George Osborne MUST now U-Turn 'Granny Tax'!

teajug

We need someone like the French President he is going to make the wealthy pay 75% on taxes and also cutting the ministers pay by 30%. Now he is some one worth voting for.

http://my.news.yahoo.com/leading-french-candidate-vows-75-tax-super-rich-113545887.html


http://www.manilatimes.net/index.php/news/world/23089-new-french-president-cabinet-to-get-pay-cut

Unlike the cheating Tories in UK such as Baroness Warsi fiddling her expenses, she should be treated like benefits cheats. If benefits cheats are found out they are give jail sentences so why not her. :mad::mad::mad:

boozercruiser

MonkeyMad wrote: »

I have a friend who is fortunate enough to benefit from a reduction in the 50% additional rate. I've pointed him towards the opening statement that says he will be getting a £40K tax boost and he is a bit annoyed since he has worked out that he will only get £10K or so extra a year because he only earns £200K a year.

Since he should be getting a £40K tax boost, where does he apply to HMRC to get the rest of this apparently flat-rate benefit, or does he actually need to increase his earnings to closer to £800K, which might suggest the original figures are made up??[/QUTE]

I am amused by the fact that your 200K chap will ONLY be 10K BETTER off.:) Poor Love. Will he spend that of a Cruise then for the whole family? This while a Pensioner somewhere is trying to decide whether or not to Heat or Eat.

And yes I do accept that the only ones who will be the full 40,000K BETTER off will be people on £800,000 a year like Footballers i.e. Wayne (whinger) Rooney. Poor Love.

Meanwhile from next April new Pensioners will be £325 a year WORSE off.

Fair that is not.:mad:

I guess that most people trying to kick me in the nuts right now are well under Pension Age. You may think different when you retire.

Then think back to this post and in your head will come "That Pensioner who complained about the Elderly Pension Tax Freeze was RIGHT!:eek:

I feel so sorry that I gave him a hard time.:D

Apology accepted.:D

How the changes affect you in April 2013

"The changes mean those born after 5 April 1948 will see their tax-free income capped at the new £9,205 that will apply to under 65s from April 2013. Any additional income is taxed at 20 per cent, 40 per cent or 45 per cent (the new top tax rate) - just like their children and grandchildren".

"Those born before 5 April 1948 will see personal allowance frozen at the 2012-13 levels. For those born between 6 April 1938 and 5 April 1948 this will be £10,500; for those born before 6 April 1938 it will be £10,660".
"These limits will then stay in place until they align with the personal allowance (the one that's £9,205 from next April). This is expected to inch higher each year with inflation".

The day George Osborne took the Elderly for fools...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yDqFvVBNK4

The Tax Gran song...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMMVe4kfQaE

margaretclare

Young people that are struggling are not making enough effort to get on in life with all the advantages they have today unlike pensions of today they did not have the benefit of good education and good health programs as well as the internet with all that free information available to them.

I wish you could say this to their faces - if you're brave enough - and see what reaction you get. The advantages that my generation had, which my grandchildren haven't got, is that there were plenty of jobs. Not the case now, at all. A case in point is a young woman of 23 who can only get a part-time job. She does some weird hours and all credit to her, but it's only because she can't get anything else and can't get full-time. This was highlighted fairly recently in a discussion about employment/unemployment figures and it was said then that there are many people working part-time who would love to work full-time but there isn't a full-time job for them. My GS had the benefit of good education - he was a mature student in the university where I was a mature student. It has taken him about 3 years since graduating to get a job in his field. I'd love you to say to his face that he's 'not making enough effort'! Or my eldest GD who has just qualified as a painter and decorator because her local authority job is always under threat from cutbacks. At least she'll have another string to her bow if the council decide they don't need to employ youth workers any more. Her comments would be downright and forthright - I really wish you could come face to face with her.

DH's granddaughters are having the benefit of an excellent education, but then, it's one of the things his son is paying for and has paid for since they were 4 years old, now 16 and 18. I believe his son hasn't got a personal allowance at all, from something he said recently, but I could be wrong. I thought everyone had?

boozercruiser

teajug wrote: »

We need someone like the French President he is going to make the wealthy pay 75% on taxes and also cutting the ministers pay by 30%. Now he is some one worth voting for.

http://my.news.yahoo.com/leading-french-candidate-vows-75-tax-super-rich-113545887.html


http://www.manilatimes.net/index.php/news/world/23089-new-french-president-cabinet-to-get-pay-cut

Unlike the cheating Tories in UK such as Baroness Warsi fiddling her expenses, she should be treated like benefits cheats. If benefits cheats are found out they are give jail sentences so why not her. :mad::mad::mad:

Gosh:T I found someone that I actually agree with.:D

gadgetmind

margaretclare wrote: »

I wish you could say this to their faces - if you're brave enough - and see what reaction you get. The advantages that my generation had, which my grandchildren haven't got, is that there were plenty of jobs. Not the case now, at all.

