No 10 policy chief says situation of pensioners having more money than workers 'can't go on'.
The way these guys and the media twist facts to suit the purpose gets on my bits. Apparently after such things as housing costs, commuting, buying work clothes and the like, pensioners are said to typically have more disposable income than those in work.
Utter tosh. There are a good few pensioners swanning around on grand final salary schemes which they funded with contributions, living in homes where they have paid off the 25 year mortgage. They have worked for it and paid for it - good luck to them.
There are a darned sight more pensioners getting by on £150 per week or considerably less.
It seems to me a policy of divide and rule is in place - let's bash GPs because of the shortage caused by successive governments having screwed up the recruitment process / working conditions. Let's bash pensioners so that the mood is set to get public support for cutting back their pension entitlements.
Where is the mention that women born in the mid-fifties have been robbed of around £50,000 pension payments by raising the entitlement age from 60 to 66/67/68. Talk about breaking contracts - they'd never let a private company get away with it.
|
|
The state give me £6204 a year in pension and takes back £2,408 of that sum in tax. If they really feel that is too much after 45 years contributions they are welcome to keep it. I never put my trust in the government to look after me.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Tue 14 Feb 17 at 12:02
|
>> The state give me £6204 a year in pension and takes back £2,408 of that
>> sum in tax. If they really feel that is too much after 45 years contributions
>> they are welcome to keep it. I never put my trust in the government to
>> look after me.
You conveniently overlooked your private pension in that headline grabbing calculation.
|
>> The state give me £6204 a year in pension and takes back £2,408 of that
>> sum in tax. If they really feel that is too much after 45 years contributions
>> they are welcome to keep it. I never put my trust in the government to
>> look after me.
>>
Without wishing to delve into your personal finance, that is rubbish CG. The tax comes off your total income which is clearly more than the pension the state gives you which is itself way below the tax threshold.
Real Daily Mail economics that one.
|
|
The government will do stuff all, pensioners are a big proportion of voters and are more likely to use their vote. It is a poke at low wage and zero hour employers.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Tue 14 Feb 17 at 13:07
|
|
If "workers" includes all people who work (as opposed to just "working class") the last average gross income figure I recall is about £22,000 p.a. There must be many pensioners with bigger incomes than that.
|
>>(as opposed to just "working class")>>
The vast majority of us, whether in work or retired, are/were "working class". What other way could you put it in its correct context?
I would also suspect that there will not be all that many pensioners relatively speaking on "bigger incomes" than the figure you quote. Present day savings rates put a very big dampener on that possibility for the majority of us...:-( :-(
|
>>Real Daily Mail economics that one. >>
Some people don't always understand the reason why they still pay tax even when they've retired.
As you say, it's the combined State Pension and Company Pension that counts and you are allowed up to your Personal Allowance tax free before commencing any tax payments (there are various scenarios though). See:
www.gov.uk/tax-on-pension/taxed
tinyurl.com/j2cbamb
|
FACT: the age group with the highest % of voters are the over 60. At present (a qualification as it changes) well over 50% vote Conservative. The ratings of Labour have collapsed in this age group over the past decade .
We have a Conservative Government.
And therein lies a problem for the Government if it wants to cut pensions..
|
I've always voted Conservative, but the high percentage of Over 60s who do so have the aim of seeking to protect their full working life provision for their retirement and not see it ending up in the pockets of far too many spongers.
Of course there should be adequate protection for those who are experiencing difficult times, but there are always those who will abuse the benefits system and I know a few.
|
>> FACT: the age group with the highest % of voters are the over 60. At
>> present (a qualification as it changes) well over 50% vote Conservative.
>>
Age group with highest turnout was over 65s at last general election with a turnout of 78%, of whom 47% voted Tory and 23% voted Labour according to MORI.
Next group down, aged 55-64 voted 37% Tory and 31% Labour
|
No it isn't rubbish.
If the state were to stop providing me with a pension I would be £4,196 per annum worse off i.e
£6,204 less 40% tax which amounts to £2,408.
The state effectively provides me with a pension payment of £4,196 a year.
|
Maths isn't my strongest subject CG, but even I can see that is man Maths wrapped up in pretty paper.
Pat
|
>> Maths isn't my strongest subject CG, but even I can see that is man Maths
>> wrapped up in pretty paper.
>>
>> Pat
Please explain to me exactly what you think is wrong.
If the government stopped giving me a pension I would be £4,196 a year worse off
The government would be £4,196 a year better off
What exactly is "man maths" about that statement and why do you think it is incorrect?
|
It's incorrect simply because the pension the government give you is not taxed...just like mine isn't taxed.
However the 'other income' you have is taxed, just like my 'other income' from the work I choose to do is taxed.
The fact that my income is from working and yours is from whatever source, makes absolutely no difference.
Stop the other income you have and try living on just your pension and you will find it won't be taxed.
Pat
|
Yes it is taxed as is yours. Income come tax is calculated on the sum of my private pension and my state pension. I am surprised you did not realise that.
|
>> No it isn't rubbish.
>>
>> If the state were to stop providing me with a pension I would be £4,196
>> per annum worse off i.e
>> £6,204 less 40% tax which amounts to £2,408.
>>
>> The state effectively provides me with a pension payment of £4,196 a year.
you are being deliberately duplicitous for effect. Its not working.
|
I think CGN is right. How can it be otherwise when the penson increases his tax by £2400. No man maths or duplicity about it, it's what hits the governemnt's P&L.
On the other hand, if all he hand was his state pension the state would be worse off by £2400 plus the other bnefits he would be entitled to.
Ergo, it is not the well off pensioners who are causing a funding problem. They just happen to be the ones that the governemnt can take some away from.
This is a very nasty theme. "Well off" pensioners are often living on savings; they cannot replace those savings and nor can they increase their "earnings" materially once the die is cast.
No wonder so many people don't even bother to try and provide for themselves.
|
|
Thank you Manatee. The voice of sanity as ever.
|
If CGNorwich worked for that long and gets only the basic pension, I assume he was opted out of SERPS and gets the basic amount. Therefore probably has another pension from work... and with the years worked I hope it's a nice final salary one :-)
But lets not argue about which pension is taxed or not. You get a tax allowance and anything above the allowance is taxed.
As it happens I look after my father in laws bank account. So I know his state pension each month is £642.92. So he gets £7800pa. He also has some others (teacher, another from another previous vocation and a very small NHS pension from his late wife's pension). Plus attendance allowance. His highest paid job was only ever a teacher and he retired a long time ago. His total income is about £1600 a month after taxes - call it £19k per annum.
|
>> HOw so?
Because
>>The state give me £6204 a year in pension and takes back £2,408 of that sum in tax. If they >>really feel that is too much after 45 years contributions they are welcome to keep it. I never >>put my trust in the government to look after me.
is duplicitous financial cobblers, a lie by omission in effect if you wish to be really blunt about it.
|
So I've dug out the tax code notification.... Like Pat and Zero says the pension is not taxed. The allowance is £11500 but it says the state pension is £8554 leaving another £2946 allowance which the teacher's pension gets with a tax code of 294L. The other two pensions have BR tax codes.
What I am now wondering is why this says the state pension is £8554.... Or £712.83 a month.... he doesn't get quite that much. Hmm. Not that he's short of money.
|
>>The state give me £6204 a year in pension and takes back £2,408 of that sum in tax.
You should get a tax free allowance of £11500pa. If you're paying £2,408 in tax (not tax on £2408) then I assume your private pension is about £17k before tax. On top of the £6.2k.
That makes your pensions after tax £21k.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Tue 14 Feb 17 at 19:06
|
>> Wrong by a large margin
I hoped I was. :-)
At the end of the day you have a tax free allowance of about £11k pa. Anything above that you pay tax. You're are probably very well off as a pensioner and that took hard work and forward planning.
My pension is a long way off. If I took the private pension early I still have around a decade to go. And then it won't be as good as yours.
I don't quite see why you're complaining though. You pay tax because your pensions are above the tax free allowance.
|
I am not complaining. Simply agreeing with the original post in that I get a bit fed up with the currently fashionable view of denigrating pensioners for somehow impoverishing the younger generation.
Just trying to show how little benefit so called wealthy pensioners who have actually made provision for their own retirement actually receive from the state.
As I say not complaining. If they stop my pension tomorrow I will survive.
|
Of course the state pension is liable for tax. If your total income including state exceeds your personal allowance then you will be pay tax at the appropriate rates on the balance
Since There is no mechanism to deduct tax from your state pension it will all be deducted from your other income. The state pension will be taken into account by adjusting your tax code.
Very surprised that you think the government gives you a tax free pension.
|
That's just semantics. Your personal pension plus government pension above the tax free threshold is liable to tax. It's always been that way.
You are saying they take money off the state pension but they don't. They are just taking into account of how your taxed on your other pension(s).
I suggested you were on a minimum of £21k pensions and I'm way off. Nice to know you're okay. I genuinely am.
|
What exactly have I omitted Zero. What have I lied about? I have not and did not intend to imply that I was living on my state penaion simply that the the pension supplied to me by the state is a relatively small amount after tax is deducted and that I would be happy to do without it.
I dare say that you would similarly not miss the relatively small amount you receive from the state.
|
>> What exactly have I omitted Zero. What have I lied about? I have not and
>> did not intend to imply that I was living on my state penaion simply that
>> the the pension supplied to me by the state is a relatively small amount after
>> tax is deducted and that I would be happy to do without it.
You omitted the additional income that put you over the tax free allowance, and quite deliberately did so for dramatic effect. A lie by omission that the Daily Mail would be proud of, a lie that would get you a place on the Daily Express Brexit editorial desk.
|
Grasping as straws there I believe Zero.
That's not an argument. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition to quote an expert.
I think I have shown clearly what the net cost of my state pension is to the government . If you can show that is not correct please do so .
|
So you got tax relief at the higher rate for your pension contributions and don't want to pay tax at the lower rate on the pension now you're getting it?
You might find a lot of people find your attitude is wrong. You avoided tax on the income and now don't want to pay it on the pension.
What is it that's wrong with taxing pensions above the tax threshold? It seems you are an example that Dulwich Estate II was alluding to.
What are we missing here? Why do you think the pension you have should not pay tax?
|
You seem to have completely got the wrong end
of the stick rtj70
There is nothing wrong with paying tax on your pension. I am quite happy to although some on here seem to think that state pensions are somehow non taxable.
All I am saying is that since my pension is effectively taxed at 40% the amount I receive is comparatively small.
I for one would be prepared to forego even the small amount I receive if I could be assured that it would be spent wisely on the NHS.
I have never expect the state to look after me in my old age.
|
>> All I am saying is that since my pension is effectively taxed at 40%
You must have a large pension then.
And your state pension is not taxed. Your overall income is taxed which happens to include the state pension.
If you have a pension that some of it is taxed at 40% then that means you are in receipt of total pre-tax income of £43500. So yes you should pay some tax.
|
>>
>> And your state pension is not taxed. Your overall income is taxed which happens to
>> include the state pensiion.
If you could explain what is effectively the difference between those two statements I would be obliged.
>>
>> If you have a pension that some of it is taxed at 40% then that
>> means you are in receipt of total pre-tax income of £43500. So yes you should
>> pay some tax.
>>
As I have already said I have no objection to paying tax on my pension state or or private. As I keep pointing out the only point I have been trying to make is that my state pension after deduction of tax is comparatively small and not the major benefit that a lot of people seem to believe you receive when you retire.
|
Your state pension is not taxed as such and you know it. Your total income is which does include that. Tax is not deducted from the pension payments.
But you are well off it seems and forgetting there are many who do not have substantial (even any) private pensions. So the state pension is all they have. And they pay no tax on it or any other total income up to £11500.
As others including me are pointing out, you're paying tax above the tax free threshold because you have income above that threshold. Being a pensioner is irrelevant. But you are benefitting in paying most of the tax at 20% when you avoided paying 40% tax on pension contributions.
You seem to want your cake and eat it.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Tue 14 Feb 17 at 23:07
|
>> So you got tax relief at the higher rate for your pension contributions and don't
>> want to pay tax at the lower rate on the pension now you're getting it?
>>
>> You might find a lot of people find your attitude is wrong. You avoided tax
>> on the income and now don't want to pay it on the pension.
>>
And for that me is the crux of it. Personal pension contributions are entirely tax free (currently) up to the current lifetime limit and subject to an annual limit too. That's been reduced substantially, but it's still higher than most can hope to achieve. Higher or additional rate tax payers benefit significantly from that. I know I do. And we can also, albeit out of taxed income, build a tax free ISA pot of well into 6 or even seven figures. While contributions are out of taxed income all gains are tax free.
