Restoration of the age related allowance

margaretclare

Predictably, there has been a lot of nonsense and hysteria about this. The media immediately came up with the appellation 'granny tax' which sparked off a huge amount of over-reaction and ill-informed comment.

The poorest of retired people will not be affected because, at the lowest income level, they don't pay tax anyway. As someone wrote on one thread on this site not too long ago, with pension credit, housing benefit, council tax benefit, you name it, if you're retired with no mortgage to pay it is possible to live quite nicely. People who get tax allowances now - people like myself and DH - will still continue to get them, only they will not increase annually. Well, I can live with that. The only people who are really going to be affected are those who will be retiring in the next year or two, and those who follow on. The poorest people in our society, according to AgeUK figures, are older single women living alone. But they're mostly on benefits!

Contrast this scenario with my eldest GD. She works full-time as a youth worker. Local authority employee. She lives in a council flat so gets single-person discount for council tax - however, her council tax is almost as much as we pay for a 'C' band bungalow. Month after month there is 'too much month left' at the end of the money, and I end up helping her out. I'd really love to see her tax bill reduced. She does all she can, pays into the LGPS, budgets very closely for herself and her dog (she needs him because it's a rough area). There are countless other people in the younger generations who are struggling.

As regards not voting Con/Lib/Lab, I'm a member of a newish political party, the English Democrats. Until we get more members and a bigger vote, we can't even start to formulate detailed policies. However, this is what we say: Our pensioners should be a priority. And about tax: We would ensure that taxes are kept as low as possible. Rather than funding huge foreign aid budgets we would lower taxes. And The EU costs us £65 bn a year..we'd be better off out of the EU, trading with who we wish, making our own laws and taxes.

BLB53

This isn't a matter of a Tenner as you say, but considerably more of a loss to many people who could use the extra just to try to live a reasonable lifestyle, without asking for state handouts.

Most pensioners will not be affected as their income is below £10,500. It will therefore affect those pensioners who are reasonably well provided for by reason of a works pension. These better off pensioners will have likely taken advantage of tax breaks for savings and investments over the years so interest and income from this will be tax free.
I agree with the policy of increasing the allowances for everyone and this will help a lot of younger people, particularly those on lower incomes.

srcandas

bobpat wrote: »

You don't sign anywhere, you just sit back and wait to see what happens. This isn't a matter of a Tenner as you say, but considerably more of a loss to many people who could use the extra just to try to live a reasonable lifestyle, without asking for state handouts.

The petition is up to 33,223 now so goodly numbers are upset by this latest government action.

So 33223 for and ???????? against. If I can't sign anywhere we will never know

The tenner was an extreme example to make the point. Although when I was a lad (sigh) I remember working in a petrol station. When four star went from 5s 8d to 5s 10d the owner Bert had to walk down the half mile queue and when he said 'no more, we need to close before 10pm, usually 9pm he was threatened with violence. We worked out many had burnt more fuel waiting than they saved topping up.

I can understand anyone being upset about people or groups of people not paying their way. But this seems to me to be "I want more of the cake". Well the cake is only so big

But when the numbers on the petitian reach 2,000,000 I'll happily concede that it is a noticeable minority who should be heard :beer:

MonkeyMad

bobpat wrote: »

This isn't a matter of a Tenner as you say, but considerably more of a loss to many people who could use the extra just to try to live a reasonable lifestyle, without asking for state handouts.

They already are getting an effective State handout by having a greater personal allowance than younger people.

As a previous poster said, without mortgage and costs of children just how much personal allowance does one pensioner need? Chucking about 'Granny Tax' as is dubbed is just designed to conjure up an image of poor hard-up pensioners, when the reality is this will affect only the upper percentiles anyway.

I'm not particularly enamoured by encroaching on higher-rate tax each year due to reducing upper limits, but then again I must be rich so I'm fair game (despite being in an age bracket where I still have children and a mortgage, and a multitude of other things I am expected to pay for since I am young)?

mystic_trev

Well I won't be signing, it's about time Pensioners stated contributing to the mess we've all found ourselves in. Remember - we're all in it together.

MT - Retired.

le_loup

CannySaver wrote: »

For example why should Paul McCartney (for example) start to pay tax later than a single mother in her twenties struggling to bring up a child on her own and hold down a job?

He doesn't.
There is a maximum earning limit which means, if you earn more that about £28K all the extra allowance is clawed back.
The differential was there to recognise the difference between pensioners who had saved a modest amount that took them over the basic pension amount which has been below the taxable amount forever.
So the change will affect those pensioners who earn between £10K and 28K .... modest earnings .... to help those earning over £150K.
Strange but true.

MonkeyMad

So the argument is that since we all get a pension, those of us that save should also have a higher allowance to act as some form of differentiation?

If my colleagues and I all get paid the same, why don't those of us who save more get a higher allowance?

Why do you think those earning £150K should pay proportionately more tax than those who don't?

CannySaver_2

le_loup wrote: »

He doesn't.
There is a maximum earning limit which means, if you earn more that about £28K all the extra allowance is clawed back.
The differential was there to recognise the difference between pensioners who had saved a modest amount that took them over the basic pension amount which has been below the taxable amount forever.
So the change will affect those pensioners who earn between £10K and 28K .... modest earnings .... to help those earning over £150K.
Strange but true.

That's a fair point and one I missed, however I still believe everyone should pay tax at the same starting point irrespective of age.

Just because you are over 65, and more likely to be drawing a nice final salary, index linked pension, shouldn't mean you start to pay tax later than someone younger than you.

The Canny Saver

fairleads

margaretclare wrote: »

Predictably, there has been a lot of nonsense and hysteria about this. The media immediately came up with the appellation 'granny tax' which sparked off a huge amount of over-reaction and ill-informed comment.

The poorest of retired people will not be affected because, at the lowest income level, they don't pay tax anyway. As someone wrote on one thread on this site not too long ago, with pension credit, housing benefit, council tax benefit, you name it, if you're retired with no mortgage to pay it is possible to live quite nicely. People who get tax allowances now - people like myself and DH - will still continue to get them, only they will not increase annually. Well, I can live with that. The only people who are really going to be affected are those who will be retiring in the next year or two, and those who follow on. The poorest people in our society, according to AgeUK figures, are older single women living alone. But they're mostly on benefits!

Contrast this scenario with my eldest GD. She works full-time as a youth worker. Local authority employee. She lives in a council flat so gets single-person discount for council tax - however, her council tax is almost as much as we pay for a 'C' band bungalow. Month after month there is 'too much month left' at the end of the money, and I end up helping her out. I'd really love to see her tax bill reduced. She does all she can, pays into the LGPS, budgets very closely for herself and her dog (she needs him because it's a rough area). There are countless other people in the younger generations who are struggling.

As regards not voting Con/Lib/Lab, I'm a member of a newish political party, the English Democrats. Until we get more members and a bigger vote, we can't even start to formulate detailed policies. However, this is what we say: Our pensioners should be a priority. And about tax: We would ensure that taxes are kept as low as possible. Rather than funding huge foreign aid budgets we would lower taxes. And The EU costs us £65 bn a year..we'd be better off out of the EU, trading with who we wish, making our own laws and taxes.

Based upon the above comment I'd say the title of your party is an oxymoron.

browniej

fairleads wrote: »

Because the age related allowance was always over and above - extra to - the personal allowance.

No reason it should be though.

If a child has the same personal allowance as a working adult, then so should a person over age 65.