Restoration of the age related allowance

MonkeyMad

I could add that since 1990 the age related allowance had never increased by less than the amount that the basic allowance had also increased, and on 17 occasions it increased by more than the basic allowance did. In 1990 the lower age allowance was worth 22% of the basic allowance, and by 2011 was worth 33% having reached almost 50% in 2008. Rough & smooth

Ainsley1

Well this thread seems to have degenerated into a them and us scenario. Often there are posted many truths, some suppositions and claims and I do not propose to go into details for sake of brevity. I do put forward this:

I have always had the view that the older generation (some at least) have had it very rough in the past and there are many single pensioners who lost partners to make this kingdom as free as it is today or worked hard from a young age under poor conditions that are not tolerated today. I have one relative who's husband died early directly owing to WW2 (but in later life). We owe them and their dependants a great deal, as we do all others who have suffered for the greater good. Those who claim 'we are all in this together' generally could not and would not suffer the same privations be they from conflicts or just plain living standards and conditions. That is to take nothing away from people who still suffer.

For this I think they need some reward and should be given some support in later life. This has formed the 'catch all' benefits (which often are miserly, but yes difficult to afford) and the slightly better tax treatment of the age related allowance etc. and a recognition that costs are more expensive when you become older for the basics such as heating as higher temperatures need to be maintained. I have begrudged them not one bit, but for a small group these benefits have been eroded, for a short time. That small group do not generally form part of the older group who suffered.

Many in the country have suffered, young, middle aged and older people, and the poor. Generally (with exceptions) those on benefits have done fairly well - and sometimes better than those who get nothing extra! In that 'all' respect it might seem we should all have to 'pay' in these harder times. However the older generation have already paid and planned according to promises and do not have much time if any to change their prospects whereas the younger do, however tough it may seem at present, so I still thing the elders should be a special case for a higher allowance.

It has been handled badly by GO, simplification it was supposed to be, bungling it is. The reasoning for the 50p tax rate reduction may well be true but it's introduction has been handled poorly. Having acknowledged the ability to escape by advancing pay there is not the opportunity to avoid by delay. Child benefit scheme is still a mess (individual income vs household income) and cap on benefits at average salary is generally more than fair with a few exceptions.

Pensioner income (average) no where near meets average salary ( and there is an argument that it doesn't need to for most of pension life), pensioner inflation rate is higher and increases are generally lower than that. And note If you get a higher pension there is a virtual effective tax rate of 50% for those who exceed average salary owing to the claw back of half the allowance of 50p per £ extra.

Dunstonh wrote early on
"Everyone has to pay for the mess the country is in. It is well publicised that those in retirement are the least hit."
I often agree with his/her posts but cannot agree with those statements. Would the first be true in practice as many escape payment through either ability to avoid or so called benefits. Where is the evidence for the second? many prospective pensioners are seeing their threshold for payment age rise, those lucky enough to have some inflation linking are seeing it eroded, savings rates at an all time low for those who had to suffer 12% to 25% increases in years gone by etc. etc.

What can be said is that Executive pay has far outstripped others. Are they in this with the rest of us.

I will not vote for or (if it were possible against). I do not agree with the move to remove the additional allowance, do think the basic raising of everyone's allowance is a good move as implemented. So impassioned as I am, why not the vote? Simply the raising of the basic pension to £140.

and I apologise for the lack of brevity getting to that point!!

fairleads

Ainsley1 wrote: »

Well this thread seems to have degenerated into a them and us scenario. Often there are posted many truths, some suppositions and claims and I do not propose to go into details for sake of brevity. I do put forward this:

I have always had the view that the older generation (some at least) have had it very rough in the past and there are many single pensioners who lost partners to make this kingdom as free as it is today or worked hard from a young age under poor conditions that are not tolerated today. I have one relative who's husband died early directly owing to WW2 (but in later life). We owe them and their dependants a great deal, as we do all others who have suffered for the greater good. Those who claim 'we are all in this together' generally could not and would not suffer the same privations be they from conflicts or just plain living standards and conditions. That is to take nothing away from people who still suffer.

