Restoration of the age related allowance

MonkeyMad

I thought Winter Fuel payments were to deal with the additional heating requirements. In my employers office when it is cold I wear something that pensioners in the 1920s would be familiar with - a jumper. We have also been known to wear our overcoats, since the heating cannot always cope with the large open-plan office. I am also known to wear clothes in in my house so that I don't have to put the heating on.

Please don't try to portray the effect of losing the additional allowance as the difference between life and death because it's not, since the minimum income guarantee itself is way below this threshold. Added to which other changes to the pension system largely negate it. My mother lives on State pension alone, and would be entirely unaffected by this so why is it more difficult for the affluent pensioner to manage?

The 1920s was a very different time preceding all kinds of interventions that the State now makes on pensioners behalf - what was a solution then does not make it so now. If you want to return to those times we could swap a tax allowance for winter fuel or prescription charge.

The 10% tax band is a red- herring. All allowances were adjusted to allow for the re-banding, the age related allowance will merely have changed according, but the fact remain the allowance is age related.

Just how much of a rise in pensions DO you want? In case you hadn't noticed we are broke, and whilst pensioners are not dying in the streets then CPI increases don't seem unreasonable. We ARE all in this together, but there is an attitude of shifting the entire tax burden onto the young (cos I've paid into the system all my life), so don't be surprised if they don't like it.

p00hsticks

zygurat789 wrote: »

The age allowance started in 1920 in recognition of the fact that life becomes more expensive as you get older.

And the average life expectancy for someone born then was less than 60 - so presumably the cost to the nation was nowhere near as much as it is now.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdf

ILW

zygurat789 wrote: »

The age allowance started in 1920 in recognition of the fact that life becomes more expensive as you get older. ?

I doubt if that is the case anymore.

What gets more expensive for older people that isn't offest by savings in other areas?

zygurat789

MonkeyMad wrote: »

I thought Winter Fuel payments were to deal with the additional heating requirements. In my employers office when it is cold I wear something that pensioners in the 1920s would be familiar with - a jumper. We have also been known to wear our overcoats, since the heating cannot always cope with the large open-plan office. I am also known to wear clothes in in my house so that I don't have to put the heating on.

Please don't try to portray the effect of losing the additional allowance as the difference between life and death because it's not, since the minimum income guarantee itself is way below this threshold. Added to which other changes to the pension system largely negate it. My mother lives on State pension alone, and would be entirely unaffected by this so why is it more difficult for the affluent pensioner to manage?

The 1920s was a very different time preceding all kinds of interventions that the State now makes on pensioners behalf - what was a solution then does not make it so now. If you want to return to those times we could swap a tax allowance for winter fuel or prescription charge.

The 10% tax band is a red- herring. All allowances were adjusted to allow for the re-banding, This is factually incorrect the age related allowance will merely have changed according, but the fact remain the allowance is age related.

Just how much of a rise in pensions DO you want? In case you hadn't noticed we are broke, and whilst pensioners are not dying in the streets then CPI increases don't seem unreasonable. We ARE all in this together, but there is an attitude of shifting the entire tax burden onto the young (cos I've paid into the system all my life), so don't be surprised if they don't like it.

If we are all in this together why is the tax system being used to erode differentials, this is just picking on pensioners, everyone else got an increase in allowances.

The thing about the young is that they have to learn and the best way of learning is experience. When you are older you will sing to a different tune.

zygurat789

p00hsticks wrote: »

And the average life expectancy for someone born then was less than 60 - so presumably the cost to the nation was nowhere near as much as it is now.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdf

And the basic minimum wage is nearly 2.5 times the state pension

zygurat789

ILW wrote: »

I doubt if that is the case anymore.

What gets more expensive for older people that isn't offest by savings in other areas?

Heating because of quantity
Food, last year Tesco's beef mince increased 20%


It is widely acknowledged that the cost of living for a pensioner is higher than average because they cannot afford most things included in the index

margaretclare

zygurat789 wrote: »

Heating because of quantity
Food, last year Tesco's beef mince increased 20%

It is widely acknowledged that the cost of living for a pensioner is higher than average because they cannot afford most things included in the index

Not sure about the heating. We're paying £66 a month for dual-fuel electric and gas. That's for a well-insulated 2-bed bungalow. Again referring to my eldest GD, that compares well with what she pays for her 1-bed flat. We don't have to have the heating on all the time - when the place gets warm it stays warm. Insulation is crucial - saves us money.

Food costs us £340 a month. We eat healthily and we eat well.

What does 'the index' you refer to actually cover? I don't think there's actually anything essential that we can't afford.

Tesco lean steak mince is £1.60 for 250g. With the addition of an onion, that will make 2 of us a darned good meal. Add a baked potato (if you eat potatoes - we don't). Add a tin of tomatoes and/or a slice of bread. 80p for a meal each. You can't even get a McD's meal for that - they're advertising 99p for a cheeseburger.

I fight shy of statements like 'it is widely acknowledged that...' Who acknowledges it widely, and where's the evidence? (Oh those university teachers still in my head saying 'where's your evidence for making that statement?)

jamesd

margaretclare wrote: »

It was a heartrending story above from the 85-year old who feels 'hated'. I disagree to some extent with jamesd - she may easily have another 10 or more years of life, not necessarily be dead soon!

Ten years will be well before the time of peak pressure on those still working. That'll be in the years around 2040 to 2050. Not going to be many people who are 85 today still alive then at ages between 113 and 123.

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

Genuine question - why should workers get additional tax breaks just because they are working. Why are pensioners' tax payments worth less than taxpayers'?

Those who are working have employee NI at 12% to pay and their employers also have to pay employer NI at 13.8%. That's an extra 25.8% af tax that those who are retired and not in PAYE employment don't have to pay on their incomes.

MonkeyMad

Pensioners did get a reduction in allowances, but I seem to recall that they still benefit from an increase in the basic personal allowance the same as everyone else and an increase in pensions. I, on the other hand will suffer a reduction in the higher rate threshold so I don't benefit from anything at all. But I'm not being picked on?

My experience tells me that previous generations have had access to cheap oil and resources, and by future standards, generous pensions, have all manner of support their parents could only have dreamt of and yet they still want more at a time when everyone else is having to tighten their belts? It is also telling me that despite my not particularly minding my share of the burden, there are elements of society who seem to think they are immune from even being examined, and it is this that gets my goat.

I make JSA as worth less than the pension, so should we increase all these benefits as well, or do we have to take a decision that we cannot afford to keep throwing money around to constantly keep one group happy? I say it again this will not affect the 'poor pensioner' whom you no doubt picture in shawl and mittens holding a copy of their tax coding notice wishing that they could have the heating on. It's pure fantasy. The argument would have more credibility if this was a change that affected the very poorest pensioners

srcandas

MonkeyMad wrote: »

......... there are elements of society who seem to think they are immune from even being examined, and it is this that gets my goat.

Monkey you sum up my thoughts exactly. I don't include everyone who puts a case forward that a certain group of society are missing out in comparison with others but I feel somewhat embarrassed by the amount of selfish greed some brits display.

Monkey for PM