So I'm quite relaxed about the fact that I will be paying tax on my pension, including the state pension, just because that's how tax works.. And it's highly likely that given inflation and fiscal drag on tax allowances that I'll be taxed at the higher rate on some of my income in retirement. But that's no different to now; I'm not sure why I'd expect more favourable tax treatment in retirement than someone in work, given that a chunk of my income will have been built up out effectively untaxed income!!
|
>>
>> I think I have shown clearly what the net cost of my state pension is
>> to the government . If you can show that is not correct please do so
I think the confusion here arises because it is human nature to mentally allocate the tax payable on a marginal top chunk of income as if it were entirely attributable to that particular source.
But the tax is calculated on the totality of your income, not just the marginal bit that pushes you up a bracket.
It would be just as logical/illogical to think of the tax as relating to any other income source.
If you would not really miss your (net) state pension then you could equally and alternatively say that you would not miss that same amount of your other pension.
But I take your point, if this is your point, about not liking paying at a higher rate. I am in exactly that position. I have suddenly discovered that a one-off payment from an insurance bond that is normally quoted and paid tax-free is in fact only basic-rate free, and would push me slightly over into the upper tax bracket and so be taxed at 40%. I have accordingly reduced my pension drawdown for March and moved it into April to spread the effect and eliminate the tax charge.
|
There is no meaning to discussing which bit the tax is on. If CGN didnt get the state pension he would pay 2400 less tax.
If it was true to say the pension is not taxed, then it would not use up any tax allowance.
This is the sorr of problem I have with the parish council, they dont understand arithmetic either.
|
|
Pensions per se are not subject to a specific tax. They are simply taxed as income in line with all other income. Tax doesn't discriminate, on the whole,, between the retired or those in work. So if a pensioners income, from all sources, exceeds the personal allowance, the basic rate band, the higher rate band or the additiknal rate band, they will be taxed exactly the same as someone in work. Seems fair enough to me!
|
>> The state give me £6204 a year in pension and takes back £2,408 of that
>> sum in tax.
If by that you mean the State Pension, rather than a pension paid for by the state such as a civil service pension, then no tax is taken off it. There is no mechanism for applying a tax code to the state pension, and it is paid without deduction.
Any tax due is calculated with reference to your total taxable income, and the appropriate tax code applied to another source of income, such as any other private or occupational pension you may have.
If your total income was really only £6204 then you would be below the tax threshold and paying no tax.
The system is flawed because it was not designed to cope with multiple sources of income, so it is often difficult to see just how much tax is being applied to each individual source.
|
. Apparently after such things as housing costs, commuting, buying work clothes and the
>> like, pensioners are said to typically have more disposable income than those in work.
>>
>> Utter tosh.
Why is it tosh, what if it were true?
|
|
"Working class" is a term often used to distinguish blue-collared workers from "middle class" white-collar workers.
|
>> "Working class" is a term often used to distinguish blue-collared workers from "middle class"
>> white-collar workers.
>>
Hasn't really been relevant as that kind of distinction for at least a quarter of a century. "Blue collar" workers are typically industrial or engineering workers. Typically, as far as a class system exists now, the "working class" would have to include millions of retail and other service workers.
|
>> pensioners having more money than workers 'can't go on'.
The reason why younger generation is squeezed because a large part of their income goes on rent/mortgage compared to earlier generation (e.g. house price as 3x then income vs 7-8x income now).
This is due to higher demand for houses against poor supply. Higher demand is due to population rise which has compounded via almost limitless immigration.
Most pensioners voted for Brexit so that they could improve the situation by controlling immigration and thus bringing a balance to housing demand-supply. It would have (in theory) put more surplus money in young people's pocket (in longer ignoring some short term economic turmoil).
Then the remoaners (predominantly youth as per media) blame the pensioners for taking away their future.
So for pensioners, "head I win, tail you lose" situation.
PS: I have decades left to become a pensioner :-)
|
>> compounded via almost limitless immigration.
And people living longer is also a problem. If pensioners were to die a lot younger then there'd be more houses. And less burden on the NHS too so we don't need the extra GPS, nurses, hospitals etc.
... and this is said tongue in cheek! But it's not all down to immigration.
|
>> And people living longer is also a problem.
Yes, it is a serious problem for the NHS. I am in favour of introducing a cut of age for denying free NHS treatment. If you want a hip replacement at 95 years of age, then insurer should pay for it rather than tax payers.
No politician will have guts to say this but speaking with my doctor friends they think this is the only answer.
It may sound inhuman at first, but when 90-yr old patient is block hospital beds for a 20-yr old patient then we need to consider events in perspective.
|
|
Movilogo are you on a wind up? That 95 year old might be one day you.
|
>> Movilogo are you on a wind up? That 95 year old might be one day you.
Yes, I understand it is a controversial statement.
My point is that, people must not take it for granted they can live longer and longer and state to pick up the bill for their well beings.
Old people are indeed clogging up NHS (as stated by many of my doctor friends). In many countries people are responsible for paying their own treatment. There the old people are looked after by their family members (without ANY help from government). Unfortunately people here (not all of them) expect "state" to pick up the bill. Why??
If I am 95-yr old and my family is not looking after me then I would rather prefer to die.
|
"It may sound inhuman at first, but when 90-yr old patient is block hospital beds for a 20-yr old patient then we need to consider events in perspective."
Not all 90-year-olds are the same. Not all of them block beds. At least some would benefit from a hip replacement.
|
>> >> And people living longer is also a problem.
>>
>> Yes, it is a serious problem for the NHS.
>>
The NHS and its future is a serious problem for us all, it needs to be discussed, cross party, openly at length because there are are no "right" answers. Should a hip replacement be denied at 90 or 80 or 100, or should it depend on quality of life for the individual, and how do you measure that?
We need to handle the emotion, and as far as possible remove it from the decision and policy process, and maybe we should all be prepared to pay a bit more for hospital and social care, but how much is a bit more?
Bottom line, nobody should feel guilty for living past a certain age.
|
>>It may sound inhuman at first, but when 90-yr old patient is block hospital beds for a 20-yr old patient then we need to consider events in perspective.
And vice versa? Or do you simply believe that 20yr olds are worth more?
|
>> >> And people living longer is also a problem.
>>
>> Yes, it is a serious problem for the NHS. I am in favour of introducing
>> a cut of age for denying free NHS treatment. If you want a hip replacement
>> at 95 years of age, then insurer should pay for it rather than tax payers.
Who is going to insure a 95 year old, and how is any 95 year old going to afford it?
You are forgetting that old people need far more medical treatment than young ones.
I would be sympathetic to some charging, at a level unrelated to the actual cost but sufficient to make people think whether they need it. The trouble with absolutely free treatment is that people put no value on it and simply don't consider the cost.
An 80 odd year old doctor friend once told me an anecdote he claimed to have heard from a GP who was around when the health service started. A woman rang up in the middle of the night and demanded a visit as her baby was ill. The baby had a rash.
Doctor: "How long has baby had this rash?"
Mother: "About 3 weeks".
Doctor: "So why have you waited 3 weeks and then called me out in the middle of the night!". Woman: "I know my rights!".
|
>> >> >
>>
>> You are forgetting that old people need far more medical treatment than young ones.
>>
>
That is certainly one's automatic assumption, but is it true?
Look around a surgery waiting room at the mothers with children, the young, the obese the workers wanting sick notes.
Is A&E full of old people or young drunks?
Do old people do drugs or want tatoos removed or birth control or cosmetic anhancement/reduction?
Just asking - is it true?
|
>> Is A&E full of old people or young drunks?
>> Do old people do drugs or want tatoos removed or birth control or cosmetic anhancement/reduction?
>>
>> Just asking - is it true?
Kind of yes, having been a recent A&E attendee and admitted to hospital for surgery, the Old people are blocking beds, which in turn is causing delays into A&E. Also tattoo removal and cosmetic procedures are an insignificant drain on NHS resources.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 14 Feb 17 at 18:34
|
>> the Old people are blocking beds, which in turn is causing delays into A&E.
Yes, but that's not because they are ill, that's because they are now not ill but have nowhere to go because they need some level of ongoing care.
New born babies don't block hospital beds because they generally do have somewhere to go for care.
I was simply wondering whether the problem is really one of care availability, rather than because old people per se use more NHS resources than anyone else.
|
I don't know all the figures and facts all I know what I have took hard work.
State pension plus a small company pension.I care for my wife 24/7 so two fingers to the people who don't think we deserve it.
Diana was a care assistant for old people and learning disabilities.The lifting crippled her body.
|
|
Has anyone noticed that it is usually the people with a frebe company funded executive car, company health insurance, and looking forward to a six figure annual pension that advocates cuts in services and pensions for others?
|
>> Has anyone noticed that it is usually the people with a frebe company funded executive
>> car, company health insurance, and looking forward to a six figure annual pension that
>> advocates cuts in services and pensions for others?
>>
There might be some executive cars on here, and a few folks with health insurance but I doubt there's many 6 figure annual pensions.
Everybody's opinion counts for the same on here, or at least it should.
|
The report is here
www.resolutionfoundation.org/app/uploads/2017/02/IC-intra-gen.pdf
The summary is here
www.resolutionfoundation.org/publications/as-time-goes-by-shifting-incomes-and-inequality-between-and-within-generations/
It is by a "think-tank that works to improve the living standards of those in Britain on low to middle incomes".
If you don't have the time to have a critical look at the report, perhaps this "Reality Check: Are pensioners better off than workers?" by the BBC will help:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38957903
A few points from the BBC reality check
"The claim: Pensioners are on average £20 a week better off than working-age people.
Reality Check verdict: The calculation made by the Resolution Foundation is for household income after housing costs. Before housing costs are taken into account, working-age households still have higher incomes than pensioner households.
The figures referred to the "typical pensioner household", by which it meant the median, which is the household for which half of pensioner households have higher income and half of them have lower incomes.
In this case, a pensioner household is one in which at least one member is of pension age or older (65 for men, 64 for women) whether or not that person is working. There can also be working people in a pensioner household.
Taking income after housing costs makes a huge difference because pensioner households are more likely to own their own homes and to have relatively small or paid-off mortgages."
Also, the figures do not take account of people in care homes, which would be expected to increase housing costs for those of pension age.
The Resolution Foundation confirms in the report that before housing costs are paid, the median working-age household still has a higher income than the median pensioner household."
Hence it is the exponential rise in housing costs that is to "blame" for the headlines rather than any benefit from the meagre state pension being triple-locked.
Another factor to note is that the company pensions for the group studied will mostly have been from "final salary" schemes. That won't apply in future to more and more pensioners whose pension will range from the diminishing numbers left on full final salary schemes to those whose schemes closed at some stage in their working life.
|
When we bought our present house quite a number of decades ago, if you were lucky enough to be granted a mortgage by a bank or building society, you were required to put a third down and subsequently pay interest rates (at that time) of 15 per cent.
Fortunately we were able to eventually pay off the mortgage about eight or nine years later, otherwise we would have paid about four times the original value of the property over the then normal 20 years of paying the mortgage.
I tended to blame estate agents for the ever rising house prices as they almost invariably over priced properties thanks to the glint of substantial commissions in their eyes. No wonder the estate agent who sold my wife's late parents' house drove one of the original Honda NSX models. But we never, ever had a potential buyer prepared to pay his or those of other estate agents' property valuations...:-)
Last edited by: Stuartli on Tue 14 Feb 17 at 14:25
|
I'm afraid this is another aspect of populism and 'alternative facts'.
The real problem is state finances which are affected very much by the cost of supporting pensioners who are not wealthy - the ones who have to survive on their state pensions, to which must be added the costs of pension credits and often housing benefit.
The ones who are essentially only getting the state for the state pension (to which they are of course entitled) are surely not the problem?
If the boss and I have to give up winter fuel allowance and buss passes, so be it, but I'm not going to feel guilty for putting a lot of money into savings so I can have a more pecunious retirement.
I don't understand the desire to hit pensioners; those who advocate it are going to get old themselves. What many point to of course is the triple lock on state pension, which has resulted in higher increases than has been the case for average wages.
This rather misses the point that that is what was intended, as state pensions are basically inadequate on their own.
|
A friend of mine recently received his first ever £200 winter heating allowance. The next week he paid his NHS dentist £200 for treatment.
