Ending of age allowance for pensioners in budget

zygurat789

Originally Posted by zygurat789
According to Google there are 12,000,000 pensioners, so, according to your figures there are 10,500,000 pensioners paying 45% tax.

Roger1
Of course not. If it makes you happier, reread my post and substitute '40% or more'. (My figures also came from a search, so perhaps you would want to compare search results?)

Roger1 wrote: »

Apparently there are 250,000 pensioners who pay 40% or more tax on part of their income compared with 1.25 million who pay 20% or 0%. It would be shameful if the baby were thrown out with the bathwater. Not to worry. The current DPM will be out of a job within two years, on his way to earning a crust in Brussels.

Since there are 250,000 who pay 40% or more and 1,250,000 who pay 20% or 0% that deals with 1,500,000 pensioners.
Do the rest, 10,500,000 then pay tax at a marginal rate of 30%
12,000,000 imay not be an exact number but the census did say 1 in 6 were pensioners.
What have you done with the rest?

zygurat789

Newly_retired wrote: »

I mostly use my bus pass when I am doing my voluntary work in town. So I don't have any expenses to claim for my journey - saves the charity some money too.
DH has a bus pass he uses about twice a year. Recently he used it to avoid needing to park in town for a whole day event, but when it was time to go home, he was so exhausted that he took a taxi home - not much saving there, then!

We have a bus/tram/train pass which we use to avoid parking charges in town or to avoid paying fuel duties. We regularly use the train, tram and bus to get to the football on saturday afternoon and the reverse journey home, makes for a good outing.

teajug

Roger1 wrote: »

Of course not. If it makes you happier, reread my post and substitute '40% or more'. (My figures also came from a search, so perhaps you would want to compare search results?):rotfl:

Wel, l try using a car in any built up area such as London or Greater London or any large city, the parking would be prohibited due to coast this as well as the amount of traffic to contend with. Compared that to a rural area when there is not much traffic and one knows the local road, whcih is totally different to traveling in any city. Also traveling by public transport is much more kinder to the environment.

Also, remember that it is not only pensiones that are allowed freedom passes people that work in public transport get free travel with family members and their friends. There is a hell of a lot people working in public transport also the police get free transport. Aslo in greater London young people under 16 have free travel a well.

Byatt

Savvy_Sue wrote: »

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

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!

Hiya Sue, I realise this is a year old, but didn't want you to think I had ignored you :rotfl:I just forgot I had posted!

I realise now that in 1995 people were apparently warned about the changes in pension age, but I either wasn't, thought it was too soon to worry about, was too wrapped up in my life working, raising an autistic daughter and coping with my ex's many ahem, indiscretions (:eek:), the latter was my fault as I should have left after the first indiscretion. :cool:

Anyway, I am of an age and birth year that means my I was expecting to retire at 60, this year, but now it's 2017. I am single, poor health and currently self employed as a way to earn an income as no-one will employ me. I wouldn't employ me!

I found this article, not sure of the original date, but I am not the only one who feels somewhat p'd off...


http://www.moneyobserver.com/news/13-05-13/what-state-pension-changes-mean-older-women

Trying not to be a bitter and twisted old woman , but I have 41 years of contributions...all fully paid, I opted out of the married woman's rate, stupidly, when young and naive.

Dunroamin

Byatt wrote: »

Hiya Sue, I realise this is a year old, but didn't want you to think I had ignored you :rotfl:I just forgot I had posted!

I realise now that in 1995 people were apparently warned about the changes in pension age, but I either wasn't, thought it was too soon to worry about, was too wrapped up in my life working, raising an autistic daughter and coping with my ex's many ahem, indiscretions (:eek:), the latter was my fault as I should have left after the first indiscretion. :cool:

Anyway, I am of an age and birth year that means my I was expecting to retire at 60, this year, but now it's 2017. I am single, poor health and currently self employed as a way to earn an income as no-one will employ me. I wouldn't employ me!

I found this article, not sure of the original date, but I am not the only one who feels somewhat p'd off...


http://www.moneyobserver.com/news/13-05-13/what-state-pension-changes-mean-older-women

Trying not to be a bitter and twisted old woman , but I have 41 years of contributions...all fully paid, I opted out of the married woman's rate, stupidly, when young and naive.

If you opted out of the married woman's NIC rate, that wasn't stupid or naive, it was the sensible thing to do.

Savvy_Sue

Byatt wrote: »

url]http://www.moneyobserver.com/news/13-05-13/what-state-pension-changes-mean-older-women[/url]

Interesting article: I'm too young to be in that 'confusing' group, but actually I it gives me even less hope of being able to retire when I currently think I can (whenever that is!) - the age for everything just keeps going up!

Byatt wrote: »

Trying not to be a bitter and twisted old woman , but I have 41 years of contributions...all fully paid, I opted out of the married woman's rate, stupidly, when young and naive.

I'm not sure that was SUCH a stupid idea you know ...

seven-day-weekend

Does anyone know why the women's State Pension age was five years less than men's in the first place? What was the reasoning behind that?

I was one of the last to be able to take my State Pension at 60, being born in January 1950.

Errata

It was reduced from 65 to 60 in 1940 to try to ensure for most couples that the married rate would be paid as soo as the husband reached 65.

Dunroamin

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Does anyone know why the women's State Pension age was five years less than men's in the first place? What was the reasoning behind that?

I was one of the last to be able to take my State Pension at 60, being born in January 1950.

I'm sure I've read that this used to be the average age gap between married couples and that the different pension ages allowed couples to retire at approximately the same time as each other.

I was fortunate that, although I had to wait for 6 months after I reached 60 (being younger than you:p) to receive my pension, I benefited from only needing 30 years' contributions so I'll recoupe the "lost " pension in a few years and then be better off in the long term.

Byatt

Thanks for the responses, I was probably being flippant about the married woman's NIC, it was late last night. Who knows. :cool:

this link might be useful for those who want to know how the pension ages developed.

http://www.web40571.clarahost.co.uk/statepensionage/SPA_history.htm

As I see it, it was reduced to 60 to benefit the family as a whole, otherwise a single rate only would have been paid causing hardship. In other words, it was not done for women specifically although of course they have "benefited" as changes were made. I suspect that most men hoped for the pension age to be 60 for both and not this increase, although I do agree that changes have to be made, being the selfish so and so I am, I hoped it would be after 1953.

I have throughout my working life been one of the pioneers for the changes in women's rights, I'm tired now. I want to lie on a beach and soak up the sun and write trashy novels for Mi££s and Boon. :rotfl::p