Age related personal allowance

adonis10

zygurat789 wrote: »

Well they should be because they are completely disappearing and costing pensioners £ms. How do you think they are paying for the (LibDem) pledge to increase the personal allowance to £10k?
Pensioners as a group have suffered a greater reduction in income due to tax and other increases/decreases than any other group from this government and the previous one.

True but I'm not 66 for another 37 years so have bigger thjngs to think about now.

Any government screws over the working person. Whoever it is, the working man will always get screwed regardless of age.

jem16

zygurat789 wrote: »

Pensioners as a group have suffered a greater reduction in income due to tax and other increases/decreases than any other group from this government and the previous one.

Can you show some evidence for that statement?

From 2013/14 anyone earning over £41,450 will have to pay higher rate tax on £1,000 more of their income than last year. That is more than the extra tax that a pensioner will pay from 2013/14.

zagfles

zygurat789 wrote: »

Well they should be because they are completely disappearing and costing pensioners £ms. How do you think they are paying for the (LibDem) pledge to increase the personal allowance to £10k?
Pensioners as a group have suffered a greater reduction in income due to tax and other increases/decreases than any other group from this government and the previous one.

Sorry but that's complete rubbish. Pensioners have been least affected by the cuts, familes with children have been the worst affected.

See http://www.ifs.org.uk/conferences/PTAB_SA.pdf especially the last few slides which show the distributional impact of all changes since Jan 2010.

zygurat789

jem16 wrote: »

Can you show some evidence for that statement?

From 2013/14 anyone earning over £41,450 will have to pay higher rate tax on £1,000 more of their income than last year. That is more than the extra tax that a pensioner will pay from 2013/14.

My heart will never bleed for rich b******s earning over £40K and why should it. In percentage terms they won't even notice the difference and in real terms and they will also have to pay a reduced rate of national insurance, reduced by 83%.

Osbornne has said he will abolish age allowance QED

zygurat789

zagfles wrote: »

Sorry but that's complete rubbish. Pensioners have been least affected by the cuts, familes with children have been the worst affected.

See http://www.ifs.org.uk/conferences/PTAB_SA.pdf especially the last few slides which show the distributional impact of all changes since Jan 2010.

I saw nothing relevant in your cited document.

Families with two working parents have had a massive increase in personal allowances which is being funded by a tax on pensioners by abolishing the badly misnames age allowance.
All other groups can, fairly easily, increase their income. Pensioners don't have this option they are stuck with the income they retired on or less.

You are just spouting propagandish nonsense, try looking at the facts, not right win g tory supporting think tanks

zagfles

zygurat789 wrote: »

I saw nothing relevant in your cited document.

Families with two working parents have had a massive increase in personal allowances which is being funded by a tax on pensioners by abolishing the badly misnames age allowance.
All other groups can, fairly easily, increase their income. Pensioners don't have this option they are stuck with the income they retired on or less.

You are just spouting propagandish nonsense, try looking at the facts, not right win g tory supporting think tanks

:rotfl:what a complete plonker! The IFS are frequently quoted by left-wingers, they are respected across the political spectrum. Their anaysis shows pensioners have been least affected by the cuts, pensioner benefits including non-means tested ones like winter fuel allowance, bus passes haven't been touched, the basic state pension has better indexing terms than any other state benefits, means tested pensioner benefits haven't been affected much. Whereas child ben is being means tested, tax credits have been cut, working age benefits have been cut, future pensioners will have to wait far longer to get their pensions.

Pensioners are good voters. No govt dares wind them up too much. It was very brave of them to move towards giving them the same tax allowance as everyone else. After there are laws against age discrimination now

jem16

zygurat789 wrote: »

My heart will never bleed for rich b******s earning over £40K and why should it.

So no evidence of your wild claims - I thought not.

Basically only interested in yourself.

jimmo

jem16 wrote: »

Basically only interested in yourself.

Aren’t we all?

As a recently qualified member of the over 65s club I would think that I am faring better than most in the current climate but, never having become liable to higher rate tax, I can’t find it in me to sympathise to somebody who is.

John_Pierpoint

zagfles wrote: »

The IFS are frequently quoted by left-wingers, they are respected across the political spectrum. Their anaysis shows pensioners have been least affected by the cuts, pensioner benefits including non-means tested ones like winter fuel allowance, bus passes haven't been touched, the basic state pension has better indexing terms than any other state benefits, means tested pensioner benefits haven't been affected much.

I just wonder what the Institute for Fiscal Studies counts as "tax".

It almost certainly does not include "taxation by inflation", every time the government "prints" more money.

Presumably keeping interest rates at half a percent, to protect the "zombie" banks, does not feature in their calculations; but does hit pensioners trying to survive on the rental value of their money, harder than it hits someone with no savings.

Ultimately those with high (irresponsible ?) levels of debt should theoretically be off the hook and our grandchildren will not inherit an impossible situation BUT that is not really happening as the value added per hour worked of our economy is falling. In other words the working population is having to run faster to stay standing still.
[The reasons are probably:
* Falling financial services and their invisible exports.
* Falling oil production.
* Lack of capital investment.
* Poor returns on capital invested giving an increased investment needed to create every additional job for a rapidly rising population.
* Hidden un/under employment, by those working the minimum needed to claim tax credits.]

Pensioners are harder hit than the average by the rapid rise in Council tax relative to other taxes based on income..

Finally does the IFS recognise surcharges on power bills, to subsidise "sustainability" as tax?

Don't misunderstand me, I might be a pensioner, but had he system of elected dictatorship, put me in charge of the country, I would have pursued much the same policies.
Economically speaking, with the exception of health and education and some infrastructure spending, the money spent by government is unproductive.

There can be no moral justification for borrowing to finance current consumption, it is a fraud against our grandchildren.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Fiscal_Studies

jem16

jimmo wrote: »

Aren’t we all?

Yes we are. However I don't think we all make such sweeping statements saying we're the worst off.

As a recently qualified member of the over 65s club I would think that I am faring better than most in the current climate but, never having become liable to higher rate tax, I can’t find it in me to sympathise to somebody who is.

It's all relative to the situation though. You could have someone on £42k who is the sole earner in a family of 4 and is now having to pay higher rate tax. Up until the recent changes that family was also going to be losing Child Benefit.