Something to ponder on about our "free" NHS and "extravagant" pension benefits.
|
|
Winter heating allowance should be means tested. I will get it, pay tax on it, even tho I don't want it or need it.
|
Keep up and pay attention at the back.
The allowance is not taxable.
|
|
not even if you are paying tax on cumulative pensions?
|
|
Nope ! You can be earning millions, but it's not taxable.
|
|
I still don't want it or need it.
|
The combined pensions of my wife and I is significantly less than the £22k p.a. touted as the average UK wage.
We manage 'cos we don't pay rent or a mortgage.
(And I'm tight!)
|
rtj70
"What I am now wondering is why this says the state pension is £8554.... Or £712.83 a month.... he doesn't get quite that much. Hmm. Not that he's short of money. "
Take another look. I haven't reached the age yet, but I do know that the state pension is not paid monthly - it's paid every four weeks.
There are 13 four week periods in a year. Might answer your query.
|
Thanks DE II. That's probably it. But for the difference I can't be bothered because there's enough to be doing looking after him :-) It takes a lot of time doing everything.
But I appreciate your response - particularly how much of an a**e I was to you and others last year.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Tue 14 Feb 17 at 21:00
|
>> But I appreciate your response - particularly how much of an a**e I was to
>> you and others last year.
>>
rtj70, I think that's a truly generous gesture even if you don't include me in the "others".
|
>> The combined pensions of my wife and I is significantly less than the £22k p.a. touted as the
>> average UK wage
CG Norwich's personal pensions come to over that amount per annum. Ask him for a handout.
He's complaining about paying tax at 20% on a pension. But the pension was built up by putting away income pre-tax and probably at 40% tax or higher rate.
There's a lot of pensioners on a lot less and they survive. My mother included. She has state pension and that's it.
|
>> My mother included.
>> She has state pension and that's it.
But presumably topped up by Pension Credit if less than £155pw also with 100% relief from Council Tax and rent paid too?
If not then she needs advice.
Might be entitled to cheap water too depending on where she lives.
|
Why does it appear so difficult for some people to comprehend that once your total annual income exceeds your personal tax allowance - other than tax paid income/savings etc - you pay tax on it?
Anyone who just has the basic State Pension will not pay any tax.
|
>> But presumably topped up by Pension Credit if less than £155pw also with 100% relief from
>> Council Tax and rent paid too?
Reduction in council tax as single occupier - yes. 100% reduction - no.
Rent paid - no because she owns the house. It was bought late 60s but probably worth no more than £100k today.
Water rates would be interesting but difficult... for reasons to complex to share in detail but her water supply comes from the neighbours. Neighbour in 70s messed up some work and blocked her supply of water. If she got a water meter she'd use 0 litres. Never fixed.
|
>>
>> He's complaining about paying tax at 20% on a pension. But the pension was built
>> up by putting away income pre-tax and probably at 40% tax or higher rate.
>>
>
No he's not. Please read what I have posted properly. before you make such allegations. I am not and have not complained about paying tax on my pension.
Feel free to apologise.
|
>> Feel free to apologise.
Feel free to explain what your problem is. I don't see why you have an issue. You're happy paying tax. So why your original post?
|
There were, of course, some changes to tax on earnings from April 2016 and it can be possible to earn up to £17,000 tax free:
tinyurl.com/zvye62f
|
Don't forget that, between spouses, a tax allowance worth up to £240, IIRC, can be transferred to the higher earner, if the lower paid partner is under the tax threshold.
We have done this, as my wife only has around 95% of the State Pension as her own income.
|
I think a lot of 'young' people, at least those I know aged between 25/45, simply don't plan for the future, and spend all their earnings, unless they can partake in a decent employee pension scheme.
In my working life, 17 to 61, I never earned enough to go above basic rate tax. Children of my best friend are mid 30s, married, no children, both higher rate tax payers, but live day to day. £600 handbags, £1250 wool coats, £3k summer hols are the norm. As is a new car every 3 years. Nice cars too. They live in terraced homes, not in the SE, and couldn't be more different from myself at that age. Even when married and on my third home, I was still buying second hand furniture into my forties... although it was decent stuff.
My niece, aged 25, was given £5k by my Mum when she was 21 to put towards her first house deposit. She's blown the lot on living a certain lifestyle...cocktails, cigs and a boob job.
The days of getting a decent annuity from your private pension pot are gone... which I why the younger people I know don't bother with a pension.
|
I don't have an "issue" rtj70
As I have repeatedly explained I was responding to DE's post in which he raised the fact that there was a view being espoused that the government were somehow too generous to pensioners at the expense of working people.
I was simple pointing out the comparatively small sum I received as a state pension and the fact that it was reduced even further by the state reclaiming 40% of it in tax. I also pointed out that I would be happy to do without the small sum they paid completely be as I did not expect the State to look after me.
You seem to have twisted this to believing that I am somehow complaining at the rate of tax I pay. The opposite of what I in fact said.
|
CGN,
Your initial statement on this was "The state give me £6204 a year in pension and takes back £2,408 OF THAT SUM in tax". Deliberately stated to say that it was/is the pension which is being taxed. I don't know if that is how you really think of it or if the statement was made deliberately.
There is no mechanism by which HMRC can tax your pension payment directly, what the taxman takes, he takes from your income as a whole.
In either case you pay tax at the higher rate because oif your other income, nothing wrong with that, I will probably be in the same position when I get my state pension in 4 and a bit years time, however I would not have phrased it the way you did because I, and I think most people on here, see the tax coming off the other income or off the total income rather than off the pension payment specifically, and would not describe the tax as you did as being related to the pension.
Nobody has a problem with you having an income and paying tax on it, I have already said to both of my sons when they have got to higher rate tax paying to be glad that they earn that much rather than moan about paying it.
Now please let's stop this pointless argument :-)
|
|
What I said is perfectly accurate and correct.
|
>> What I said is perfectly accurate and correct.
>>
If you like.
But it was phrased in a way that would have made a Daily Mail sub editor proud, and from previous posts over a number of years, you are smart enough not to have done that by accident.
|
I really must disagree with that. the intention of my post was to show how little the government actually give to me by way of pension.
I do not understand strange this view that you and other have that because the tax due on my state pension is is not deducted from the pension but is instead deducted form my main pension that it does not amount to the same thing.
I am beginning to think that the continuing lack of a mechanism to deduct tax directly from state pensions is a deliberate ploy to make people believe that they are somehow not paying tax on them.
|
>> I really must disagree with that.
>>
OK I take it back you are not smart enough not to have done it by accident :-)
The way I read the original post was that you wanted to make a point about the pension being taxed when it is really your total income which is taxed.
It is nonsense to say look at the tax on my pension when the pension is clearly less than one sixth of your total income.
Last edited by: commerdriver on Wed 15 Feb 17 at 11:14
|
I think you are being deliberately obtuse CD
I was pointing out the cost to the government of my pension which is £6200 less 40% tax.
That is the sum by which the government would be better off if they did no pay me a pension
Is that or is that not correct? Please answer Yes or No
|
|
I give up.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Wed 15 Feb 17 at 12:11
|
>> I give up.
>>
Me too
Next topic please
|
>> I think you are being deliberately obtuse CD
>>
I find it difficult to engage in meaningful "debates" with you because more often than not my mind is incapable of seeing things as you do. I am happy to take the blame, because I accept that not everyone sees things from the same perspective. It is a similar experience to an atheist and believer arguing about god.
>> Is that or is that not correct? Please answer Yes or No
>>
No, is my answer.
I can't be bothered to try to explain why because I am certain I will fail, just as many others above have found.
Last edited by: BrianByPass on Wed 15 Feb 17 at 12:15
|
You will fail BBP because you are wrong. Its not difficult to understand.
See Manatee's post if you can't understand mine
|
>>I think you are being deliberately obtuse CD>>
I think, in fact, CGN, that you are displaying a level of obfuscation which is either deliberate or that you perhaps simply don't comprehend that you are making yourself appear - to put it gently - somewhat foolish.
Might be a case of just not being able to see the wood for the trees..:-)
|
I really fail to see what I am obfuscating anything Stuartli.
Explain to me clearly the cost of to the government in paying me my pension if it is not as I state.
The lack of understanding of the tax system on this site is truly amazing.
|
>>The lack of understanding of the tax system on this site is truly amazing.>>
I'm a widower and have two pensions, the State Pension and a Final Salary private equivalent, but no other income, taxed or otherwise, as I decided that pitiful savings rates and the effect of inflation made it more economical to buy goods or services when they are on offer.
If I only had the State Pension, paid every 28 days, I would pay no tax. As it is, I start paying tax when my Personal Tax Allowance is exceeded due to the Final Salary private pension taking it over that figure.
I have no qualms in having to pay the required tax, which is deducted as necessary by my pension company. It's only a couple of months ago that I took up the PIE offer on my private pension, deciding that being given the means to enjoy a lot more Guinness now over the course of the month was preferable to receiving extra money in the 2020s, when I probably wouldn't be the slightest bit interested in a social life any longer...:-)
I fail completely though to see why it's so difficult for you to comprehend such a simple outcome with regard to your tax return.
|
I also pointed out that I would be happy to do without
>> the small sum they paid completely
if no state pension would make you happy, I'm sure there's a mechanism or way to stop claiming it.
|
>>
>> if no state pension would make you happy, I'm sure there's a mechanism or way
>> to stop claiming it.
>>
There is. He could postpone it, and then when he did start drawing it again not only would it be higher, by quite an advantageous amount, but just possibly his overall tax position might be different.
Or as I suggested earlier, he could perhaps reduce his drawdown from another pension in order to manipulate his marginal tax rate.
|
I did the sums on deferring the State pension CP There is very little benefit.
I have a Company Pension and the option to whihc your refer is therefore not available
|
I started this thread so please indulge me while I try and diffuse the stress.
CGNorwich has said, admittedly in something of a round about way, that although our government pays him £6204 pa in pension, it then claws back income tax at either 0%, 20% or 40 % depending on his other income.
It shows that these so called rich pensioners do not receive the full £6204 in their hands, but only receive a net benefit of £4963 or if richer only £3722.
So indeed these "richer, money grabbing" pensioners are effectively not taking out of the system as much as headline figures make out. Of course, those receiving a total of only around £11,000 pay no tax at all.
It's always been the same, in work or when retired - the more you get, the more tax you pay.
They give with one hand and claw back with the other.
So it is disingenuous of commentators, government, spin doctors and the media to keep harping on about just how good the oldies are having it these days.
|
So it is disingenuous of commentators, government, spin doctors and the media to keep harping
>> on about just how good the oldies are having it these days.
>>
I suppose it depends on how many there are. Broad brush strokes are always inaccurate, so it does indeed depend on circumstances. There are many pensioners just on the state pension, however there are no doubt many pensioners very comfortably off in retirement. And your figures do show that for a higher rate pensioner it's not much, however having an income large enough to pay such a tax rate in retirement would be beyond the dreams of many in retirement and not there yet. So they aren't too hard done by.
I suppose it depends on your outlook and circumstances as well as to who is being bashed, some working people no doubt feel they are constantly under the cosh or those unemployed etc.
I read a report on the news that every generation had gotten wealthier than the one before it, apart from this one. Assume that's true, is that a good thing, a bad thing or something of no importance?
|
I read a report on the news that every generation had gotten wealthier than the one before it, apart from this one. Assume that's true, is that a good thing, a bad thing or something of no importance?
It's not good or a bad thing but it surely is inevitable. Personal wealth cannot going on rising inexorably. I guess the problem is that for the period since the industrial revolution personal wealth has tended to grow her by year with a few blips so we all assume that will continue.
If you look at the longer term of course throughout there have been brief periods of plenty followed by famines plagues and widespread poverty.
I guess that if we can get away with something like a 10% reductions in income that's not so bad. What is needed is to ensure that the spread between those at the top of the heap and those at the bottom does not contiue to grow
|
>> I read a report on the news that every generation had gotten wealthier than the
>> one before it, apart from this one.
>>
It is the same report as the one this thread is about.
See www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?m=525670&v=e for links to the report. Read it and report back what you make of it! ;-)
The report defines income as "Real equivalised disposable income, after housing costs".
Remove the housing costs from the equation and their whole case collapses.
|
This thread has come a long way fast yet no-one has come up with the sum that the average "worker" (however defined) receives, apart from my own rough fix. Does any forum member know?
|
I was way out. Here's a better fix:
tinyurl.com/hujgh8c - www.ons.gov.uk
About £28,000 last year, then.
