Message to Gordon from the wrinklies

seven-day-weekend

Biggles wrote: »

I'm not too fussed about the abolition of the 10% rate, as the poorest elements of society have benefited the most under Labour even without that.

.

Not if they are single, childless and on minimum age or early retired (so don't get the tax allowances) on a modest occupational pension.

My son and my husband are in these categories and both are worse off.

EdInvestor

margaretclare wrote: »

Winter fuel payments, bus passes and TV licences for the over-75s are 'handouts' in my opinion.

I think the point about doing it this way is that it's cheaper and more flexible, and also it enables better targeting.If you just increase the state pension, it goes to everyone regardless of wealth.Many will benefit who don't need the money.

IMHO the Government needs to target the pensioner group above those on benefits and put some clear blue water between the two, so that it's clear to all that it's worth going out to work and saving for retirement.

It seems to have already achieved this to some extent with families via the tax credits scheme, but this doesn't apply to pensioners.

There are many ways it could be done - a pensioner discount on council tax might be one way,higher personal tax allowances as mentioned, higher Attendance Allowances for people who need help with care, tax rebates on care costs...

... anyone got other suggestions?

margaretclare

I think the point about doing it this way is that it's cheaper and more flexible, and also it enables better targeting.If you just increase the state pension, it goes to everyone regardless of wealth. Many will benefit who don't need the money.

I don't see this, Ed. Many may benefit already from the aforesaid handouts who don't need the money! DH and I can jolly well do without £100 each every November supposedly for 'winter fuel', when we pay for our gas and electricity on a monthly budget plan, meaning that we pay the same all year round, not in November! No one ever asked how many pensioners would get this who don't need it. That and the free TV licence etc are based on stereotypical images of what older people are like and what they do.

dianasnan

krisskross wrote: »

Long term care is a biggie isn't it? At the moment the only ones to pay are the thrifty or property owners. I honestly hope I don't live long enough for it to be an issue.

Please Gordon, if we are thrifty and manage to save a little and then need care could we please be allowed to keep a bit more than £14,000 before it is used for our care fees. I don't mind paying something towards my care but could I be left with a little bit more so that I don't regret saving towards my old age when others have spent the lot and now get care for free.

krisskross

EdInvestor wrote: »

I think the point about doing it this way is that it's cheaper and more flexible, and also it enables better targeting.If you just increase the state pension, it goes to everyone regardless of wealth.Many will benefit who don't need the money.

Should you be required to 'need' the pension that you thought you have been paying for though? My occupational pension providers don't hand it out according to need but according to what I have put in. Should the government not be doing this as well? I know they did this with Serps but appear to have scaled that back when they realised how much it was actually costing.

Biggles

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Not if they are single, childless and on minimum age or early retired (so don't get the tax allowances) on a modest occupational pension.

My son and my husband are in these categories and both are worse off.

No, I don't mean as a result of the 10% changes, I mean overall, over the period of this government.

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/04/explaining_the_10p_tax_rate_cu.html
IFS analysis shows the change in net income from all reforms since 1997:
Decile / Since 1997, change to net income from direct and indirect tax
Poorest / 12.4%
2 / 11.8%
3 / 7.3%
4 / 4.3%
5 / 1.5%
6 / -0.1%
7 / -1.2%
8 / -2.4%
9 / -3.5%
Richest / -5.4%

Edit: I'm not defending this government, just trying to put the 10% debacle into context.

dwileflunker

Biggles wrote: »

No, I don't mean as a result of the 10% changes, I mean overall, over the period of this government.

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/04/explaining_the_10p_tax_rate_cu.html
IFS analysis shows the change in net income from all reforms since 1997:
Decile / Since 1997, change to net income from direct and indirect tax
Poorest / 12.4%
2 / 11.8%
3 / 7.3%
4 / 4.3%
5 / 1.5%
6 / -0.1%
7 / -1.2%
8 / -2.4%
9 / -3.5%
Richest / -5.4%

Edit: I'm not defending this government, just trying to put the 10% debacle into context.

Don't believe everything you read in the papers, especially the blinkered pro-government Guardian. Remember the old maxim: there are Lies, Damned Lies, And Statistics.

moonrakerz

krisskross wrote: »

the pension that you thought you have been paying for though? My occupational pension providers don't hand it out according to need but according to what I have put in. Should the government not be doing this as well?

As I pointed out in another thread you haven't actually paid anything IN for your state pension. Every penny that you paid in as National Insurance was spent within 12 months - there is no pension pot for you to live off. You will get what the Government of the day decides what it will give you out of the National Insurance contributions they are collecting at that time.
Your occupational pension provider was somewhat more prudent (who kept using that word ?) and actually did pay your contributions into a pot for you to get some return from.

EdInvestor

dianasnan wrote: »

Please Gordon, if we are thrifty and manage to save a little and then need care could we please be allowed to keep a bit more than £14,000 before it is used for our care fees.

Good point.

How much do you think people should be able to retain?

I'd say 75k and it should be inflation adjusted every year, like the pension.

What do others think?

dwileflunker

EdInvestor wrote: »

Good point.

How much do you think people should be able to retain?

I'd say 75k and it should be inflation adjusted every year, like the pension.

What do others think?

I totally agree but I think you are whistling in the wind if you think this government (especially this government) or any other is going to come anywhere near what you quote, which in reality is probably quite a sensible and realistic figure. In fact I think they'd prefer to reduce the present figure rather than increase it, but they're running so scared at the moment they'll do nothing.