I think the big picture is that every generation faces challenges, but they are different challenges, and it's how every individual prepares for, and rises to, these challenges that matters.

I've never sat around waiting for a job (never had a job interview!) and have never been out of work as a result.

I believe his son hasn't got a personal allowance at all, from something he said recently, but I could be wrong. I thought everyone had?

No, not any longer.

margaretclare

Women pensioners had a very difficult like with lots of physical work and also were hoodwinked by the government as they told them that they did not need to pay a higher rate of tax as their husband's NI would be sufficient and now when it is too late women have to put up with very little pension in UK compared to pensioners in the EU.

You're confusing the NI system with the tax system. Women were told they needn't pay full NI, not tax. It was called the 'married women's reduced stamp'. However, not all of us fell into that trap, which is why I have full SRP in my own right, not from husband's contributions. That goes back to Lord Beveridge whose 1942 report said 'she has other duties....replenish the race'.

Lots of physical work - well, so did everyone, male and female alike. I did a fair bit of physical work myself, running up and down a ward all day, but I'm still here to tell the tale, and was savvy enough to pay into the pension at work rather than have 'money in my pocket'. I don't compare with other countries.

Incidentally, I had the benefit of a good education - free. A grammar school education WAS a good education. I also had the benefit of a full student grant, something that today's students don't get!

MonkeyMad

boozercruiser wrote: »

MonkeyMad wrote: »

Meanwhile from next April new Pensioners will be £325 a year WORSE off.

A new pensioner won't be any worse off than the day before they become a pensioner since they don't get that allowance NOW. Which part of that is difficult for you to grasp?

And the £40K tax boost was just a random number you made up to justify your campaign then?

I seriously doubt I would be looking back on this post singing your praises...

teajug

margaretclare wrote: »

You're confusing the NI system with the tax system. Women were told they needn't pay full NI, not tax. It was called the 'married women's reduced stamp'. However, not all of us fell into that trap, which is why I have full SRP in my own right, not from husband's contributions. That goes back to Lord Beveridge whose 1942 report said 'she has other duties....replenish the race'.

Tax was an error, it was reduced NI stamp I meant, but thanks for being clever enough to spot it. [/QUOTE]

margaretclare wrote: »

Lots of physical work - well, so did everyone, male and female alike. I did a fair bit of physical work myself, running up and down a ward all day, but I'm still here to tell the tale, and was savvy enough to pay into the pension at work rather than have 'money in my pocket'. I don't compare with other countries.

I never said that other people did not do physical work, I merely pointed out that it takes a toll on some people’s health, but hay bully for you that you were in the right place if you happened to pass out from all that running up and down! The health service always had a good pension scheme going, but that does not mean that all employers had a pension scheme for their employees.

Also some people may have certain condition that may hinder them from being able to run up and down like you. You cannot generalize and assume that everyone should be like you when they were younger, being in your profession that should surely be as plain as the nose on your face.

Not comparing other countries is way of deluding yourself that the UK gives a good pensions to ALL as opposed to the few that was fortunate enough to be in a well-paid job as well as savvy/ smug enough to be employed by an organization that gave their staff a reasonable pension scheme to contribute toward for their retirement.

margaretclare wrote: »

Incidentally, I had the benefit of a good education - free. A grammar school education WAS a good education. I also had the benefit of a full student grant, something that today's students don't get!

Bully for you again, but some of us did not remarry therefor had to bring up a family on by on their own without the help of a second income, not everyone likes to change partners, if we all did that then all women and perhaps men would be so much better off financially and able to do all that extra training without benefits.

Also, just to remind you there has been a recession before so jobs were not always available like there were when everyone was purchasing 2 and 3 house for their pensions but that bubble burst and they are running around like a headless chickens now.

boozercruiser

MonkeyMad wrote: »

boozercruiser wrote: »

A new pensioner won't be any worse off than the day before they become a pensioner since they don't get that allowance NOW. Which part of that is difficult for you to grasp?

