Council takes 85% of my annuity

hugheskevi

Of course it is highlighted when the pension is so low but to only receive 15% is ridiculous.

Broadly, the choice is between a high taper which affects a low range of income, or a lower taper that therefore reaches higher into the income distribution. Both have their failings, but that is the choice with any means-tested system.

Perhaps because this government plans to set a new pension level thats high enough so that fewer people will be eligible for means tested benefits in retirement and any income is likely to be kept 100% by them. Also because it's better not to have to live on benefit level income if you can arrange to do better than that.

That probably won't help the OP. This report by the Pensions Policy Institute shows on page 60 that the proposed system will only reduce the proportion of pensioner households receiving means-tested benefits from 50% in 2040 under the current system to 40% under the planned reform.

That is true, but the UK has lowest paid pensions in EU, then it is not saying much. £140.00 whenever it comes in it will mean that that the UK is still the lowest paid pensions in EU and it looks like it will continue to stay like this under this government.

The statistics may well get worse as there will now be less money being spent on the State Pension system compared to existing plans, Budget 2012 said on page 56:

As set out in the Green Paper published by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), the single tier will cost no more than the current State Pension system in every year.

tescobabe69

Venator wrote: »

I have a small annuity of £1440 per annum, paid as a lump sum every year. This is the amount I am left with after tax. I am unemployed at the moment after having been on ESA for nearly two years, now receiving JSA contributions rate. The council offset my rent and council tax benefits by deducting 85% of my annuity leaving me with a paltry 15%. I was wondering if this is normal as the way they calculate it is unfair. They deduct 65% of the total for rent then 20% of the total for council tax. Surely a fairer way is to deduct 20% less the 65% already deducted. I am seriously thinking of telling my provider just to cancel the annuity and telling the coucil to get stuffed and if it wasn't for the fact i may be entering the job market again I would. Are these deductions normal?.

Do me a favour, that 15% you dont need, send it to me, because of savings I'm not entitled to any benefit - zero.

thorsoak

Venator wrote: »

I have a small annuity of £1440 per annum, paid as a lump sum every year. This is the amount I am left with after tax. I am unemployed at the moment after having been on ESA for nearly two years, now receiving JSA contributions rate. The council offset my rent and council tax benefits by deducting 85% of my annuity leaving me with a paltry 15%. I was wondering if this is normal as the way they calculate it is unfair. They deduct 65% of the total for rent then 20% of the total for council tax. Surely a fairer way is to deduct 20% less the 65% already deducted. I am seriously thinking of telling my provider just to cancel the annuity and telling the coucil to get stuffed and if it wasn't for the fact i may be entering the job market again I would. Are these deductions normal?.

I receive a private pension of £150 per month (£1800). But we paid off our mortgage and now I am left with only about 12s 6d in savings :eek:. But, because I have no mortgage, I get no offset for rent (as you do) - only the 25% single person council tax rabate ....by your argument, should I not be entitled to something???????? Of course not!

teajug

margaretclare wrote: »

The title of this thread is inaccurate. The council don't actually 'take' any of your annuity at all. What they do is not to 'give' you so much because you already 'have' this amount of money.

Comparison with other countries is futile. I think you would find that many countries pay a lot more tax than we do. In Denmark, for instance, I believe they pay about 50% of their income in return for the services they expect and enjoy.

Can we have a link where it say that please, do they pay NI, Council tax and tax on income like we do, what stick in my crawl is in the budget the top echelon’s got a massive tax deduction and we got stuck with paying more taxes for less pensions...I do not think that makes up all in this together.

seven-day-weekend

teajug wrote: »

Can we have a link where it say that please, do they pay NI, Council tax and tax on income like we do, what stick in my crawl is in the budget the top echelon’s got a massive tax deduction and we got stuck with paying more taxes for less pensions...I do not think that makes up all in this together.

Certainly in Spain they pay all these things and the rate they pay for NI is crippling! And if you are out of work, your unemployment money depends upon how much you have paid in and how much you earned, it is also time-limited, so after your eligible time has passed you don't get any more. You also have to pay your rent/mortgage/Council Tax out of it. And you have to do Community Service work ( for about six weeks a year I believe), to qualify for it.

I know this because I lived in Spain for eight years and knew people who claimed unemployment Benefit.

jamesd

teajug wrote: »

That is true, but the UK has lowest paid pensions in EU, then it is not saying much.

It is not correct that the UK has the lowest pensions in the EU.

The link you're providing only considers the state pensions. UK pensioners on average have an income in the £18,000 sort of level. That's far above just the state pension level and is about 64% of median earnings. The difference in the UK is the workplace and personal pension systems.

The UK system gives people a choice, with a state pension combination set up to provide a background lowish level of pension income for those who choose to make no other pension provision. Beyond that people can choose to prioritise future or current spending based on their individual needs and priorities.

Thrugelmir

teajug wrote: »

That is true, but the UK has lowest paid pensions in EU, then it is not saying much. £140.00 whenever it comes in it will mean that that the UK is still the lowest paid pensions in EU and it looks like it will continue to stay like this under this government.

Look at the bottom of the link and you will see that we are the lowest paid pensioners in EU.

and the UK's public sector unions are going on strike because they don't wish to fund there own pensions.

Yet in Germany this is the contribution rate for all employees. The contribution is mandatory and deducted at source.

Contribution Rates
The contribution rate is currently 19.5 percent of the gross salary (gross = total salary before tax). This contribution is shared equally between employee and employer. This means the employee pays 9.75% of their gross salary and the employer pays the same.

You get out of something, in direct relation to the contribution put in.

jamesd

hugheskevi wrote: »

The statistics may well get worse as there will be less money being spent on State Pensions, Budget 2012

It is not correct that there will be less money spent on the state pensions. The amount spent on them is to increase.

A fuller quote from that page is:

"The new system will be introduced early in the next Parliament and will be set at a level above the means-tested standard Guarantee Credit and all State Pension records will be recognised. As set out in the Green Paper published by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), the single tier will cost no more than the current State Pension system in every year."

The difference is substantial because part of the way that the single tier costs will remain the same is through the elimination of many means tested benefit payouts and replacing them with the income from the combined pension. The other way is an increase transfer of money that is now going to the additional state pension of average and higher earners to the pension for lower and non earners earners. This is gradually eliminating the earnings-related part of the state pensions.

So the spending on the state pensions will increase, substituting for some of the means tested benefits.

teajug

From the link below and is up-to-date 2012, it appears that Monaco is the best place to live as individuals do not pay any taxes there. Coincidentally the person ‘Sir’ Philip Green, billionaire is the person that Cameron employed to examine the government spending. What double standards when he put his businesses accounts through his wife account living Monaco.

http://www.worldwide-tax.com/

rpc

teajug wrote: »

From the link below and is up-to-date 2012, it appears that Monaco is the best place to live as individuals do not pay any taxes there. Coincidentally the person ‘Sir’ Philip Green, billionaire is the person that Cameron employed to examine the government spending. What double standards when he put his businesses accounts through his wife account living Monaco.

http://www.worldwide-tax.com/

It may irritate a bit, but that arrangement is perfectly legal and would be a tough loophole to close. He pays the tax he is legally required to do, as does she.

I'm not sure why someone who built a large and successful retail empire is an unsuitable person to review goverment procurement? He's a far better choice than a career politician or career civil servant who has no idea how the real world works.