Council takes 85% of my annuity

MonkeyMad

Even with their tax cuts, the richest elements are paying a vast amount of tax compared to the lowest elements and one might question just what it is they are getting out of it all since they are hardly likely to be claiming the benefits you are clamouring for.

As for he relevance of UK pensions compared to rest of Europe, so what if our state pension was the lowest? Unless you have a full breakdown of the actual social spending by Government per pensioner in direct and indirect terms you may as well not bother making a comparison as it is meaningless. Bit like saying a saying 'I am poor because I only earn £5000 a year from working, but I do also happen to get £40000 in interest from my investments'. Even then it doesn't in any way make any statement of affordability.

teajug

rpc wrote: »

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.

Just as Ken Liverson arrangement is perfectly legal but is not a loophole in the system he is using as he pays his taxes by way of a company as he employes people, however the PM last week make such a deal about it in PM question time, I would have thought that he would be the last one to p[FONT=&quot]ontificate [/FONT] about like this when he employed Lords that do not pay any taxes at all in the UK what double standards.

Extract from PM question time:

[FONT=&quot]12:09 - "I don't know why he's taking advice from the part time chancellor sitting next to him. I wonder which job he's dong today," Miliband says. I think he was talking to Clegg. Miliband moves to charities and says they could lose £500 million. Cameron says the figures are completely wrong. Cameron still tries to get the debate onto Ken Livingstone. He's making a valiant effort to turn defence into offence. The Speaker demands the minister for health calm himself for his health. Miliband: "If he wants to talk about the mayor of London we've got a mayor for London who will cut Tube fairs. And what's he got? A candidate who is out of touch and arguing for the cut to the 50p tax rate." Miliband had to do that - he looked like he was distancing himself from Ken.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]12:11 - Miliband says it's an "omni-shambles Budget". Cameron sticks on Ken Livingstone. he's managing to just about keep it there. Cameron: "He talks about my last month. I accept, a tough month. Let's look at his month. He lost the Bradford by-election. He showed complete weakness when it came to the Unite trade union and the fuel strike." Miliband: "I am not going to take any lectures on industrial relations from a prime minister who caused panic at the pumps. Let him apologise for the gross irresponsibility for the Cabinet minister who caused that panic at the pumps. He should calm down Mr Speaker." Chaos in the Commons. "This Budget fails the test of fairness, it fails the test of competence." Cameron: "He won't take any lectures on the fuel strike because he's in the pockets of the people who wanted them. Not good enough to run the opposition, not good enough to run the country."[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]12:14 - So, a couple of interesting things. First, the PM mentioned Galloway by name not as the member for Bradford West. Galloway shot him a look of pure fury. Secondly, he was in full red-faced mode at the end, shouting and pointing and seemingly over-emotional. Miliband probably edged it on that, because he stayed calm and the subject matter was to his benefit. Cameron fought valiantly to keep the spotlight on Ken and not the Budget, but was only partially successful. That was scrappy, angry and incredible bad-tempered. Nothing new, all a bit stale, rather enjoyable. Final score: Miliband: 2 Cameron: 1.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]12:19 - The Tories are intent on hammering Ken today. Another planted question on his tax arrangements. And again from Andrew Selous. "Why the deafening silence from the party opposite?" Cameron asks.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]12:21 - Stephen Mosley (Con, sad eyes) asks about Burma. He's wary of how much they really respect human rights. Cameron on the top rate of tax: "The party opposite has 13 years to introduce a 50p top rate of tax. They did it one month before an election they knew they were going to lose." The front bench look quite defeated actually. Lots of sombre, ashen faces. The Ken deflection technique is not quite working. But the mere fact it exists shows how much Ken has become a liability rather than an asset to the party - something that was unimaginable a few years back.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]12:25 - Does the PM think selling the granny tax as a "simplification" treats them with respect, he is asked. Cameron tries to defend his record on the elderly, avoids the question.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2012/04/18/pmqs-as-it-happens[/FONT]

Thrugelmir

MonkeyMad wrote: »

As for he relevance of UK pensions compared to rest of Europe, so what if our state pension was the lowest?

I would call it selective posting. Not substantiated by fact. Rather like our current crop of politicians. Not daring to state the worst.

margaretclare

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

I think this is happening already. In the last couple of weeks we've seen people complaining that although their state pension has gone up as they expected it to do every April, and this year it went up by 5.20%, at the same time those folk who were receiving pension credit (means-tested) saw that amount reduced, leaving them no better off. In addition, other means-tested benefits like housing benefit and council tax benefit have also been reduced.

I am very very pleased that DH and I are above the means-testing level. We could have saved a lot more over our working lifetime, of course we could, because a lot of the things we wasted money on were just ephemeral and easily-forgotten. However, although we're not rich we're not poor either, and that's a pretty good place to be.

margaretclare

property.advert wrote: »

I think the correct thought process is "why should I bother saving anything for retirement when everything I get simply replaces benefits I would get anyway if I wasted my money and never saved a penny".

Of course it is highlighted when the pension is so low but to only receive 15% is ridiculous. Unless your pension is likely to be much larger than the state benefits, it does beg the question why should you save.

Because you have a certain amount of freedom, of choice, and you don't have to go cap-in-hand to anybody.

seven-day-weekend

margaretclare wrote: »

Because you have a certain amount of freedom, of choice, and you don't have to go cap-in-hand to anybody.

....or show them your bank accounts, or ask permission to leave the country, or tell them about a change in circumstances, or worry about who else lives in your house.

Freedom, as margaretclare says.

I'm also glad my husband and I are above the means-testing limits.

teajug

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

....or show them your bank accounts, or ask permission to leave the country, or tell them about a change in circumstances, or worry about who else lives in your house.

Freedom, as margaretclare says.

I'm also glad my husband and I are above the means-testing limits.

........as well as a lot of pensioners of today that is why so much goes benefits unclaimed by pensioners. I would have to have to give my life over to them as said above that is what it would be like if you claim any kind of benefits. However if these millionaires gets their way we will have no privacies at all as they want to monitor all our telephone call emails and what internet site we go to and god know what else they will think up that we have to do. Some of them do not know what day of the week is or what month we are in sad state of affairs.


Wonder what they will think up next.