For this I think they need some reward and should be given some support in later life. This has formed the 'catch all' benefits (which often are miserly, but yes difficult to afford) and the slightly better tax treatment of the age related allowance etc. and a recognition that costs are more expensive when you become older for the basics such as heating as higher temperatures need to be maintained. I have begrudged them not one bit, but for a small group these benefits have been eroded, for a short time. That small group do not generally form part of the older group who suffered.

Many in the country have suffered, young, middle aged and older people, and the poor. Generally (with exceptions) those on benefits have done fairly well - and sometimes better than those who get nothing extra! In that 'all' respect it might seem we should all have to 'pay' in these harder times. However the older generation have already paid and planned according to promises and do not have much time if any to change their prospects whereas the younger do, however tough it may seem at present, so I still thing the elders should be a special case for a higher allowance.

It has been handled badly by GO, simplification it was supposed to be, bungling it is. The reasoning for the 50p tax rate reduction may well be true but it's introduction has been handled poorly. Having acknowledged the ability to escape by advancing pay there is not the opportunity to avoid by delay. Child benefit scheme is still a mess (individual income vs household income) and cap on benefits at average salary is generally more than fair with a few exceptions.

Pensioner income (average) no where near meets average salary ( and there is an argument that it doesn't need to for most of pension life), pensioner inflation rate is higher and increases are generally lower than that. And note If you get a higher pension there is a virtual effective tax rate of 50% for those who exceed average salary owing to the claw back of half the allowance of 50p per £ extra.

Dunstonh wrote early on
"Everyone has to pay for the mess the country is in. It is well publicised that those in retirement are the least hit."
I often agree with his/her posts but cannot agree with those statements. Would the first be true in practice as many escape payment through either ability to avoid or so called benefits. Where is the evidence for the second? many prospective pensioners are seeing their threshold for payment age rise, those lucky enough to have some inflation linking are seeing it eroded, savings rates at an all time low for those who had to suffer 12% to 25% increases in years gone by etc. etc.

What can be said is that Executive pay has far outstripped others. Are they in this with the rest of us.

I will not vote for or (if it were possible against). I do not agree with the move to remove the additional allowance, do think the basic raising of everyone's allowance is a good move as implemented. So impassioned as I am, why not the vote? Simply the raising of the basic pension to £140.

and I apologise for the lack of brevity getting to that point!!

And what many younger commentors forget, is that those who are on pension, on rigid income formats, have no option open to them but to accept what's dished out because it's unavoidable. Whereas the youth will still have options. So don't place all your faith in the pension wrapper, it might tie you up when you least expect it.

teajug

margaretclare wrote: »

In addition, in the older age-groups by and large you're not expected to have so many expenses as younger people. You don't need e.g. clothes for going to work. Mortgage should (hopefully) have been paid off. Travel to work. These kinds of things.

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!

To the comments about the political party which I support, I cannot see why there is a contradiction between the words 'English' and 'Democrat'. We are English and we are democratic. I hope the comment about 'oxymoron' wasn't being clever-clever, thinking that I might not know what the word meant???

I still feel sorry for the younger people. All right, my generation were expected to work - like the 85-year-old above - but at least there was work for us to do. There were plenty of jobs. Not the case nowadays, at all! The younger of my granddaughters has a BTEC in Travel and Tourism. She gained this qualification just as the recession hit and the travel industry was affected. What does she do now? A part-time job as a picker for internet grocery orders. She regards herself as lucky to have that. In my youth part-time work would not have been considered at all suitable for a single girl.

Pensioners do not have the same energy as younger people and also some have been doing very difficult work all their live which would have taken a toll on their health, Younger people have better education and health facilities than pensioner would have had when they were younger. The work was very hard back then and would have taken a toll on their health as well as their was no benefit around like it is today also no children allowance or birth control either.

The work pensioners had to do years ago younger people today would not touch today, and indeed some pensioners still have to work to make ends meet and pay tax on it. It is all very well for a couple, but not everyone has a partner indeed most pensioners single and are not able to do things like DIY like they used to do when they were younger and not able to do maintenance of the home, due to age related illness that most gets and if not they are very lucky. Pensioners have to employ someone to do these things for them and that does not come cheap. Also, not all pensioners have paid up mortgage they may live in rented accommodation and rent to pay.