And the £40K tax boost was just a random number you made up to justify your campaign then?

I seriously doubt I would be looking back on this post singing your praises...

Your not a Government Spin Doctor by any chance are you Monkey Mad? But your handle seems to suit you.:D

My logic says that if Osborne would have left the Allowance at £10,500 instead of reducing it to £9,205 the retiring Pensioner would have been £325 better off. Yes?

Your Logic. Pass.;):eek:

And about that £40,000...

The Guardian...21st March 2012...

But Ed Balls, the shadow chancellor, said that the report by HMRC, used by the chancellor to justify the change, showed that people earning more than £150,000 would receive a generous tax cut.

Balls told the House of Commons: "We can be absolutely sure that 300,000 top-rate taxpayers, who currently legitimately pay top rate tax, will see a tax cut averaging £10,000 per individual, £40,000 for a millionaire."

NARPO disappointed with Chancellor’s “tax raid on retired police officers”
The National Association of Retired Police Officers has expressed its disappointment at plans announced by the Chancellor to scrap age-related tax allowance for pensioners.

The so-called “Granny Tax” will mean that up to 4.5 million of the country's older residents could lose out through the Chancellor's proposals to gradually eliminate the current allowances. From April 2013, new pensioners will not be able to benefit from the allowances. All existing over-65s will see their allowance frozen at £10,500, and the allowance will remain at £10,660 for over-75s.

Eric Evans, the President of NARPO said:

“As many as 4.5 million pensioners could lose an average of £83 per year, while those turning 65 next year will lose up to £322. This is yet another blow to pensioners who have already had the value of their pensions reduced by the Governments switch to the CPI as the index used to determine future pensions increases. Many hard-working police officers who have given long years of service will be badly affected by this, as will officers who are planning for their retirement. It’s all the more disappointing when at the same time millionaires will be upwards of £40,000 a year better off because of a cut in the 50p tax rate. This government needs to listen to the real concerns of the police family about how serving and retired officers are being treated.”

The Institute of Fiscal Studies concluded that because of the Chancellor’s decision to reduce the threshold for the 40% tax rate to £41,450 from April 2013, so-called ‘middle England’ tax payers will be dragged into the higher 40% rate from April 2013. Mr Osbourne asserts that the reduction of the 50p rate to 45p will cost the Treasury ‘only £100 million’, though according to the IFS this is far from certain.

Mr Evans continued,
“It seems that older people and middle earners will be paying for this tax cut for the very rich, and this is totally unacceptable. This tax raid on pensioners is unfair and should be opposed in the forthcoming budget debate in the House of Commons.”

The day George Osborne took the Elderly for fools...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yDqFvVBNK4

The Tax Gran song...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMMVe4kfQaE

hugheskevi

My logic says that if Osborne would have left the Allowance at £10,500 instead of reducing it to £9,205 the retiring Pensioner would have been £325 better off. Yes?

That is correct in a narrow sense. And illustrates the issue well.

Tax not raised in one place has to be raised in another. So maybe the Triple Lock uprating of Basic State Pension could be scaled back, Winter Fuel Payments reduced, free TV licences abolished and such like to make good the extra cost. That just changes the which group of pensioners suffer most.

But I don't think that is what pensioners want. So alternatively, someone else can suffer. Perhaps reduce disabled benefits, scale Housing Benefit back further, or freeze salaries of the police for example. Or just put in on the tab, and let young folk and kids pay it back sometime in the future.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, most of those groups have very vocal lobby groups, who are all aghast that any measure should be taken against the folk they represent.

Hence it is appalling that poor vulnerable pensioners should have to choose between heating and eating, but equally shocking to suggest the disabled should have to work more at a time of recession when they already are at a disadvantage in the labour market. Children, who were in no way responsible for the crisis, should of course not face any reductions. Nobody should be forced to move from their home, even if it is in a very expensive area. Soldiers, the police and nurses also should bear little of the burden, given they didn't cause the crisis either.

And so it goes on. Everyone agrees cuts are necessary, as long as they are other people's cuts. Not so much a case of "We're all in this together" as "You're all in this together" would seem to be more appropriate for all the various lobby groups and unions.

So then it gets back to the tax the rich mantra, and crucify bankers. That group don't really bother with lobby groups, as they don't need to win hearts and minds. So it is something that all the groups can agree to victimise But he who pays the piper calls the tune, and so the whole merry-go-round carries on.