certain parts.

147718

Rollinghome wrote: »

Seems especially hard when many pensioners are paying tax on 3% or less interest on their savings as if it were a gain, whereas with RPI still at 3.7% there is no gain, there's a loss.

Have a look at branch operated 4.25 % Variable ISA from Nation Wide Instant access
147718

JezR

Rollinghome wrote: »

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%.

The last lot in their latter years were fond of announcing an RPI increase on the basic state pension, but also rather silently paying little or nothing extra on additional pensions (SERPS, graduated etc). This effectively meant a total pension increase of less than half of the RPI for some.

chesky

O God, I wish people who drag up threads ffrom a year ago would at least tell us, rather than letting us get to practically the end before the penny drops.

And anyway, haven't you realised, the whole thing is our fault anyway - we're the dreaded baby boomers and have really no right to exist any more, let alone have any income.

zygurat789

chesky wrote: »

O God, I wish people who drag up threads ffrom a year ago would at least tell us, rather than letting us get to practically the end before the penny drops.

And anyway, haven't you realised, the whole thing is our fault anyway - we're the dreaded baby boomers and have really no right to exist any more, let alone have any income.

Apparently not. I read something which said that baby boomers were born from 1946 - 1954, when in fact the birth rate fell from 1945 up to 1954. What does that make all those born in 1945?

zygurat789

Biggles wrote: »

I.

Just like reading 12-month old threads......

Perhaps you should add this to the current thread "You know you're getting old when....."

chesky

zygurat789 wrote: »

Apparently not. I read something which said that baby boomers were born from 1946 - 1954, when in fact the birth rate fell from 1945 up to 1954. What does that make all those born in 1945?

Well, as someone born in 1944, I've obviously just been lying about my age again.

chesky

Biggles wrote: »

I don't know who Mrs D is, but to have your pension age set back to 666 would be a real bummer.

Just like reading 12-month old threads......

Blimey, is this really why you resurrected this?

Biggles

chesky wrote: »

Blimey, is this really why you resurrected this?

Eh, me? I was criticising a 'random poster' for doing just that (as was margaretclare) but the offender now seems to have had all his posts deleted while I wasn't looking! I've therefore hastily deleted mine.