There is nothing wrong with a part time job as a picker for internet grocery orders. It is a job what are you saying is it because she is young that she should not be doing the job. I can tell you I have worked in far worse jobs when I was a young person.

I think it was so wrong for the government to freeze the increases in age related tax allowance, and cut the top rate of tax for their friends.

Hopefully the Lib/Cons will not get back in the next time but I think they will have done all the damage to the poorest in the country before they have gotten rid off. :mad::mad::mad::mad:

teajug

margaretclare wrote: »

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.

Tesco have good deal with lean mice, it is going very cheap, if you like that sort of meat.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9171193/Tesco-told-to-shut-flagship-Covent-Garden-store-over-serious-mice-infestation.html

LEN_2

cannysaver wrote: »

hi




not quite got my head around this topic, perhaps fellow posters can help me with a fundemental question.:

Why should the level of income you can enjoy before you start to pay tax be dictated by the number of candles on your birthday cake?

Sure, it's not great that the age related allowance will be frozen for some and not be given to others but surely it should be based on your income and not your age. 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?

It was never guaranteed that the age related allowance would all be available and it just so happens that this time around pensioners are the group being hit.

It was terrible politics announcing this at the same time as the 50p tax rate reduction, but that doesn't necesserily make the decision wrong.

The canny saver

perhaps when you get to 65 (67)in my case and have been paying your dues for 50 years or more you wont find it so difficult to understand
my taxes probably paid thechild benefit your mother was claiming until you were 16?

srcandas

LEN wrote: »

perhaps when you get to 65 (67)in my case and have been paying your dues for 50 years or more you wont find it so difficult to understand
my taxes probably paid thechild benefit your mother was claiming until you were 16?

And my family suffered in 1066, they were saxon!

What's gone before is irrelevant. It could be argued that the mess the young find themselves in is down to the selfish attitude of your and my generation Len.
So why should they pay?

If the young don't work then there will be no pensiones, no NHS, no security. Priority needs IMHO to be getting the economy growing, increasing the size of the cake, and then sharing it fairly. That last bit cannot happen if the cake consists of just a few crumbs.

Well this is where I came in. I'll close the door on the way out

teajug

srcandas wrote: »

And my family suffered in 1066, they were saxon!

What's gone before is irrelevant. It could be argued that the mess the young find themselves in is down to the selfish attitude of your and my generation Len.
So why should they pay?

If the young don't work then there will be no pensiones, no NHS, no security. Priority needs IMHO to be getting the economy growing, increasing the size of the cake, and then sharing it fairly. That last bit cannot happen if the cake consists of just a few crumbs.

Well this is where I came in. I'll close the door on the way out

Well that explains why there is not much money around for pensioners because there are so many young people unemployed now.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/economics-blog/2012/mar/07/job-hard-find-young-unemployed

Thrugelmir

teajug wrote: »

Pensioners do not have the same energy as younger people and also some have been doing very difficult work all their live which would have taken a toll on their health,

My grandfather died at 66 and my grandmother at 64. (in the 60's). We live now in a vastly different age where the toll on health is a fraction of what it was. My grandparents had more in common with the Vikings than a generation 50 years on.

teajug

Thrugelmir wrote: »

My grandfather died at 66 and my grandmother at 64. (in the 60's). We live now in a vastly different age where the toll on health is a fraction of what it was. My grandparents had more in common with the Vikings than a generation 50 years on.

My grandparents died in the 1950's and my dad died in 1970 my mother died in 1998. When my son was born in 1960's there was only haf crown children allowance and that was good, when it went up to 10 shilling it was even better. I worked when my son was six months old and did not have the benefit of a good educations. I did all sorts of jobs to scrap a living for us. It was better than not working as I was not sure if there was any kind of benefits then, perhaps there was but I did not know about them.

My son has never been out of work and he told me the other day that he would never give up work becasue when that happens what is there to live for when his family has grown up as he enjoys his work. I haver to say I am in my late 60's and would like to keep working but it is very different today in the workplace.