(link shortened to restore correct page width)
Last edited by: VxFan on Thu 16 Feb 17 at 01:38
|
>> About £28,000 last year, then.
>>
As I said before, it is not about income but is about "Real equivalised disposable income, after housing costs".
Also, the report that gave rose to this discussion is fixated with "median" and not "mean" values, about has a chart which shows the value of concern to them is the median at circa £22000 of "real equivalised disposable income, after housing costs".
I have been unable to find how they calculate the housing costs or other expenditure to deduct from the gross earnings figures to arrive at their disposable income figures.
Last edited by: BrianByPass on Wed 15 Feb 17 at 17:24
|
Saying Pensioners are better off than workers is a sweeping generalisation.
I think it might be better to compare my circumstances to that of my mother & father, MiL & FiL & uncles & aunts. In every way I am better off than them - some owned their own homes, some had pensions from employers but only a couple had their own home, employer pensions & no money worries as they had a "plan B" assets.
With the next generation, say my 3 sons, they are individually better off than I was in my early 40s - either they earn more or earn less & have working wives on 40% tax rate salary - with 3 kids going out to work for the mother, in our case, was nigh impossible 40 years ago - no nurseries & anyway 3 kids under 4 (twins) made life more difficult.
With my sons' current earning power, working wives, employer pensions etc etc I can only see them being much better off in later life than I am +likely inheritances (which I did not receive as my parents lived too long & rampant inflation killed off their capital).
I would worry if my sons were on modest wages, no employer pension & just getting bye as getting bye is no foundation for retirement, even if it it 30 years away!
.
|
>> Saying Pensioners are better off than workers is a sweeping generalisation.
>>
The report uses the median figure for their headline publicity.
In the body of the report, they claim that "The poorer 60 per cent of pensioner households are richer than the poorer 60 per cent of non-pensioner households". (note: non-pensioner = workers) All based on disposable income after housing costs.
Last edited by: BrianByPass on Wed 15 Feb 17 at 17:31
|
Imagine wiping the slate clean and starting from scratch with a "perfectly fair" system where everybody was paid precisely the same wage and all capital returned to the state on death. All houses would be identical, and all fixed at the same price by law indefinitely. Pensions would be fixed by law at the same amount as the standard wage, paid for by a fixed amount of national insurance.
Someone starting out on his employment career would immediately incur a massive debt as he took out a mortgage to buy his house.
As he got older he would gradually repay his mortgage, until finally when he retired he would own his house outright.
So at that point his wealth might be +£100,000 instead of the -£100,000 he began with. Also he would no longer be paying for his mortgage. Would that be substantially different in principle from what we have now? How could it be avoided?
|
In the above scenario I think renting would be vastly more sensible than buying, Cliff.
What is the point of capital accumulation if it all goes back into the pot at the end?
|
>> What is the point of capital accumulation if it all goes back into the pot
>> at the end?
>>
Maybe paying mortgage for 25 years and living rent free for the next 35 years rather than paying rent for 60 years
As I understand it that's why most people bought houses until the 60s, not to make huge gains on paper
|
>>They give with one hand and claw back with the other.>>
I fail to see that argument at all. The point at which you pay is decided by your Personal Tax Allowance, not how much or how you receive your income in its various forms. As I've already said, if you only have the State Pension then you pay no tax. Hardly rocket science.
In fact those, like me, who have a Final Salary Private Pension, made contributions over many years and in company with those provided by our employers. We also got certain tax benefits through, for example, having a mortgage, so I've no qualms about having to pay tax on money over and above my Personal Tax Allowance.
CGN can dress it up all he wishes, but it doesn't alter the basic facts....:-)
PS
Just remembered that the mortgage relief scheme was known as MIRAS.
Last edited by: Stuartli on Wed 15 Feb 17 at 18:27
|
I'll try to explain one last time for your benefit Stuartlii
I do not believe that income from different sources is treated differently. State Pensions are treated exactly the same as other income.
When I became eligible for my pension I was already paying the top band of my income at the higher rate. I.e 40%
The additional income that my pension provided was therefore taxed at 40%
If I went out and got a job tomorrow it would be treated exactly the same. If I were paid 10,000 the government would take 4,000 in tax.
I really can't make it any simpler. I really can't.
|
>>I'll try to explain one last time for your benefit Stuartlii>>
Don't bother. It's got thoroughly boring now. If you were already paying 40 per cent then I don't think you've got much to complain about - you appear to be very much better off than the vast majority of us....:-)
I've no qualms with that either if that is the case.
Last edited by: Stuartli on Wed 15 Feb 17 at 20:16
|
|
I am not complaining. In fact I rather think income tax rates should be increased to help resolve problems in the NHS and social care.l
|
|
The wealthy who who would not notice a tax increase usually do. Are you a champagne socialist?
Last edited by: Old Navy on Wed 15 Feb 17 at 20:47
|
|
CGNorwich like other pensioners on here are probably examples of people getting more from their pension than a lot of families have to live off. With a tax free allowance of £11k in 2016-17, and then a 20% rate band for the next £32,000, that means in 2016-2017 you'd have a pension of more than £43k before you paid any tax at 40%. And then your state pension in this case is on top.
|
No I'm not and I doubt whether my income is much different to yours actually ON. You were a fairly senior officer in the RN were you not and in receipt of an indexed linked pension after many years service. I doubt that you are on the breadline.
|
>> ON. You were a fairly senior officer in the RN were you not
CPO in charge of the heads and gash I reckon.
|
|
Sonar expert I thought ;-0
|
>> CPO
My crystal ball says WO.
|
>> CPO in charge of the heads and gash I reckon.
>>
That more or less covers it, a good index linked pension though! :-)
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 16 Feb 17 at 09:30
|
>> That more or less covers it, a good index linked pension though! :-)
>>
Zero right again eh?
|
>> Zero right again eh?
>>
As always, in the minds of his brainwashed.
|
Is Zero the leader of some sort brainwashing cult then ON ? A sort of Kim Jon Un of Car4Play.
|
>> Is Zero the leader of some sort brainwashing cult then ON ? A sort of
>> Kim Jon Un of Car4Play.
>>
Who knows, he is back so he has influence somewhere.
|
> Who knows, he is back so he has influence somewhere.
>>
You don't need influence to post, just log in and away you go.
|
>> > Who knows, he is back so he has influence somewhere.
>> >>
>>
>> You don't need influence to post, just log in and away you go.
>>
My apologies, I did not think for a moment that Zero was thin skinned enough to flounce. I thought he had been invited to go away for some reason.
|
>> Who knows, he is back so he has influence somewhere.
>>
I think he finds it too lonely in his GOF pub where he can't berate his sycophant drunk friends, so he pops in here when he is sober. ;-)
Last edited by: BrianByPass on Thu 16 Feb 17 at 13:36
|
>> I think he finds it too lonely in his GOF pub where he can't berate
>> his sycophant drunk friends, so he pops in here when he is sober. ;-)
Aw, c'mon. I love my old mate Zero, he's the besht guy in the world. Hic.
|
>> >> Who knows, he is back so he has influence somewhere.
>> >>
>>
>> I think he finds it too lonely in his GOF pub where he can't berate
>> his sycophant drunk friends, so he pops in here when he is sober. ;-)
>>
I come on here so I can read your posts and leave humbled, in awe of your intelligent and witty discourse.
|
>> I come on here so I can read your posts and leave humbled, in awe
>> of your intelligent and witty discourse.
>>
Glad to be of service, even if it only means seeing you humbled, a word which I had thought did't exist in your world. You are welcome to eat as much humble pie as you like.
I am pleased to be able to claim that your flounce was broken by the attraction of my intelligence and discourse. I wonder what it will take to get WdB back on here, possibly a bigly tremendous beautiful Brexit outcome so that he can come and eat humble pie too.
Others may not be so pleased at my achievement.
;-) :-) 0-)
|
>>possibly a bigly tremendous beautiful Brexit outcome
Alas the closest Brexit will come to 'bigly' is the economy having its head slowly sliced off with a big jaggy knife.
|
At least Microsoft has put the prices of their laptop/tablet up. It'll put off people buying it. Most smartphones have gone up or are going up soon.
If you want some Sonos speakers get them now - price increase announced.
This has nothing to Brexit as such - it's the devaluation of the pound against the US dollar (because of Brexit).
Next we'll see Vauxhall shutdown in the UK because they will be made in France.
|
>> Alas the closest Brexit will come to 'bigly' is the economy having its head slowly
>> sliced off with a big jaggy knife.
>>
Still trapped in the fantasy world of the doom mongering Remainers?
Relax, your jaggy knife head chop won't come to pass.
|
I'm just quietly chuckling at the thought of WdeB and Co. 'fully supporting Tony Blair after his speech today.
Let's face it, he's been criticised often enough by them in the past, but the remoaners are getting desperate now:)
Pat
|
>>Tony Blair after his speech today
He's got more front than an overweight Sumo wrestler [heard on the wireless this morning]
:o}
|
>> I'm just quietly chuckling at the thought of WdeB and Co. 'fully supporting Tony Blair
>> after his speech today.
He makes a perfectly reasonable point that those opposed to 'hard' Brexit (or indeed any Brexit) need to unite and campaign. The referendum was not a mandate to drive the economy off a cliff in the name of controlling immigration which seems to be current direction of travel.
Most out campaigners, including Monsieur Fromage, were (at least publicly) advocating a Norway type solution.
If the Labour party had the remotest credibility or competence as an opposition they'd have been making common cause with pro EU Tories to get amendments to last week's bill so as to require closer oversight of process by the commons. Instead they look idiotic by trying to whip their own unwilling troops into the Aye lobby.
|
>>
>> He makes a perfectly reasonable point that those opposed to 'hard' Brexit (or indeed any
>> Brexit) need to unite and campaign. <<
Using any port in a storm I presume, considering that I can't name a Remoaner who previously would give him time of day
>>
>> Most out campaigners, including Monsieur Fromage, were (at least publicly) advocating a Norway type solution.
>>
Monsieur Fromage?? Just the type of comment we've all come to expect from those who didn't get their own way....and does none of you any favours either.
>> If the Labour party had the remotest credibility or competence as an opposition they'd have
>> been making common cause with pro EU Tories to get amendments to last week's bill
>> so as to require closer oversight of process by the commons. Instead they look idiotic
>> by trying to whip their own unwilling troops into the Aye lobby.
>>
The Labour Party have lost more support than they can afford to already, and they know just how much more they would lose if they even thought about doing that.
Tony Blair has not changed. He still talks rubbish and b******* but just looks a bit older.
Pat
|
Using any port in a storm I presume, considering that I can't name a Remoaner who previously would give him time of day
You do now. Had his faults but in many ways one of our better and more intelligent post war prime ministers.
And since you find "Monsieur Fromage" annoying perhaps you might care to drop the frankly tedious "remoaner" tag.
|
>> Had his faults but in many ways one of our better and more intelligent post war prime ministers.>>
I'll assume that's a tongue in cheek comment.
|
>>No>>
Well you're certainly taxing my brain (at 20 per cent, 40 per cent or whatever) with that conclusion about Bliar....:-)
|
Bliar, remoaners, it's all a bit pathetic isn't it?
How can you possibly expect to engage in a sensible conversation about anything if you indulge in childish name calling.
|
>>How can you possibly expect to engage in a sensible conversation about anything if you indulge in childish name calling.>>
Well certainly no less than you arguing a case about the State Pension that's baffled probably 90 per cent of the forum members who have responded to your seemingly illogical logic...:-)
|
Monsieur Fromage is a childish sarcastic description.
Remoaners is a very accurate and apt description so no, I shall continue to use it CG.
Tony Blair is in dire need of a popularity check and this is desperate attempt at getting into people's good books again.
His politics entirely depend upon whichever view will line his own pocket and secure his future.
Surprised you've actually fallen for that one!
Pat
|
>> Monsieur Fromage is a childish sarcastic description.
>>
>> Remoaners is a very accurate and apt description so no, I shall continue to use
>> it CG.
Monsieur Fromage is legitimate irony about a thin skinned one man band with a public persona diametrically opposed to his real character.
Remoaners is a rather pathetic description of those who have a legitimate objection to Brexit.
if it had been 52% remain 48% leave would you have said yeah, right, verdict of the people and done your 'patriotic duty' of shutting up on the subject?
|
"Remoaners", it has to be said, is a perfect example of a very functional portmanteau word that stands in what would otherwise be at least half a dozen other words. Any suggestions for alternatives?
