Age related personal allowance

nomunnofun

Indeed it is all relative - I remember some years ago that there was to be a concerted effort to simplify the tax system(??)

The child benefit changes had some merits but there are so many unfair scenarios for different classes of taxpayer.

For example, a sole earner between 50000 and 60000 with two children has a marginal rate next year of 59.52% - with four children it shoots up to 73.46 (40% tax, 2% NIC, 31.46% withdrawal of child benefit). Joint earners with earnings each of £49950 will pay 42%, regardless of the number of children.

Still at least we are all in this together.

zygurat789

jem16 wrote: »

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

Basically only interested in yourself.

You obviously have a very short attention span. Read the whole post and consider it fromangles other than your own selfish narrow one

jem16

zygurat789 wrote: »

You obviously have a very short attention span. Read the whole post and consider it fromangles other than your own selfish narrow one

I have read the whole post.

Tax up £400, NI down £20.04. Net difference £379.96 worse off.

Now which angle (other than your own selfish, narrow one) are you coming from by claiming pensioners are worst hit when they clearly aren't? My higher rate example was only one example. There are many more losing more than that.

Or are you prepared to show some evidence that shows they are as I asked earlier?

zagfles

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

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.

Indeed. That's why they are the "Institute for Fiscal Studies" not the "Institute for Monetary Studies".

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.

Yes, but low interest rates have also resulted in overpriced housing, which is basically a transfer of money from the [EDIT] young to the old.

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..

Then the PP should be blaming Labour, most council's council tax has been frozen since this govt came to power, it rose massively under Labour. Plus there are schemes to protect pensioners which don't apply to working age adults, plus council tax benefit is a lot more generous to pensioners (because of the much higher applicable amount, ie income at which the taper starts).

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

Agreed. But when you try to cut consumption you get people whinging, even those that are the least affected!

John_Pierpoint

zagfles wrote: »

Yes, but low interest rates have also resulted in overpriced housing, which is basically a transfer of money from the old to the young.

Did you mean to say this?

We see Margaret Thatcher's dream of (unearned) wealth (capital) cascading, as it passes from the generation who survived WW2, to the baby boomers, the generation born in the next 20 years.
Whether individuals draw from the cascade, of mainly inflated house values, and how they use the proceeds, is some what arbitrary.

As I see it, there is currently a state of western capitalist "funk".
The weight of debt has turned many organisations into "zombies", where survival is the name of the game.
Looking at the organisations and the people who have capital resources, they are facing negative real returns on the rental value of money. On a personal level they are probably not aged under 40.
Even though money is cheap to borrow, even after the now "prudent" ( scared) bankers have taken their higher margins, there a precious few investments that offer a worthwhile return on capital invested (in real productive output), hence all the bubbles in "lasting" assets such a hard commodities and bricks and mortar. The more adventurous money gets "invested" (gambled) on the next short term soft commodity speculation.
Meanwhile we have the democratic governments of the world, where the driving force is to get re-elected.
The only way to get elected is to promise a better tomorrow.
There are two better tomorrows on offer:
One is "You the prudent (conservative) people will will continue to prosper, as we will cut back on government spending".
The other is "With a bit more borrowing from the future, we can create a self sustaining prosperity for all today - the increase in productivity with unlocked investment and over full employment will pay for itself".

Which of those scenarios do you want to believe?

The reality is that the economy is kept ticking over by the regular injection of deficit money.

Perhaps the real message is:

Your share per head of global wealth is going down, have you noticed the signs: It needs two incomes to buy a home, many are forced into delaying or staggering the birth of their children, if not into a one child policy.
Modern technology has enabled society to do so much more with less resources BUT the capital investment per job is high. The personal investment in terms of grafting to acquire an education for a half decent job, is investing a 5 figure sum and postponing the incoming wage for 5 years.
Wake up it is a competitive global economy, complete with demographic head winds "Ask not what you government can do for you but what you can do to help your country compete for its living; without selling out the birthright of your children".

I cannot see many voters putting down their copy of "OK" magazine to vote for such a message.

John_Pierpoint

zagfles wrote: »

Yes, but low interest rates have also resulted in overpriced housing, which is basically a transfer of money from the old to the young.

Did you mean to say this?

As I see it, there is currently a state of western capitalist "funk".
The weight of debt has turned many organisations into "zombies", where survival is the name of the game.
Looking at the organisations and the people who have capital resources, they are facing negative real returns on the rental value of money. On a personal level they are probably not aged under 40.
Even though money is cheap to borrow, even after the now "prudent" ( scared) bankers have taken their higher margins, there a precious few investments that offer a worthwhile return on capital invested (in real productive output), hence all the bubbles in "lasting" assets such a hard commodities and bricks and mortar. The more adventurous money gets "invested" (gambled) on the next short term soft commodity speculation.
Meanwhile we have the democratic governments of the world, where the driving force is to get re-elected.
The only way to get elected is to promise a better tomorrow.
There are two better tomorrows on offer:
One is "You the prudent (conservative) people will will continue to prosper, as we will cut back on government spending".
The other is "With a bit more borrowing from the future, we can create a self sustaining prosperity for all today - the increase in productivity with unlocked investment and over full employment will pay for itself".

