Restoration of Age related allowances - government petition - all please read

ticktack_2

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

If you do the sums, the claw back rate is currently 30% ie pensioners have an income band where earning an extra pound pays 30p in tax.

Isn't that an inevitable consequence of giving over-65's an additional tax-free allowance? You either have to give it to all over-65s, regardless of their income, or at some income point you have to start reducing it.

According to a tax broker's webpage at http://www.icl-ifa.co.uk/2012/03/budget-2012-granny-tax/:

"The gap between the personal allowance and age-related personal allowances had already been closing, as the coalition government worked towards their target of a £10,000 personal allowance for everyone.

This gap had closed from 33.4% in 2010/11 to 24.8% in 2011/12. It is due to close further still to 22.8% in the 2012/13 tax year, when the age allowance at age 65 will be £10,500 and the personal allowance will be £8,105."

Eventually, everyone with an income below £100,000 will get the same Personal Allowance. That doesn't seem to me to be unfair.

jamesd

Seems fair to me. Don't forget that there's also a plan to introduce a £140 a week minimum state pension that'll improve income levels for the most needy pensioners, increasing their income to £7,280 a year, none of which will have income tax deducted.

The better off pensioners just have less need of extra benefits than the most needy and the latter are where I prefer to see benefits placed, instead of those who are better or much better off. Also worth remembering that the average pensioner income is in the region of £18,000 a year.

This is also a welcome move to decrease the inter-generational wealth transfer from younger people to the baby boomers who're now retiring in ever-increasing numbers. Reducing those transfers does require some reduction in benefits for this bigger retiring generation to keep the tax burden on the subsequent two generations at sensible levels.

zygurat789

margaretclare wrote: »

Older people need better-quality food, they don't need all the energy-giving foods they used up while running around doing a job at work. They need quality rather than quantity. This might be where some of the food costs appear higher.

The trouble is this food is going up at a faster rate than the CPI which of course is the point. Rember that mince in Tescos Margaret, used to be £3.00 it is now £4.25. This is a 41.67% increase in less than a year. This is the inflation that pensioners have to withstand.

zygurat789

ticktack wrote: »

Isn't that an inevitable consequence of giving over-65's an additional tax-free allowance? You either have to give it to all over-65s, regardless of their income, or at some income point you have to start reducing it.

According to a tax broker's webpage at http://www.icl-ifa.co.uk/2012/03/budget-2012-granny-tax/:

"The gap between the personal allowance and age-related personal allowances had already been closing, as the coalition government worked towards their target of a £10,000 personal allowance for everyone.

This gap had closed from 33.4% in 2010/11 to 24.8% in 2011/12. It is due to close further still to 22.8% in the 2012/13 tax year, when the age allowance at age 65 will be £10,500 and the personal allowance will be £8,105."

Eventually, everyone with an income below £100,000 will get the same Personal Allowance. That doesn't seem to me to be unfair.

So it is fair for the posh bully boy to reduce his mates tax and take it away from the least powerful? You have a peculiar idea of what is fair.
The point is that pensioners are the least well off and least powerful of the income groups because they cannot change jobs or ask for a rise. They have to depend upon the scraps (at CPI rate) handed out (grudgingly) by the politicians.
This board is about tax CUTTING if you want to increase peoples taxes go and start your own board. Start off with the rich who CAN afford it.

ticktack_2

zygurat789 wrote: »

The point is that pensioners are the least well off and least powerful of the income groups because they cannot change jobs or ask for a rise.

I'd say the least well off income group is the young unemployed, many of whom are entirely dependent on benefits, and have little prospect of finding a decently-paid job. If they do manage to get employment, I think it would be nice if they were allowed to keep at least as much of their earnings as their grand-dad is allowed to keep of his pension.

They have to depend upon the scraps (at CPI rate) handed out (grudgingly) by the politicians.

You can keep the whole of your state pension, without paying tax on it, so no worries there. :j

Andy_L

zygurat789 wrote: »

S They have to depend upon the scraps (at CPI rate) handed out (grudgingly) by the politicians.

Is that not increased by the best of CPI, Wages or 2.5%?

Andy_L

zygurat789 wrote: »

The trouble is this food is going up at a faster rate than the CPI which of course is the point. Rember that mince in Tescos Margaret, used to be £3.00 it is now £4.25. This is a 41.67% increase in less than a year. This is the inflation that pensioners have to withstand.

the inflation that everyone (who buys mince) has to withstand.

ps buy your mince today, its 2 for£7 at the moment

MonkeyMad

What's with the obsession with the price of mince? Although I'm not vegetarian even I have worked out that the price of beans and pulses is peanuts (no pun) in comparison with that of meat, so should vegetarian pensioners have more of their allowance taken away to compensate for their reduced relative expenditure? Or should meat-eaters just bulk out their meals with alternatives like the rest of us on a budget?

Randvegeta

This is ridiculous. Inflation hits everyone, not just pensioners. The only reason why I can see inflation hits any group harder than others is because they buy goods/services that have gone up in prices more than other groups. And if that is the case, then it's not really a necessary expense. If it WAS necessary, than all groups would be hit equally.

There are alternative meats to beef. Chicken is still ridiculously cheap. Go to sainburys and pick up 2.5KG for 4 quid. That's just 1.60GBP per KG. Why do you need beef? If you can't afford to live your extravagant lifestyle within your means, DON'T! Choose a more humble life and appreciate you have food at all!

Heating bills to high? Insulate or get a small house! Eveyone pays for heating, not just pensioners.

What I see is that people are complaining about lower standards of living. EVERYONE must face rising costs and static or even falling income. NOT just pensioners.

The youth are the most vulnerable group in society. Unemployment is highest in the youth. Wages for under 21s are less per hour, meaning they earn LESS for the same work. House prices are unaffordable to most so you can forget the youth ever getting on the property ladder, meanwhile they get no tax breaks and if working full time, no benefits.

So why exactly are should pensioners be given MORE than the youth?

margaretclare

Randvegeta wrote: »

This is ridiculous. Inflation hits everyone, not just pensioners. The only reason why I can see inflation hits any group harder than others is because they buy goods/services that have gone up in prices more than other groups. And if that is the case, then it's not really a necessary expense. If it WAS necessary, than all groups would be hit equally.

There are alternative meats to beef. Chicken is still ridiculously cheap. Go to Sainsburys and pick up 2.5KG for 4 quid. That's just 1.60GBP per KG. Why do you need beef? If you can't afford to live your extravagant lifestyle within your means, DON'T! Choose a more humble life and appreciate you have food at all!

Heating bills to high? Insulate or get a small house! Everyone pays for heating, not just pensioners.

What I see is that people are complaining about lower standards of living. EVERYONE must face rising costs and static or even falling income. NOT just pensioners.

The youth are the most vulnerable group in society. Unemployment is highest in the youth. Wages for under 21s are less per hour, meaning they earn LESS for the same work. House prices are unaffordable to most so you can forget the youth ever getting on the property ladder, meanwhile they get no tax breaks and if working full time, no benefits.

So why exactly are should pensioners be given MORE than the youth?

I agree with all of this, but I have been slated by members of my own age-group for saying so and for refusing to sign that petition.

I don't complain about the price of food and I wouldn't eat cheap chicken. I'd rather eat no meat at all, of any kind, rather than seem to be subsidising the way the cheapest chicken meat is raised (see Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall's 'Chicken Out' campaign.) Buying food means making choices. Some people shop purely on choice. Others shop on ethics. We tend to shop on a combination of ethics and good value.