Fromage just isn't funny, unless there's a joke there that went over my head.
|
|
No I don't suppose there is another word Manatee. And indeed most of us who would have preferred the alternative referendum result have indeed put up and shut up. But allow us please, to just occasionally continue to be dismayed. ;-)
|
|
I think 'Remoaners' is hard to beat.
|
|
I don't gloat if I can help it Humph, it usually precedes looking a twit. I don't like the word Remoaner much but it's very neat and instantly understandable.
|
=>Any suggestions for alternatives?
Howls about Remainiacs.
|
>> Monsieur Fromage
Not one of the main stream media (MSM) use it.
>> Remoaners
>>
MSM, including the Guardian think it is acceptable.
Owen Smith Labour MP uses it to describe himself as ‘remoaner-in-chief’.
Guardian "remaoner" readers have a nasty term for the Leavers: Brexsh*tters
Last edited by: BrianByPass on Fri 17 Feb 17 at 22:19
|
>>Fromage/Remoaner...
Are you seriously arguing about which of the two juvenile nicknames is the best? Call it a draw, they're both stupid.
|
|
Yeah but 'Brexsh*tters' is ace :))
|
>> The Labour Party have lost more support than they can afford to already, and they
>> know just how much more they would lose if they even thought about doing that.
Both parties are in an electoral cleft stick over Brexit. While some Labour seats voted out and may regard UKIP as an electoral threat those in London and other big cities are in seats voting in.
Cynics say this fact gave Dianne Abbott a migraine!!
Lib Dems gained Richmond from Goldsmith at least in part due to latter's Brexit views. Plenty south eastern Tories reprsent seats that where heavily remain.
I wonder too how Gisela Stuart would fare in Edgbaston today?
Cheshire West voted out. Given our 'flexible labour market' already makes closing plants here easier than in Germany or France then Brexit uncertainty must be a massive cloud over 'the home of the Astra' at Ellesmere Port. They will not be only losers from Brexit who might rue the day.....
Those voting out on 23 June can be segmented. Sure, 35-40% of population are philosophically committed to leaving. Pat, Stuartlii and Brain by Pass are examples in this place.
Plenty others though bought the lies of Boris etc. Another cohort thought they could give the smarmy posh gits Cameron and Osborne together with 'Elites' a black eye at no cost to themselves.
Both those latter groups could easily swing the other once the cost, complexity and enormity of a prospective hard Brexit actually do impact on their own lives.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 18 Feb 17 at 16:36
|
>> Lib Dems gained Richmond from Goldsmith at least in part due to latter's Brexit views.
>> Plenty south eastern Tories reprsent seats that where heavily remain.
>>
A fair account of the main reasons why Sarah Olney won in Richmond could read:
1. Labour vote collapsed
2. Greens stood aside and told their supporters to vote LibDem
3. Tories who were unhappy with Goldsmith's grandstanding over Heathrow decided to boycott him or vote against him.
Note that in the referendum, in Richmond 70% voted to Remain whereas Sarah Olney got less than 50% in the by-election. see
www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/dec/02/lib-dems-unseat-zac-goldsmith-in-richmond-park-byelection
"Sarah Olney, the winning candidate, took just under 50% of the entire vote to record a majority of 1,872. Large numbers of local Labour voters backed her, with the Labour candidate, Christian Wolmar, losing his deposit."
>> Given our 'flexible labour market' already makes closing plants here easier than in
>> than in Germany or France then Brexit uncertainty must be a massive cloud over 'the
>> home of the Astra' at Ellesmere Port. They will not be only losers from Brexit
>> who might rue the day.....
>>
On the other hand, you could equally fairly argue that our flexible labour market plus cheap £ will attract UK and foreign investment creating new jobs in new plants/industries/services. I know from first hand knowledge that US firms are horrified when they discover that the !at will" hire & fire clause that they are used to in employment contracts cannot be implemented in EU countries and find that the UK is the best they can find in EU for a sensible balance between employer/employee rights.
>> Both those latter groups could easily swing the other once the cost, complexity and enormity
>> of a prospective hard Brexit actually do impact on their own lives.
>>
All that is conjecture. No on really knows what will happen, but I know English Leavers from both well-off and poor backgrounds who are prepared to accept an economic hit if that is what "taking back control" is eventually shown to have cost Britain. Many of these "English Leavers" would also readily vote "Yes" to allow Nicola Sturgeon to grant her wish if a UK wide referendum was held on giving independence to Scotland.
|
>> Note that in the referendum, in Richmond 70% voted to Remain whereas Sarah Olney got
>> less than 50% in the by-election.
This sort of thing is another bit of specious brexsh*teer propaganda. Gisla Stuart was on the radio the other day on same tack, trying to convince that a government with 51% of popular vote would have absolute command of the Commons.
The referendum was a binary choice. The last election in UK with outcome near that was 1951. Labour won the popular vote with 48.8% but the Tories with 48% won more seats due to an alliance with so called National Liberals.
The Richmond by-election was of course influenced by many more factors then Brexit - not least LHR expansion.
|
>> The referendum was a binary choice.
>> The Richmond by-election was of course influenced by many more factors then Brexit - not
>> least LHR expansion.
>>
1. You brought up the Richmond by-election in the context of Brexit, I didn't.
2. I explained that there were more factors other than Brexit that led to Sarah Olney winning.
3. Good that you agree with 2 above.
4. However, Tim Farron, Sarah Olney and Guy Verhofstadt (EU's chief Brexit negotiator) are convinced it was a second binary EU referendum, only that it was limited to Richmond. They and the Main Stream Fake News Media (led by the BBC) were shouting out that was the case before and after the by-election. Tim Farron was delusional enough to claim that Sarah Olney's victory was a rejection of Brexit and Trump!
>>specious brexsh*teer propaganda
Using foul language is childish and demonstrates that there is no rational reasoning left in support of their case.
|
I simply sought, responding to Pat and using Richmond as an example, to show it is not just Labour MP's who sit in areas where referendum outcome was diametrically opposite to their own position on EU. There are vulnerable Tories too.
There may of course be other factors in Richmond. The words 'at least in part' in my reply to Pat recognise that.
To be honest though there's a limit to the time I'm prepared to give to 'debating' with a Brexiteer who believes:
(a) the BBC is Main Stream Fake News Media
(b) that 'remoaners' mourn the loss of a 'beloved' EU
We will know on Friday morning if Stoke or Copeland show Labour's exposure to pro Brexit protest.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sun 19 Feb 17 at 10:37
|
>> Main Stream Fake News Media ...
>>
... reported two days ago "Dwight Yorke 'denied entry into US' under Donald Trump's border laws because of 'Iranian stamp in his passport'".
In fact he was denied entry due to restrictions put in place by Obama over a year ago. This was pointed out to all of them, but none has chosen to correct their original story.
Original Obama ban for which there were no mass protests by the elite metropolitian liberals:
www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/21/new-us-visa-rules-could-also-cause-problems-for-americans-visiting-europe
The Obama administration has tightened travel terms regarding Iran, Iraq, Syria and Sudan, under rules that will also make travel to the US harder for some Europeans.
|
>> Is Zero the leader of some sort brainwashing cult then ON ? A sort of
>> Kim Jon Un of Car4Play.
Well at least you know I am not Kim Jong nam, as I am still alive.
|
>> Well at least you know I am not Kim Jong nam, as I am still
>> alive.
>>
Beware of strange women with needles Zero.
Thanks for the brainwashing by the way. It needed a good clean.
|
>> I am not complaining. In fact I rather think income tax rates should be increased to help resolve problems in the NHS and social care.l >>
Really? Throwing even more money at the NHS will NOT cure its problems. If you do that those running it will demand even more money in the near future.
It's a monolithic organisation that's quite frankly out of control and needs some long term and very serious study to bring it back to even remotely manageable control.
I say that as someone whose wife was a senior deputy superintendent radiologist and who has other family members who worked long term in the NHS.
Very few can even comprehend managing an annual budget of around £115B a year and ensuring that the best possible patients' service and value for money is returned.
As it is the key workers do a fantastic job under very difficult circumstances.
|
...senior deputy superintendent radiologist
A title George Orwell would be proud of!
I presume you meant radiographer.
|
>>I presume you meant radiographer?>>
You are quite correct...:-) I'm sure the consultant radiologist would have seen through the error of my ways.....
|
>> >>I presume you meant radiographer?>>
>>
>> You are quite correct...:-) I'm sure the consultant radiologist would have seen through the error
>> of my ways rays.....
>>
|
>> of my ways rays.....>>
:-) :-) One way to raise a smile (or Smiley)...!
Last edited by: Stuartli on Thu 16 Feb 17 at 16:03
|
|
I am sure that money is not the only solution to the problem but it sure is going to be part of it. The area where I would throw some money and fairly quickly is in social care for the elderly which is rapidly becoming a disgrace for a modern wealthy Western country.
|
>> which is rapidly becoming a disgrace for a modern wealthy Western country. <<
I agree with that, but sadly families from modern wealthy Western countries don't seem to think they have any duty to look after their elderly relatives.
So many of my foreign friends are shocked at this.
Pat
|
Yes that sadly is true but I don't know how you resolve that.
|
"I agree with that, but sadly families from modern wealthy Western countries don't seem to think they have any duty to look after their elderly relatives."
You're so right Pat. There seems to be an expectation that once the elderly relative has entered the system then they will be looked after and everything organised and provided by Social Services. The only obligation they have is to fill visiting times.
Having been in this situation myself with my Mother who became immobile but insisted on remaining independent. It was very demanding, physically and mentally, trying to provide some care, do the errands, look after another property as well as fulfill my work commitments and be around for my own family and job. So what would be the option? Take a career break and lower your standard of living? That's maybe the rub - a hint of selfishness. Perhaps a proper financial incentive to do that?? Carers provided 4 X 30 min rushed slots a day which were fortunately covered by an Insurance policy my astute Father had been paying into for a number of years. We moved her nearby which helped.
I spent a couple of years in an out of A&E then onto wards and I must admit that whilst she was in their care I had some respite with it all to start again when released. The biggest issue was her stubborn refusal to (which I can understand) to go into a care home. Having mental capacity meant she could make her own choices even though the outcome was predictable.
She had a fall within 3 hours of being returned home by ambulance, broke her ankle and then caught a severe chest infection (pneumonia?) Released to a nursing home (reluctantly) until she made some recovery and passed away within a week. Of course the hospital were not slow in trying to release a bed.
As I say the end was so predictable months before. I feel somewhat guilty in feeling a sense of relief and the removal of a great burden when she died. I still cringe every time the phone rings as when she was alive it normally meant a summons for assistance.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Thu 16 Feb 17 at 22:38
|
|
We (more my wife) are trying hard to keep my FiL at home and independent. He's fairly well but mid 80s and has Parkinson's. My wife is round there at least 3 hours a day in 3 visits. We don't want him going in a home and of course neither would he.
|
At around £800-1100/wk for decent nursing home care - no wonder families can be reluctant to remove their inheritance frail relative from hospital.
|
There is a view that the problems that manifest in hospitals (choked A&E, blocked beds, waiting times for operations) are not really hospital problems but are caused by inadequate GP service provision and a shortage of community care which delays or prevents patients being discharged from hospital when their treatments are finished.
It seems likely to me that might be the best place to start. There is no point increasing the number of hospital beds, because looking after people in hospitals is dearer than doing it in a care home, or the person's own house. Similarly an A&E can't fulfil its intended function if it is standing in for GPs.
There are of course some very disfunctional processes that reduce efficiency and make the problem worse - an example is the four hour A&E target. It is a virtual certainty that some people will be admitted who don't need to be, because A&E can't fix them in the four hour window.
|
Re A&E waiting time.
I suspect the public is not fully aware of the situation and of course only see a small part of the waiting.
My observations from a few visits to my local A&E for SWMBO.
The are two entrances, as most folks know. ambulance and "get yourself there"
By ambulance, we have had to queue to get into the reception bays.
Ambulance guys have to wait to check in etc prior to being free for the next job.
There is also a resuscitation room. From there to " majors" where there are a dozen or so bays.
Check in at the public desk and then wait for a triage nurse to do basic checks etc.and then wait.
Next go to " majors" and a bay or off to a further waiting area at " minors" and await a free bay.
Children get fast tracked to a children's area where I assume there may be waiting and other bays just for them.
So with patients dispersed in various areas a head count in the initial waiting are may give a false impression of things.
