Are pensioners about to be shafted – again?

Sapphire

In Mrs May's article in the Sunday Telegraph, right at the end it states that 'she hints at a willingness to scale back pensioner benefits'.

Now, while I would have nothing against 'pensioner benefits' being 'scaled back' for higher rate taxpayers like MPs, civil servants and high earners from the business world who amass large private pensions and don't even need state pension 'benefits', I think doing this for lower rate taxpayers, say those who earn less than about £38,000, would be grossly unfair.

Many of these people have worked for 40 years or more, paid in, and planned their futures carefully to ensure that they have enough to live on when they finally stop working. They've done this with the premise that the promises made to them would be kept. Many now provide support to children, grandchildren and/or ageing, helpless parents who cannot support themselves, this despite having to cope with their own health and other problems. In my family alone, there is one 90-year-old with dementia who has minimal savings and pension, and who has been waiting for six months to be paid a carer's benefit to which she is entitled (in Chukka Umuna's consistency, so Lambeth Council). The person who is trying to deal with this in the family, herself a pensioner, is chronically ill. Pensioners also still pay taxes, and spend in the economy. The last thing that should be done would be to somehow penalise such people. It would show a great callousness towards and/or lack of understanding by government of this part of society.

There are plenty of other ways for the government to gain money, such as cutting down the massive amounts of foreign aid (much of which is wasted), preventing benefit seekers from outside and inside Europe from coming here and benefitting from taxpayers (a better thing for a government to do would be to tighten border controls massively, have the right people in place who wouldn't just wave everyone into our country, and make sure that the NHS is used as it should be, by our citizens).

Given that our pensions are lower than those of other European countries, any British government that ruthlessly penalises lower rate tax-paying pensioners as suggested is not going to be looked on favourably by many. :cool:

PeacefulWaters

Triple lock.

Universal heating allowances.

Free bus travel paid for by increased fares to children.

All worthy of scaling back.

elsien

Isn't the state pension index-linked. Possibly the only benefit that is?

Sapphire

elsien wrote: »

Isn't the state pension index-linked. Possibly the only benefit that is?

It is at present – the increase each year is extremely small.

Sapphire

PeacefulWaters wrote: »

Triple lick.

Universal heating allowances.

Free bus travel paid for by increased fares to children.

All worthy of scaling back.

Triple spit.

Fine to scale back on these minimal 'benefits' for higher rate taxpayers, who wouldn't miss such payments, but not for lower rate taxpayers, for the reasons given above.:cool:

Jackieboy

Sapphire wrote: »

It is at present – the increase each year is extremely small.

That would be because inflation, however calculated, is extremely small and the increase is intended to keep pace with inflation not overtake it.

If "pensioner benefits" refer to the extras like WFA, free bus passes and free prescriptions, I don't see any reason that these shouldn't be limited to those who are the very poorest. Setting the threshold at £42k (the actual level of higher rate tax) would be setting it far too high, particularly given that the average salary is only around £28k.

Theta101

Theresa May will have to pull something out of her hat pretty soon or she'll be a one term PM (unelected).

Hitting pensioners is NOT a good idea. They are an increasingly large part of the electorate!

That said, I would fully understand if the Triple Lock were amended. Leave everything else alone.

dunstonh

Pensioners have largely been the least affected by austerity. So, what are these shaftings you speak of?

Now, while I would have nothing against 'pensioner benefits' being 'scaled back' for higher rate taxpayers like MPs, civil servants and high earners from the business world who amass large private pensions and don't even need state pension 'benefits', I think doing this for lower rate taxpayers, say those who earn less than about £38,000, would be grossly unfair.

£38k is way above lower rate and actually very close to higher rate.

There are plenty of other ways for the government to gain money, such as cutting down the massive amounts of foreign aid (much of which is wasted), preventing benefit seekers from outside and inside Europe from coming here and benefitting from taxpayers (a better thing for a government to do would be to tighten border controls massively, have the right people in place who wouldn't just wave everyone into our country, and make sure that the NHS is used as it should be, by our citizens).

Thats a bit Daily Express isnt it?

Theresa May will have to pull something out of her hat pretty soon or she'll be a one term PM (unelected).

Theresa May was elected. She won her constituency very easily.

