Tax Misery for State Pensioners

EdInvestor

It seems to work like this:

Take income of 10k and personal allowance of 5435 for this year.

Deducting the p.a you are left with 4565.

Under the old system, 2k would be taxed at 10%, ie 200 pounds payable
The remaining 2565 is taxed @22% ie 630 pounds payable.
Total tax payable, 830 pounds.

Under the new system, the reminaing 4565 is taxed at 20%
Total tax payable, 913.

Difference: 83 pounds.

Using an income of 14k, the difference works out at 69 pounds, and with an income of 6k, a shortfall of 57 pounds.


The Govt is claiming the extra heating allowance of 50 pounds makes up the difference which it obviously doesn't, even in the lowest case.

But if it were to be increased to 100 pounds......:cool:

...still wouldn't help people like terryw though.

Andy_L

margaretclare wrote: »

Not I. That list appears on the site I linked to.

Well that's Price Waterhouse Cooper for you then. Any one would think they had 3 Tory MPs working for them :rolleyes:

Taffyscot

sleepless_saver wrote: »

Fuel allowance = Winter fuel payment which goes to any household with a person aged 60 or more. If you haven't received it call the helpline 08459 15 15 15 with your/partner's national insurance number.

Thanks for that but is it the winter fuel of £200 we get at xmas or what? Taffy

Taffyscot

The Govt is claiming the extra heating allowance of 50 pounds makes up the difference which it obviously doesn't, even in the lowest case.

But if it were to be increased to 100 pounds......:cool:

...still wouldn't help people like terryw though.
[/quote]

Hi is this the fuel allowance or is this something else? Sorry for being so thick but I lived in Canada for many years before coming back to the UK and I have to catch up on a lot. Ahhhhhhh now I understand all the commotion finally about the abolishing of the 10 pence tax issue. This is disgusting and they call them selves a labour government. Aneuryn Bevan would be rolling in his grave.

seven-day-weekend

margaretclare wrote: »

Losers:


'Retired early and therefore ineligible for higher personal allowances'.

That'll be us stuffed then!

Also our son who comes into the part-time hours but can't get tax credits section.

terryw

Taffyscot wrote: »

<snip>
This is disgusting and they call them selves a labour government. Aneuryn Bevan would be rolling in his grave.

To avoid going off-topic, I shall only reply briefly to your very valid observation.

The Welfare State has been changed out of all proportion to that intended by the originators. Sooner or later we will have to "think the unthinkable" (Tony Blair's words) A complete overhaul is long overdue not just a bit of tinkering. The conditions that applied in 1947 no longer apply. We need a Welfare State for today's society.
<rant over.....back to topic, boys and girls!>

terryw

margaretclare

terryw wrote: »

To avoid going off-topic, I shall only reply briefly to your very valid observation.

The Welfare State has been changed out of all proportion to that intended by the originators. Sooner or later we will have to "think the unthinkable" (Tony Blair's words) A complete overhaul is long overdue not just a bit of tinkering. The conditions that applied in 1947 no longer apply. We need a Welfare State for today's society.
<rant over.....back to topic, boys and girls!>

terryw

Frank Field was asked by the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, to 'think the unthinkable'. He came up with a report which AFAIK never saw the light of day. The Chancellor of the Exchequer for 10 years, Gordon Brown (has any other politician held that office for so long?) has promoted the 'dependency culture' which has changed people's thinking so much. Bevan and his colleagues still lived in a country which valued self-reliance and the Welfare State was meant to take care of the unforeseen eventualities like sickness and unemployment. Now, people in work are encouraged to claim 'tax credits'. Everyone is meant to be able to claim something or other.

I listened to a Treasury minister, Angela Eagle, on BBC Radio 4 'Any Questions' yesterday. Her argument was that the 10% tax band had to go to pay for an increase in Child Tax Credit, to fulfil the government's commitment to abolish child poverty. So that's why.

sleepless_saver

Taffyscot wrote: »

Thanks for that but is it the winter fuel of £200 we get at xmas or what? Taffy

Yes, that's what it is. £250 next year, I think.

chesky369

"£250 next year, I think"

yes, but it's a one-off at present, not a permanent raise.

EdInvestor

margaretclare wrote: »

The Chancellor of the Exchequer for 10 years, Gordon Brown (has any other politician held that office for so long?) has promoted the 'dependency culture' which has changed people's thinking so much. Bevan and his colleagues still lived in a country which valued self-reliance and the Welfare State was meant to take care of the unforeseen eventualities like sickness and unemployment. Now, people in work are encouraged to claim 'tax credits'. Everyone is meant to be able to claim something or other.

I though the idea of tax credits was to reward those who work ( or at least make sure they are better off than those who claim benefits)?

That's why I don't understand the abolition of the 10p band move as it seems to penalise workers (or self- sufficient pensioners) , making them possible worse off than those on benefits.

Isn't this the reason for the uproar?