I have not been there Fri/Sat evenings.
|
>>
>>
>> The additional income that my pension provided was therefore taxed at 40%
>>
No, that is the fallacy of your argument. You are, as is one's natural instinct, relating the tax charge to the latest event, ie getting the pension.
But you could, with just as much logic, say that your pension was tax-free but they had decided to increase the tax rate on some other slice of income.
It may appear to be the extra straw that breaks the camel's back, but in reality all the straws have contributed equally.
|
You could make that argument but it would be silly.
As i said if I were to get a job tomorrow one of the considerations would be how much tax am I going to pay on my earnings. The practical answer would be 40%. The fact that my overall average tax rate is less than that does not alter the fact that is that what I would pay on that income.
The net worth of that job to be would be 60% of the gross pay
Same goes for the pension.
|
I give up!
You should be considering the net worth of each element of your income, not simply the last one to be added.
So you don't like my camel/straw analogy then.
|
If I was considering taking a job, I would consider the net total difference it would make to my financial standing, the amount that the job added to the gross would not really interest me.
Whether that tax was taken from the new job, from another income source, shared across them or whatever wouldn't really be important. It would simply be a matter of "if I do this, then I will be £x better off".
However, when considering overall "fairness", if there is a such a thing, then one surely has to consider both the net total effect *and* whichever source is individually causing the taxation?
|
>> You should be considering the net worth of each element of your income, not simply the last one to be added.>>
All I can deduce is that CGN must be getting a sizeable income (I've absolutely no qualms with that if correct) based on these links:
tinyurl.com/zwlkepl
tinyurl.com/zyjo9rl
|
>> I give up!
>>
Welcome to the club!
It seems CGN has a unique arrangement with HMRC whereby his tax-free allowance is allocated to his other income, and his "state-pension" labelled notes are treated as his last source of income. For everyone else, HMRC just adds together all income and then applies various allowances in a set order to work out the tax due.
example of tax calculation by HMRC for higher rate taxpayer in 2014/15:
www.amortgagenow.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/FC_viewcalculation.png
Note that it is the "total" income that matters, any £1 earned from a state pension is the same as any other £1 earned from a private pension.
But as I had given up on CGN's logic, I don't know why I am posting here again.
|
In short I still agree with CG, in the context of the discussion which is what his pension costs the rest of us.
I haven't bothered looking back at the numbers, ISTR there was a typo with 2 digits of the tax figure being reversed by the look of it, but I think CGN's logic was that if he gave up his pension of £x then he would pay £0.4x less in tax. If you look at any specific chunk of income on its own then you would save tax at the marginal rate(s).
If the nub of the dicussion was simply what rate of tax CGN pays on his income, then the answer would be total tax/gross income and pro rata for each slice, giving a lower rate for the state pension.
But the nub is actually what the net cost to the gubbermint is, and the answer has to be the the gross amount (yes we know state pension is paid gross) less 40% assuming he has at least that amount of income on which he pays his marginal rate of 40%, otherwise it will be so much at 40% and so much at 20%.
I think it was very appropriate to quote the 40% figure if that is his marginal rate and he is in the 40% band by at least the amount of his pension. Which bits it is actually deducted from is irrelevant.
Last edited by: Manatee on Thu 16 Feb 17 at 14:00
|
What we didn't need to know is his other pension(s) takes him into the 40% bracket showing that there are indeed some pensioners getting a lot more in pension than workers get in pay. But that's always going to be the case - someone earning a low salary can't really be compared with someone with a pension as a result of a high paid job. Apple and oranges comparison.
But on the other hand CGNorwich earned this pension, saved for it over 45 years and therefore is deserving of it. The youth of today seem to ignore the fact they need to accumulate a pension over time even if it won't be as generous as pensions of old. To end up with naff all pension because you didn't save for it is their fault.
I suppose the government is trying to address this. No doubt so they can then reduce future pension payments.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Thu 16 Feb 17 at 15:32
|
>> But on the other hand CGNorwich earned this pension,
>>
I can't see anyone begrudging him that.
>> The youth of today seem to ignore the fact
>> they need to accumulate a pension over time
>>
They are in a very difficult position, facing a quadruple whammy:
uncertain job security (days of expecting to work for a single employer over 40 years are long gone);
hence no security of a generous index-linked final salary scheme even if they are lucky enough to be working for part of their life for an employer who is still offering such a scheme;
high housing costs leaving little to put away for a pension;
gamble of relying on growth of a pension fund, invested via managers whose performance is not guaranteed and yet high fees may be charged.
|
Most final salary schemes are closed. Our closed sometime ago - to compensate in some way they pay more into the replacement scheme.
I still have a lump sum in the original final salary scheme. And do wonder if I should move it. I know it's risky and you have to pay a lot for advice before doing so. But I'd have more control over it... Well I have little control now.
I have just over 20 years before I get a state pension. A long time to go. I'd like to finish work a long time before then even if the pension is much reduced.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Thu 16 Feb 17 at 17:19
|
Manatee, you seem to be in the minority who think the same way as CGN, personally I cannot see the point of allocating part of the tax to specific income. The "government" is not a single entity
DWP have paid out 6000+ and HMRC have retrieved 2400 ish.
Personally I cannot see the point of allocating tax to bits of my income, especially where it is not taxed at source, but is part of the total tax bill, it's still income to me.
I still think to say it how he did t=right at the start of this is the sort of thing that modern media do to state the truth but not necessarily the whole truth, in a quote.
|
>> Manatee, you seem to be in the minority who think the same way as CGN,
>> personally I cannot see the point of allocating part of the tax to specific income.
The point in this case is the implicit idea of taking benefits off wealthier pensioners. It's simple; he's getting 60% of the state pension because if they took it off him that's what he would lose.
I would completely agree that in general it would be misleading to impute different rates to different sources.
Have you ever wrestled with allocating costs in a business? There is never a right answer...
|
I can see where CGN is coming from (and others probably). You paid taxes and national insurance payments for a long time and then get to retirement and get told you can't have the full state pension lump sum tax free because you've got too big a pension. The pension is bigger because you earned more... and therefore paid more tax and NI contributions when working.
... This is the argument I thought CGN would make. He's paid a lot of tax and NI and gets less state pension than someone on benefits all their life.
But the system is what it is. And total income including state pension is considered. And we live in a good democratic country where we hope the better off support the less well off.
You could argue that the state pension should be considered totally separately and tax free from other pensions/income that you invested in. But we all know current pensions are funded by today's workers. All you paid in tax/NI before got spent/wasted long ago. So as a country we can't afford to give the full state pension except of the overall tax regulation.
Anyone in receipt of a final salary pension from the state is funded by the likes of me and other workers today. Your contributions never went towards your actual pension. Your pension was just a future liability when you were working.
And that's how the system works. And it has nothing to do with the EU or BREXIT :-)
Last edited by: rtj70 on Thu 16 Feb 17 at 19:16
|
>>..final salary pension from the state...>>
I would take it that you meant a company final salary pension scheme?
You are quite correct that basically all taxation, direct or indirect, goes into one giant pot (hence the need for an annual Budget from the Chancellor to decide how to spend it), but nevertheless we paid for a State pension over our working lives in one way or another.
Therefore no one retiring should be robbed or partially deprived of their rights to their State pension - we provided the same service to the older generation during our employment years.
|
>>>> ..final salary pension from the state...>>
>> I would take it that you meant a company final salary pension scheme?
I meant public funded final salaries so teachers, nurses, MPs, etc.
|
>> I meant public funded final salaries so teachers, nurses, MPs, etc.
>>
Don't forget scabby matelots. :-)
|
>>I meant public funded final salaries so teachers, nurses, MPs, etc. >>
Which, of course, those who work in the private sector pay for on top of what they have to shell out for themselves.
I am quite aware that key public service employees are worth their weight in gold but, unfortunately, many don't always appreciate where the finance comes from as they fail to understand the wealth creation factors.
|
>>Which, of course, those who work in the private sector pay for on top of what they have to shell out for themselves.
A common misconception/misrepresentation.
Public sector workers pay superannuation to support pension payments (basically it goes back to the Govt's current account).
I pay 28% of my 'superannuable income' annually towards this fund (13.5% employer's and 14.5% employee's as a GP partner).
Like all funds, including private employer schemes, it is a massive Ponzi affair paying today's pensions out of today's contributions - at the current time the fund actually makes £2bn/yr for the exchequer - which no doubt will reverse at some point in the future, hence the recent changes to my pension from April 2015 (eg. the pension benefits built up after that date will be payable in full at age 68 rather than 60).
|
>>A common misconception/misrepresentation.>>
It comes out of the public purse, whether at national or local level.
|
>>It comes out of the public purse
And is paid into by the workers in the public sector.
|
>>And is paid into by the workers in the public sector.>>
...from the wages/salaries they've originally been paid by public sector employers. Local or national government doesn't have any money of its own, it's all taxpayers', whether from direct or indirect taxation.
Wealth is created by the private sector...:-)
|
...from the wages/salaries they've originally been paid by public sector employers. Local or national government doesn't have any money of its own, it's all taxpayers', whether from direct or indirect taxation.
>>
>> Wealth is created by the private sector...:-)
Perhaps they should stop paying contributions since its not really their money anyway ;-)
In reality neither sector exist in a vacuum, both need each other.
|
>>In reality neither sector exist in a vacuum, both need each other.>>
Which was the point I was making much earlier in the thread...:-)
Government has a monopoly in the fact that if it runs out of money (usually temporarily) it can raise it through loans or by increasing taxes etc. Take a look at the Government Valuation Agency's business rates decision for the next five years or so as for a start...
|
>>Wealth is created by the private sector...:-)
Again, another misconception/misrepresentation/overgeneralisation.
When BP/BL/BG/BT were nationalised they did much the same job (well, maybe not BL ha ha).
Equally Serco/G4S etc sure ain't 'creating wealth' by looking after our prisons/hospital toilets/processing benefits claims.
The private banking sector has done a great job of creating wealth for the nation over the past 10 years....
How services are provided, goods are manufactured/have value added, and raw materials are obtained are not black-and-white public vs private sector issues.
If the NHS was entirely privatised do you think it would be more efficient/more expensive/more effective?
Check out the USA.
|
>>If the NHS was entirely privatised do you think it would be more efficient/more expensive/more effective?
Probably / Probably not / Certainly not.
I live in a country with limited or no public health service. I have done several times. Life is MUCH MUCH better with the NHS.
Its just that the electorate as a body gets confused between cheap, efficient and effective. Look what's happened to the Police Force. Its the sides of a triangle and choosing where you want your spot.
Cheap and efficient are not good standalone metrics for a public service. Effectiveness is.
|
>> Like all funds, including private employer schemes, it is a massive Ponzi affair paying today's
>> pensions out of today's contributions
Which is one reason I might take control of my final salary pension fund.
|
>>Which is one reason I might take control of my final salary pension fund.
Of course part of the increase in the value of stockmarkets over the past 100 years is due to the ever increasing demand for stocks and shares by pension funds.
What happens when/if the pension funds have to start paying out more than they are taking in (remember this is the generation which will start earning less than their parents)?
Like any good Ponzi scheme once you want to take out more than is coming in you are at risk of 'doing a Bernie Madoff'.
|
>> What happens when/if the pension funds have to start paying out more than they are
>> taking in
That is happening or will happen to virtually all the DB schemes especially if well funded since most are closed to new entrants and the objective is to run out of money when the last beneficiary dies.
However the DC schemes that have replaced them, and other retirement vehicles (not Honda Jazzes) also invest in the same places.
|
>> and other retirement vehicles (not Honda Jazzes)
>>
Retirement motor? :-)
autonetmagz.net/photo-gallery-modification-cars-honda-jazz-tuning
|
>> >> Like all funds, including private employer schemes, it is a massive Ponzi affair paying
>> today's
>> >> pensions out of today's contributions
>>
>> Which is one reason I might take control of my final salary pension fund.
A private sector defined benefit pension scheme is not a Ponzi affair, subject to a bit of qualification. Neither are government pensions but that is another matter.
The pension trust looks after the fund and receives contributions that are intended to pay the benefits promised to the members and their dependants. Every three years there is an actuarial valuation of the present day value of the liabilities taking into account expected mortality, investment strategy and exepected returns, interest rates, inflation. If the value of the liabilities exceeds the amount of money in the pot then there is a "deficit" and a recovery plan has to be agreed.