Hitting pensioners is NOT a good idea. They are an increasingly large part of the electorate!

NIMBY pensioners may not like it but the triple lock is going to have to change soon. Pensioners in general wont be hit as bad as another other group.

hugheskevi

while I would have nothing against 'pensioner benefits' being 'scaled back' for higher rate taxpayers like MPs

MPs currently accrue annual pension of £1,470 for each year worked. Assuming a State Pension of £155.65 p/w, it would take an MP 24 years of service before accruing enough pension to be a higher rate taxpayer, so it is not clear that MPs will be higher rate taxpayers in retirement.

civil servants

Very, very few Civil Servants will be higher rate taxpayers in retirement. The median earning Civil Servant accrues £588 of pension per year worked. Assuming a State Pension of £155.65 p/w, it would take that Civil Servant 59 years of service before accruing enough pension to be a higher rate taxpayer.

I think doing this for lower rate taxpayers, say those who earn less than about £38,000, would be grossly unfair.

The reference to earning suggests you are talking about cutting pension accrual, rather than reducing pension benefits?

They've done this with the premise that the promises made to them would be kept.

Many benefits, such as Triple Lock, free TV licences and Winter Fuel Allowance are relatively recent introductions, which were not in existence during the period when many of today's pensioners were working.

Many now provide support to children, grandchildren and/or ageing, helpless parents who cannot support themselves, this despite having to cope with their own health and other problems.

So do many people of working age.

Pensioners also still pay taxes

Around half of pensioners do not pay any income tax, and none pay National Insurance.

The last thing that should be done would be to somehow penalise such people. It would show a great callousness towards and/or lack of understanding by government of this part of society.

In 96/97, 51% of welfare spending went to pensioners. That figure is now 68%.

There are plenty of other ways for the government to gain money, such as cutting down the massive amounts of foreign aid (much of which is wasted)

Welfare spending on pensioners is £118bn p/a, up from £100bn in 2010/11 and forecast to increase to £133bn by 2021/22, despite the increase in State Pension age (nominal terms).

For context, the foreign aid budget is £12bn.

Given that our pensions are lower than those of other European countries

European countries generally do not have as extensive a private pension system as the UK, and so have more significant State Pension systems.

Fine to scale back on these minimal 'benefits' for higher rate taxpayers

Only about 1-2% of pensioners are higher rate taxpayers, the amounts saved would be miniscule.

Andy_L

Sapphire wrote: »

Now, while I would have nothing against 'pensioner benefits' being 'scaled back' for higher rate taxpayers like MPs, civil servants and high earners from the business world who amass large private pensions and don't even need state pension 'benefits', I think doing this for lower rate taxpayers, say those who earn less than about £38,000, would be grossly unfair.

The average civil service salary is well below the higher rate mark

Jackieboy

hugheskevi wrote: »

MPs currently accrue annual pension of £1,470 for each year worked. Assuming a State Pension of £155.65 p/w, it would take an MP 24 years of service before accruing enough pension to be a higher rate taxpayer, so it is not clear that MPs will be higher rate taxpayers in retirement.



Very, very few Civil Servants will be higher rate taxpayers in retirement. The median earning Civil Servant accrues £588 of pension per year worked. Assuming a State Pension of £155.65 p/w, it would take that Civil Servant 59 years of service before accruing enough pension to be a higher rate taxpayer.



The reference to earning suggests you are talking about cutting pension accrual, rather than reducing pension benefits?



Many benefits, such as Triple Lock, free TV licences and Winter Fuel Allowance are relatively recent introductions, which were not in existence during the period when many of today's pensioners were working.



So do many people of working age.



Around half of pensioners do not pay any income tax.



In 96/97, 51% of welfare spending went to pensioners. That figure is now 68%.



Welfare spending on pensioners is £118bn p/a, up from £100bn in 2010/11 and forecast to increase to £133bn by 2021/22, despite the increase in State Pension age (nominal terms).

For context, the foreign aid budget is £12bn.



European countries generally do not have as extensive a private pension system as the UK, and so have more significant State Pension systems.



Only about 1-2% of pensioners are higher rate taxpayers, the amounts saved would be miniscule.

And pensions in many other EU countries have to cover things like rent and property taxes which are covered by separate benefits in the UK.