Which of those scenarios do you want to believe.

The reality is that the economy is kept ticking over by the regular injection of deficit money.

Perhaps the real message is:

Your share per head of global wealth is going down, have you noticed the signs: It needs two incomes to buy a home, many are forced into delaying or staggering the birth of their children, if not into a one child policy.
Modern technology has enabled society to do so much more with less resources BUT the capital investment per job is high. The personal investment in terms of grafting to acquire an education for a half decent job, is investing a 5 figure sum and postponing the incoming wage for 5 years.
Wake up it is a competitive global economy, complete with demographic head winds "Ask not what you government can do for you but what you can do to help your country compete for its living; without selling out the birthright of your children".

I cannot see many voters putting down their copy of "OK" magazine to vote for such a message.

zagfles

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

Did you mean to say this?

Oops, no, the other way round obviously, a transfer from the young to the old.

As I see it, there is currently a state of western capitalist "funk".
The weight of debt has turned many organisations into "zombies", where survival is the name of the game.
Looking at the organisations and the people who have capital resources, they are facing negative real returns on the rental value of money. On a personal level they are probably not aged under 40.
Even though money is cheap to borrow, even after the now "prudent" ( scared) bankers have taken their higher margins, there a precious few investments that offer a worthwhile return on capital invested (in real productive output), hence all the bubbles in "lasting" assets such a hard commodities and bricks and mortar. The more adventurous money gets "invested" (gambled) on the next short term soft commodity speculation.
Meanwhile we have the democratic governments of the world, where the driving force is to get re-elected.
The only way to get elected is to promise a better tomorrow.
There are two better tomorrows on offer:
One is "You the prudent (conservative) people will will continue to prosper, as we will cut back on government spending".
The other is "With a bit more borrowing from the future, we can create a self sustaining prosperity for all today - the increase in productivity with unlocked investment and over full employment will pay for itself".

Which of those scenarios do you want to believe.

Neither. What we need is an admission we're not as rich as we thought we were, and to stop obessively chasing growth as if it's the be all and end all. Trouble is growth is the only way politicians can meet their promises, ie spend more without raising taxes or cut taxes without cutting spending too much.

The reality is that the economy is kept ticking over by the regular injection of deficit money.

Perhaps the real message is:

Your share per head of global wealth is going down, have you noticed the signs: It needs two incomes to buy a home, many are forced into delaying or staggering the birth of their children, if not into a one child policy.
Modern technology has enabled society to do so much more with less resources BUT the capital investment per job is high. The personal investment in terms of grafting to acquire an education for a half decent job, is investing a 5 figure sum and postponing the incoming wage for 5 years.
Wake up it is a competitive global economy, complete with demographic head winds "Ask not what you government can do for you but what you can do to help your country compete for its living; without selling out the birthright of your children".

I cannot see many voters putting down their copy of "OK" magazine to vote for such a message.

Indeed. They just want the magic of constant growth and to get richer without actually having to do anything more.

Things weren't that bad in 2000, were they? Or even the 90's? Are people really happier now than then, just because GDP is higher? So what if GDP returns to those levels. So what if we have a few years or even a decade of zero or even slightly negative growth?

But no, that would be seen as a complete failure, we must constantly get richer. As someone's sig on here says, "growth for the sake of growth is the idealology of the cancer cell".

JulieM

adonis10 wrote: »

Am I correct in thinking that if x (female) turns 65 in Feb this year, she will get the increased PA for the whole tax year?

Apologies for dragging up this question again but it was only briefly answered before the subject turned into a political debate.

The answer given was yes, if someone turns 65 during the tax year 6 April 2012 to 5 April 2013, they will get the increased personal allowance of £10500 for the WHOLE of that tax year, providing their total yearly income is less than £25400.

I must admit that even though I consider myself on the ball about tax, I've learned something here, as I thought the change would apply only from the actual date of the 65th birthday, not for the whole year. Therefore, presumably, someone who turns 65 towards the end of the tax year, say, 31 March 2013 would get the increased personal allowance backdated to 6 April 2012?

So, anyone who has their 65th birthday during the 2012/2013 tax year would be wise to check their coding notice to make sure their personal allowance is correct.

As others have said, this applies only to the 2012/2013 tax year, as age related allowances are to be phased out after that.

typistretired

Mr Osbourne's withdrawal of the age related tax allowance.
The e-petition against it has now reached 101,866 so mps will have to debate. We will find out their true colours then.

Number of signatures:101,866
Created by:AArthur Streatfield
Closing:22/03/2013 09:08

zagfles

typistretired wrote: »

Mr Osbourne's withdrawal of the age related tax allowance.
The e-petition against it has now reached 101,866 so mps will have to debate. We will find out their true colours then.

Number of signatures:101,866
Created by:AArthur Streatfield
Closing:22/03/2013 09:08

Yellow, probably. It's a brave politican who upsets pensioners.