Most private sector schemes have been closed to new entrants for some years. Unlike a Ponzi scheme, there are no new customers to pay out the old ones. Where schemes are in deficit, as most are, it is employer's contributions that must make up the shortfall and it is entirelypossible that the scheme will never default. However deficits can and do run for many years, without getting anywhere near running out of cash. A default happens when the sponsor becomes insolvent and there will be no further contributions
A deficit on its own is not a problem. A default is. What you need to keep an eye on is the size of the deficit, the recovery plan, and the financial strength of the employer.
You do have a level of insurance in the Pension Protection Fund. Most deferred members will be compensated, in the event of scheme failure, with 90% of the benefits they were promised, with annual inflation increases in deferral and in payment limited to a maximum of 2.5%. The question of what happens if the PPF runs out of money has not been answered AFAIK - it isn't state backed, although everybody hopes it would be if it came to that.
The point is that you do not need to transfer out on the basis that you will settle for a bit less but it will be safe. There will be no guarantee or "insurance" at all if you invest the money yourself.
Tread carefully as there is no going back when you have transferred out. Too many people have taken their defined benefit transfer and put it into real Ponzi schemes promising high returns and lost the lot.
|
That's a good summary of what you shoul consider before taking money out of a Company Pension fund.
The only other thing I would mention is that most pension funds have a degree of inflation proofing. Some have pension linked to RPI or increase annually at a flat rate .
If you remove the money from the fund and invest it yourself in this world of low interest rates you are very unlikely to secure a better return on your money
|
>>Some have pension linked to RPI or increase annually at a flat rate .<<
Several have changed the linkage to CPI not difficult to see why if you look at the long term aspects at www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices
and I thought civil service and LA had also changed - www.civilservicepensionscheme.org.uk/media/176826/pension-news_v16-colour.pdf
|
>> >>Some have pension linked to RPI
>>
E.g surprise, surprise MPs
>> Several have changed the linkage to CPI not difficult to see why
Some were promised years ago in writing that their pension was linked to "the index" and at that time there was just one index.
Since then, never mind all that you are now on CPI.
The High Court judgement is awaited.
"the BA v APS Trustees case ended, after 31 days in the High Court (at vast expense), on 9th December 2016. There is a small amount of archive research to be done and the judge, Mr Justice Morgan, will be writing his judgment. Since he has another case to hear in early February, it is highly likely that the judgment will not be handed down until around Easter."
|
The pension scheme of which I am a trustee, which is a bit bigger than but on the same scale as BHS's, fortunately for me (I am a member as well as a trustee) actually specifies RPI, otherwise I am pretty sure we would have gone to CPI - the argument being that it would increase the security of the scheme by reducing the liabilities. It would have had to have been a trustee decision.
The general law, principle and practice is that benefits once earned cannot be taken away. Bad luck if your scheme just specifies "inflation" or something like "rise in consumer prices according to the principal measure used by the government", or similar.
Reducing benefits contrary to the trust deed and rules is the thin end of a nasty wedge. I don't know the detail of where it ended up, but there was talk of an Act of Parliament to allow benefits to be cut restrospectively for members of the Tata Steel scheme so that a new owner would be prepared to take it on and become the sponsor. Many employers must have been hoping for a general change that would have permitted other schemes to make such changes contrary to their scheme's rules.
Something else for Rob to keep his eye on. If there is a plan to reduce his deferred benefits, his transfer value would reduce when it happened.
|
>> If you remove the money from the fund and invest it yourself in this world of low interest rates
>> you are very unlikely to secure a better return on your money
If I did transfer it anywhere it would be another pension scheme. The reasons for thinking about it are:
- My final salary pension pot currently estimates a pension at 65 of around £11k pa. Remember it's been closed for a while now.
- My defined contribution scheme (which has 25% salary paid in by me/employer) is 5 times smaller in terms of value but the estimate of how much it will pay out at 65 is around £6k pa.
So how come the estimate for the final salary pension is only about double the other one yet there is currently 5 times more money in there at the moment?
Some colleagues final salary valuation if they were to transfer it is over £1m (mine isn't that much!).
|
|
Don't know if your one works the same but our one (also closed for the last 10 years) includes indexation and half pension for a surviving spouse, which will reduce the payout for an annuity.
|
>>If I did transfer it anywhere it would be another pension scheme.
You have no option you have no option but to transfer it to another pension scheme, and until you are 55 you cannot take it out except to transfer to a different one.
Ensure you are comparing like with like - it seems unlikely.
It is common to quote defined benefit (DB) benefits in terms of today's money. If it is deferred for 20 years it will be revalued in line with something, possibly CPI or RPI, subject to a maximum. It's easy to sense check that because it is probably n/60ths or some other fraction per year of membership based on your final salary (or possibly average), revalued from when you left to the date of the quote.
For the defined contribution (DC) one, the first thing to remember as I'm sure you know is that nothing is guaranteed. Plug your numbers into the HL pension calculator. You can zero the personal and company contribution to get a forecast for what you have already in the pot.
www.hl.co.uk/pensions/interactive-calculators/pension-calculator
You'll have to look at the assumptions and the advanced options link to understand what it's doing.
The default option does not include increases in pension in payment IIRC - adding an average 3% increase and a 50% spouse pension will nearly halve your starting pension at 65.
There's a nice balance to having a material chunk of your pension in a DB scheme and the rest in money purchase. The DB part plus the state pension, plus your house when mortgage-free gives you a (reasonably) solid base and you need not worry about investment returns on those.
But, given what you have said, no reason not to look at the numbers and at least get to the bottom of that puzzling difference. Just be very prudent with your assumptions on returns from your DC pot.
|
>>pension scheme is not a Ponzi affair
I know that, I was using the term with a degree of dramatic licence, but you only need to look at the Equitable Life fiasco to see how badly a scheme can go wrong.
In the case of EL it was through corporate stupidity/lack of foresight, but there is a risk in all schemes: the PPF as you say is not a bottomless pit.
|
>> >>pension scheme is not a Ponzi affair
>>
>> I know that,
I know you know. You probably know I know you know.
I just don't like to let it lie when a comment risks reinforcing the idea that pensions are a con. They are the best bet for most of us, especially if we already have one.
|
"... This is the argument I thought CGN would make. He's paid a lot of tax and NI and gets less state pension than someone on benefits all their life."
I have no problem with a progressive system of income tax where the rate gets higher the more you receive as income which is what we have.
I only endeavoured to show its effect on my pension as regard its cost to the government.. I will say once more. I am not complaining.
|
>> ... This is the argument I thought CGN would make. He's paid a lot of
>> tax and NI and gets less state pension than someone on benefits all their life.
I don't think he is complaining about that, or anything else that I can recall. The point is that if some pensioners are much better off than some younger people in work, it isn't (in his case anyway) because they are draining the public finances.
I suspect the ones who need to worry are those on state pension + benefits (pension credits and housing benefit). Whilst they are clearly not wealthy, they have a secure and rising income and probably more disposable income then many "strugglers" who are working but have big mortgages or rent to pay.
And there are many of them. In my last job I became a trustee of the pension scheme and I made it something of a mission to persuade people to join to take advantage of "free money". One chap in his early 60s had been there several years and never joined. It just wasn't worthwhile for him - he knew that his circumstances when he retired would be exactly as I described above. I worked out using the benefits calculator that if he had a big enough pot to buy say £100 a week of pension income he would keep about £10 of it after the adjustments to his pension credit etc.
You either need nothing, or enough to be well above benefits level. The average £56,000 pension pot, if such a thing exists, is really no use at all except to draw down at 55, pay the tax, and splurge it. Saving it for retirement income is just irrational if it's all you have.
That in a nutshell is the challenge of welfare. It's meant to be for people who can't provide for themselves, not people who rationally choose not to. I'd still rather be me than them, even though I have forgone a lot of what some people regard as essential long haul holidays, meals out, new cars and the rest to make sure I have choices now.
|
>> I have forgone a lot of what some people
>> regard as essential long haul holidays, meals out, new cars and the rest to make
>> sure I have choices now.
>>
Same here, Since retiring I have had more long, short hauls, and new cars than I ever had while I was working.
|
Of course some might argue that you should enjoy life while you can and let the future look after itself. Some people do not live long enough to enjoy the years of saving and going without after all.
I must admit that Legacylad seems to have a rather enjoyable lifestyle.
|
>> Of course some might argue that you should enjoy life while you can and let
>> the future look after itself. Some people do not live long enough to enjoy the
>> years of saving and going without after all.
>>
I agree, but while working I was funding two kids and a mortgage and was busy working. My plan was to retire debt free and stay that way. Worked for me. I dodged a few medical bullets along the way though. :-)
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 16 Feb 17 at 21:23
|
Too true CGN
I'm currently on the patio of our terraced bungalow in El Portet, Moraira. Sun & cloud, 16 degrees. It's not a flash place, no sea views, but quiet residential. Ten minute walk to either of the above named. Two bed place, costing €350 each for 28 days. Cheapo car hire, £120 month for 2 drivers through 'autoclick' direct.
Cheap living... €1.09 litre of Mahou beer, €2.75 bottle of decent wine. Lots of fun stuff to do...overnights in Alicante & Valencia @ Ibis Budget, daily coastal/ mountain walks. Eat out twice a week. It's not the 'high life' but most pleasurable.
Total cost for a month away, including flights, will be way under £1k so I consider that good value for money. Some people spend that on a weeks holiday!
|
For anyone interested... my friends are staying next door but one at a lovely bungalow called 'Tamarind'.... wood burner, lovely patio, communal pool, secure bike storage in the extension.
Ferrandos are the local agents in Moraira... they've already rebooked for 2018!
El Portet is a stunning small bay, glorious sea views from two bars... expensive though @ €3.50 a pint, although there are plenty of benches and host your own G & T party.
We do.
Last edited by: legacylad on Fri 17 Feb 17 at 15:41
|
Tamarind looks lovely. Beer and wine sound perfect.
Very jealous.
8o)
|
Enjoy yourself. Sounds good. Personally I enjoy stay in a rented apartment or house more than a so called luxury hotel. I was going to rent somewhere this winter for a month or two but for various reasons couldn't get away. Definitely intend to next winter. Just have to content myself with a fortnight in Madeira next month.
Go easy 0n the beer:-)
|
If you need any advice, feel free to ask. My friends ( next door but one) are keen sports people...mega miles on their road bikes, scrambling in the mountains, sea swimming ( wet suits de rigeur) and despite beingwell travelled, 2018 will be their third consecutive year here.
We are up and down the coast exploring most days so seeing lots of the area, but still think for convenience and atmosphere Moraira is the best base for us. Especially three cracking curry houses.
Last edited by: legacylad on Fri 17 Feb 17 at 16:34
|
>> I would completely agree that in general it would be misleading to impute different rates
>> to different sources.
>>
Finally getting there.
The reality is that DWP pay state pension gross, and HMRC take account it when working out your total gross taxable income.
To account for the fact that you have received it free of tax being applied at source, HMRC issue a notice of coding (to the provider of your other income) wherein they deduct from your tax-free allowance the amount of pension that has paid gross. Therefore the tax you pay is applied to your other source of income on the amount it exceeds the remaining tax-free amount as indicated by the tax-code.
|
This is how one money guide explained it to a reader's question:
"The key to understanding what has happened to you is to remember that most pensions are taxable.
In particular, the state pension, most occupational pensions and most private pensions are part of your taxable income, just in the same way that earned income is taxable.
If your total taxable income is below your personal tax allowance then no tax is payable. But if your earnings and pensions take you over the tax allowance then the excess is taxed, initially at the 20 per cent standard rate.
For HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC), the issue is how they collect the tax that is due on pension income.
One option would simply be to ask the Department for Work and Pensions to deduct 20 per cent from your state pension at source. But this would be unfair on the millions of pensioners whose total income is too low to pay tax.
They would then have to claim back the tax which had been deducted. So instead, state pensions are generally paid before the deduction of tax.
A second option would be for HMRC to send every pensioner in the land an annual tax return on which they would list all of their taxable income and receive a tax bill.
This would, obviously, be hugely unwelcome and very inefficient given that around half of all pensioners have too little income to pay tax.
So instead, HMRC uses the system of tax codes to collect the tax due.
You have said that without your state pension, your personal tax allowance would be £11,060. This means that you can have £11,060 of taxable income each year without paying tax. But your state pension ‘eats up’ £6,558 of this allowance. This means that you can only have another £4502 of tax-free income before you start to pay tax.
