Granny Tax Hysteria

misskool

Perfect example of hysteria on question time now.

Thrugelmir

misskool wrote: »

Perfect example of hysteria on question time now.

Lack of understanding :eek:

michaels

Has anyone seen the ifs analysis:
http://www.ifs.org.uk/budgets/budget2012/budget2012robjoyce.pdf

See page 11, Bottom line Tax changes are costing pensionners about 1% of income, young people without kids 2% and those with kids 3.5%. Would the pensionners rather everyone was treated fairly?!

lostinrates

michaels wrote: »

Has anyone seen the ifs analysis:
http://www.ifs.org.uk/budgets/budget2012/budget2012robjoyce.pdf

See page 11, Bottom line Tax changes are costing pensionners about 1% of income, young people without kids 2% and those with kids 3.5%. Would the pensionners rather everyone was treated fairly?!

Rather than what it costs them in percentage, does it bring payments from the three groups more in line? A change in percentage of cost does not necessarily mean 'unfair'. I would say there is a difference in the three groups though, For many having children or not is a choice, but getting old is not. Nevertheless, it has not been fair that comparatively wealthy pensioners have received non means tested benefits and relaxations while contributing less than young people with more financial burden and lower income.

StevieJ

misskool wrote: »

Perfect example of hysteria on question time now.

Did you see This Week, Mr Portillo tongue tied and ga-ga trying to explain how pensioners won't be paying any more, ahh bless him

chewmylegoff

i switched this week off after that idiot bloke who wrote a book about chavs did his ridiculous piece which was based on the idea that a reduction of the top tax rate from 50% to 45% would put £40,000 a year in the pocket of every millionaire.

when AN pointed out that a millionaire isn't someone who earns £1 million a year he got a bit lost and just started shouting over the top.

StevieJ

chewmylegoff wrote: »

i switched this week off after that idiot bloke who wrote a book about chavs did his ridiculous piece which was based on the idea that a reduction of the top tax rate from 50% to 45% would put £40,000 a year in the pocket of every millionaire.

when AN pointed out that a millionaire isn't someone who earns £1 million a year he got a bit lost and just started shouting over the top.

Yes he looked and behaved about 10 year old (apologies to 10yo's).

StevieJ

lostinrates wrote: »

Rather than what it costs them in percentage, does it bring payments from the three groups more in line? A change in percentage of cost does not necessarily mean 'unfair'. I would say there is a difference in the three groups though, For many having children or not is a choice, but getting old is not. Nevertheless, it has not been fair that comparatively wealthy pensioners have received non means tested benefits and relaxations while contributing less than young people with more financial burden and lower income.

I agree with that, but by the same token effectively reducing an allowance applicable to an OAP earning £12k and allowing duel income couples earning up to £99k to retain child benefit is not neccessarily fair either.

lostinrates

StevieJ wrote: »

I agree with that, but by the same token effectively reducing an allowance applicable to an OAP earning £12k and allowing duel income couples earning up to £99k to retain child benefit is not neccessarily fair either.

I agree. Personally i would scrap cb, make it one of those tax credit things i don't understand if its necessary. Similarly, why not just make the state pension bigger ti cover same amount as winter fuel if the amount is necessary. If its universal, whats the problem with that?

chewmylegoff

i think the plans for CB are ludicrous. we already have a tax credit system, and as much as i think it's horrid, it would have been far better to abolish CB and tweak CTC, than to introduce some horribly complex way of administering the phase out of CB.

osborne justified the alignment of personal allowances by saying that the current system is too complicated. you can't say that with a straight face and at the same time lump a load of extra complexity into the tax system somewhere else (well clearly you can, but it requires extreme facial expression discipline).

as LIR says above, there is also scope to build the winter fuel allowance into the same system without having to go crazy on the means testing front - just fold it into the minimum income guarantee (the whole point of it is the avoid fuel poverty which is most likely to be present amongst those who are beneficiares of the minimum income guarantee). it could still be maintained as a one-off payment to ensure that it matches the increased fuel bills.