Pension top up

zygurat789

yangptangkipperbang wrote: »

.............apart from derisory interest rates and freezing of the over 65 tax allowance - so that those poor hard up mps & govt ministers could earn as much tax free as a pensioner before they start paying tax :(
cameron, clegg and milliband were probably in dire need of those few extra quid...;)

apart from???????

zygurat789

yangptangkipperbang wrote: »

My wife and I are both pensioners - we both bought the guaranteed number of Royal Mail (NOT Post Office - or did I miss that one ?) shares then sold them at a good profit - somewhat better rate of return than a 1% ISA !!!

Not quite sure where we got ripped off ...........:(

You weren't you were doing the ripping

whodathunkit

Bollotom wrote: »

Oh? I'm a pensioner. Get no benefits, pay full council tax, no housing benefit, pay full rent and I also pay 20% tax. And I'm a staunch labour supporter and unionist. This government have done nothing for pensioners, workers, carers, nurses and teachers, armed forces. All they've done is dig their snouts deeper into the Westminster trough while using our money for dubious projects. You don't think that giving everyone £147 pension is a reward? They're simply removing the extra element you spend 50 years working for. But keep on trucking, fella. :cool:

Well, I'm exactly the same as you in the items I've bolded except for paying a mortgage.

However, I'm right in saying that pensioners have been protected from all the cuts in benefits so far or haven't had things like the so called "bedroom tax" applied to them. Lumping all pensioners in with public service workers (which I also used to be) is just daft; you don't become just one solid group when you retire!

You're also wrong in calling me a fella.;)

whodathunkit

yangptangkipperbang wrote: »

.............apart from derisory interest rates and freezing of the over 65 tax allowance - so that those poor hard up MPs & Govt Ministers could earn as much tax free as a pensioner before they start paying tax :(
Cameron, Clegg and Milliband were probably in dire need of those few extra quid...;)

"Derisory interest rates" benefit anyone who has a mortgage, pensioners included - higher rates only benefit the better off with substantial savings.

I've never really understood why the personal allowance should be higher for over 65s than for those who were under that age, although I do think it should rise for everybody. Those on average incomes (including pensioners) benefit from higher personal allowances more than those on higher incomes - I doubt that many of those who are higher rate tax payers at the top end are much bothered about paying £100 less tax pa.

yangptangkipperbang

zygurat789 wrote: »

You weren't you were doing the ripping

.............please explain .......................

(shouldn't there be a comma after weren't ? )

yangptangkipperbang

whodathunkit wrote: »

higher rates only benefit the better off with substantial savings.

...please explain.................

zygurat789

yangptangkipperbang wrote: »

.............please explain .......................

(shouldn't there be a comma after weren't ? )

You bought a national asset at a very eneconomic price for the vendor, the state. You then sold this asset at its true value, in the market, making as you gloated, "a good profit". This profit was the state's and it only became yours because of the total incompetence, or worse, fraud on the organisers of the sale.
This has been a feature of every privatisation and parliament has only just got around to investigating it. I've no doubt that the MPs will find nothing wrong with this just as they did with most of the expenses fraud.

No there shouldn't have been an "n't" Come on be generous I got the apostrophe right.

whodathunkit

yangptangkipperbang wrote: »

...please explain.................

Seems obvious to me but if I must.

If you've got £5k in savings, then an extra 2% interest is only £100 pa, which hardly matters - if you've got £500K then you'd be missing out on an extra £10K interest which makes a great deal of difference.

scotsbob

yangptangkipperbang wrote: »

Not quite sure where we got ripped off ...........:(

You were "ripped off" twice

Firstly as a taxpayer you were sold something you already owned.

Secondly it was sold at an undervalued price so you, along with other taxpayers, got a bad deal when something you owned was sold too cheaply.

Because you got a few crumbs you think you got a good deal, you didn't

Pollycat

scotsbob wrote: »

You were "ripped off" twice

Firstly as a taxpayer you were sold something you already owned.

Secondly it was sold at an undervalued price so you, along with other taxpayers, got a bad deal when something you owned was sold too cheaply.

Because you got a few crumbs you think you got a good deal, you didn't

But yangptangkipperbang made a profit on the transaction. :cool:

yangptangkipperbang wrote: »

My wife and I are both pensioners - we both bought the guaranteed number of Royal Mail (NOT Post Office - or did I miss that one ?) shares then sold them at a good profit - somewhat better rate of return than a 1% ISA !!!

Not quite sure where we got ripped off ...........:(