What happens therefore is that HMRC tell your employer to ignore the first £4502 of earnings each year and then to apply income tax to the rest. In this way, you end up paying the right amount of tax over the course of the year, and you don’t have to fill in a tax return."
|
Good insight how it all works regarding tax.
Why is our state pension so low do in comparison with other European countries.A British couple on a State pension are about hundred pound a week adrift regarding a Dutch Couple.
If you receive a private pension on top that helps plus our healthcare is free.Maybe that accounts for the difference.
|
I know nothing of other State Pensions.
However if someone has no income or assets UK Pensioner will receive 100% rent paid, 100% council tax paid, heating allowances, cold weather payments, ill health uplifts.
So a single pensioner might be on £6/7K pension but total payments might be twice that.
|
|
Pensions used to be good in Greece for those in the public sector. Retire at 50 etc. Problem was the country couldn't afford it.
|
>> Winter heating allowance should be means tested. I will get it, pay tax on it, even tho I don't want it or need it. >>
It's tax free, as is the Christmas bonus.
|
>> >> Winter heating allowance should be means tested. I will get it, pay tax on
>> it, even tho I don't want it or need it. >>
>>
>> It's tax free, as is the Christmas bonus.
>>
The problem with means testing is that it is very expensive. It is cheaper to pay all pensioners the winter heating allowance/Christmas bonus than it would be to administer a means tested system.
Last edited by: hjd on Sat 18 Feb 17 at 07:09
|
|
Would a mod please break this thread down into more manageable chunks?
|
|
....I think they'd find that quite taxing..........
|
>> The problem with means testing is that it is very expensive. It is cheaper to
>> pay all pensioners the winter heating allowance/Christmas bonus than it would be to administer a
>> means tested system.
If savings were to meaningful the means test bar would need to be set low.
A cheap and crude version, for example, would be to limit the heating allowance to those getting the Guarantee element of Pension Credit (or equivalent). But that would stop it for millions of 'just getting by' pensioners who either contributed to SERPS and it's predecessors or have small occupational pensions.
Or you could stop it for pensioners paying HR tax. But that would save peanuts.
As well as cost/complexity there is a cohort of older people who regard means tests as demeaning and they will disappear from the 'entitled' group.
|
The allowance should be incorporated into the pension system.
The poorest Non tax payers would receive the sum in full
Standard rate tax players would then pay 20% on the amount
Higher rate rate tax payers would pay 40% on the amount
The savings would be huge and could be directed elsewhere
|
>>
>>
>> The allowance should be incorporated into the pension system.
>>
Exactly - I can see no reason why it shouldn't be taxed in the same way as other income, and treating it in this way would certainly be cheaper than trying to means test it!
|
If someone has paid their taxes in full all their working life, whether rich or poor, they should be fully entitled to such payments and be able to do with them as they wish.
Envy is never a pleasant trait in the case of those who begrudge anyone who has bettered themselves over a lifetime and is reaping the rewards. Too many tend to think the world owes them a living.
|
|
Presumably you believe in a flat rate of tax payable from the ground up?
|
>> Presumably you believe in a flat rate of tax payable from the ground up?
>>
Some years ago, I had a "eureka" moment when I thought "why not pay everyone a basic income regardless of their wealth or unemployment status"; and mentioned it to a respected economist, only to be informed that it was an exisiting well known concept known as "universal basic income" aka "citizens’ wage".
Recently it has gained interest from various quarters:
www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/02/state-handouts-for-all-europe-set-to-pilot-universal-basic-incomes
www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/13/should-we-scrap-benefits-and-pay-everyone-100-a-week-whether-they-work-or-not
A form of it (i.e. only applied to the unemployed but not removed after they find work) is now to trialled in Finland.
www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/03/finland-trials-basic-income-for-unemployed
|
£50/wk to all under-20s and £100/wk to everyone else costs around £300bn - same as the social welfare budget.
Rather than sticking antisocial morons in jails, issuing a fine that they won't pay, or giving them a 'social sentence' they won't attend, just dock/stop their 'social income' initially.
|
There is natural justice in what you say Stuartli, but welfare is difficult enough to finance for [people-who-have -and-had-no choice] + [people-who-chose-not to-look-after-themselves-if-the-state-would-pay] without also giving it to [people-who-can-and-do-pay-their-way].
The second category must be a massive financial blight on welfare provision. It must seem quite rational and natural to minimise savings for example by spending any surpluses or passing it to children it keeping it would reduce one's benefits. I have already cited an example of someone who chose not to join a pension scheme because it would make him worse off after the cost of his contributions even with the benefit of employer's contributions.
I am sure that it has already occurred to some politicians that even the state pension should not be paid to those with other income deemed to be more than adequate.
The fact is that the government can only get money from people who have some, however much that is due to their own prudence and earlier privations, and not from the people who urinated all theirs up the wall.
Stand by for wealth taxes.
|
>>I am sure that it has already occurred to some politicians that even the state pension should not be paid to those with other income deemed to be more than adequate.
I have thought that for a long time and am sure one day it will happen. To some extent they are beginning to achieve a similar result by other means - by moving the retirement age progressively to the right, the Govt. hopes people will croak before they draw it. My prediction is anyone in their 20's now will be drawing their state pension 70+
|
>>I am sure that it has already occurred to some politicians that even the state pension should not be paid to those with other income deemed to be more than adequate.>>
Why should the thrifty and those who properly prepare for retirement be made to suffer for those who, as you so eloquently put it, "urinated all theirs up the wall" or perhaps handed it to Ladbrokes?
There is no incentive today from the point of savings to encourage many to do so as interest rates are laughable and are, in any case, eroded by inflation. You are effectively paying those with whom you invest your money for the service, rather than the reverse.
I much prefer to spend money as and when necessary in buying goods or services that are on offer or better value for money than would normally be the case. It beats savings interest by a massive score...:-)
|
>>
>> Why should the thrifty and those who properly prepare for retirement be made to suffer
>> for those who, as you so eloquently put it, "urinated all theirs up the wall"
>> or perhaps handed it to Ladbrokes?
I'm not recommending it, but we're the only ones they can drain the money from. The argument goes that those with must subsidise those without, and that should apply to the retired cohort as much as all the others.
The question really should be "how can we ensure that all who can build up enough to retire on their own resources plus the state pension be made to do so?"
I'd be fairly annoyed TBH because my current rate of spending (which exceeds my income) and retirement plan are predicated on receiving the state pension as part of my income from 2018 onwards (if spared of course).
Not least because the state pension is the only fully inflation-linked income I shall have, as is probably the case for most of us.
|
>> There is no incentive today from the point of savings to encourage many to do so
>> as interest rates are laughable and are, in any case, eroded by inflation. You are
>> effectively paying those with whom you invest your money for the service,
>> rather than the reverse.
No incentive to put money into a savings account, yes, but at the moment we still have pension tax relief and any fund that follows the FTSE100 will deliver reasonable gains over the long term.
As someone who sees even legitimate tax avoidance as evasion (to the extent that I'd ban ISAs etc), this would change significantly if I was told that my DC pension precluded me from claiming a state pension in the future. Certainly to the extent that I'd pay a dodgy accountant quite a lot of money to avoid paying as much as possible for the rest of my working life.
Having said that, someone who retires on a gold-plated defined benefit pension with extra allowances to keep the polish on their Aston Martin extra shiny can go stuff themselves along with their state pension.
|
|
A radical thought. As having children is voluntary and you should have the means to support them and bring them up, how about stopping all the child benefits and pumping the money in at the other end of life? Discuss.
|
Since even if you are childless someone else's children will be looking after you perhaps physically and they will certainly be working and paying taxes I think it would be silly
Without children there is no future.
|
>> A radical thought. As having children is voluntary and you should have the means to
>> support them and bring them up, how about stopping all the child benefits and pumping
>> the money in at the other end of life? Discuss.
>>
YCBS, as John McEnroe Jr would say.
The world's Ponzi economic model depends on an ever growing population.
China is in trouble, and has reversed the one child policy; and could even think of paying families to have more children.
Japan is in dire straits. So is Europe & North America.
Birth rates are tumbling across the world, and the net effect is a ‘perfect demographic storm’ that will imperil economic growth everywhere.
So, in answer to your very fluffy prompt to "discuss", I suggest an alternative: How about giving an incentive zero inheritance tax (or some such carrot) to those older than 70 to choose euthanasia. For good measure, for every year under 100 they choose to do so, each of their grandchildren gets a tax free £10k. ( Please don't discuss, this is tongue in cheek. ;-) )
Last edited by: BrianByPass on Sat 18 Feb 17 at 18:50
|
>> Japan is in dire straits.
>>
uk.reuters.com/article/us-japan-economy-population-idUKKCN0T113A20151112
Japan plans to include steps to raise the birth rate, such as easier access to childcare and tax incentives, in a package of reforms due this month to tackle the biggest bottleneck to economic growth.
But that won't be enough, because the Japanese have given up on sex according to the Guardian. I blame the internet.
www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/20/young-people-japan-stopped-having-sex
www.theguardian.com/world/2016/nov/20/japan-stranded-singles-virtual-love
www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/14/record-numbers-of-couples-living-in-sexless-marriages-in-japan-says-report
|
>>I suggest an alternative: How about giving an incentive zero inheritance tax (or some such carrot) to those older than 70 to choose euthanasia. For good measure, for every year under 100 they choose to do so, each of their grandchildren gets a tax free £10k. <<<
Whilst you said do not discuss - I will, as usual, go against advice. :)
I would support this proposition - IHT exemtion is a pretty good start.
Start buying some shares in EuthnasiaUK or at least register the domaine name Deathisyourchoice.co.uk
The Netherlands have at least made a reasonable start down the route.
Last edited by: sherlock47 on Sat 18 Feb 17 at 19:43
|
>> The Netherlands have at least made a reasonable start down the route.
>>
Yes but those to be euthanised don't always want to be....
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/28/panel-clears-dutch-doctor-asked-family-hold-patient-carried/
|
>>
>> As someone who sees even legitimate tax avoidance as evasion
>>
That would defeat most government taxation policy designed to influence people's behaviour.
Apart from raising money, another purpose of tax is to influence people's behaviour in a way deemed socially desirable. Thus, the point of the suggested sugar tax is to persuade people to avoid the tax by buying less sugary drinks.
I avoid paying tobacco tax by not smoking. I avoid a bit of income tax by my wife transfering some of her allowance.
Companies avoid corporation tax by making capital investment.
If you don't want people to respond to tax nudges then how are you going to influence them in society's interest?
|
SQ 4 TLB
>> The problem with means testing is that it is very expensive. It is cheaper to
>> pay all pensioners the winter heating allowance/Christmas bonus than it would be to administer a
>> means tested system.
>>
Don't need to means test it, just insist that it's declared as taxable income.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sun 19 Feb 17 at 18:56
|
>> Don't need to means test it, just insist that it's declared as taxable income.
Income needs to be a bit over £200/week to pay any income tax. Not that many pensioners in the £200 week plus cohort and of those many, many more are on less than £300.
They all vote.
Game not worth candle.
|
Not quite following that.
Why should those pensioners who don't pay tax care whether the allowance is treated as taxable?
|
According to this (not verified by me, but the result of a 2 second google) pensioners pay 11% of income tax received by the government and comprise 16% of the population. So I imagine the majority of pensioners do pay some tax and therefore it would be worthwhile. Not only that, even on here not all realised it's tax free status so the impact is unlikely to be that high. It will be taxable income soon I imagine ;)
www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-3238687/Pensioners-pay-11-total-UK-income-tax-revenues.html
Last edited by: VxFan on Sun 19 Feb 17 at 18:56
|
Of course taxing Heating Allowance would raise relatively little. A better strategy as far as the government is concerned would be to remove the exemption of National Insurance contributions when you reach State Pension Age or better still make pensioners pay NI on their income
As it is few realise that one of the advantages to the government of raising the State Pension age, alongside of course not to paying the pension, is that they continue to receive NI contributions from those who are still working.
|
|
We've improved our life expectancy gradually over many years through better living conditions and food and drink, encouraged the elderly to continue being fit and active as much as possible and then, because they've become a perceived financial or otherwise burden on the NHS and the State (judging by some earlier posts), demand that they pay recompense as retribution.
|
|
Well yes but it is diificult to argiue logically why a pensioner couple with a household income of say £50,000 year should receive a £200 tax free heating allowance whereas a working couple with children with an income half that do not.
|
>>...why a pensioner couple with a household income of say £50,000 year.. >>
I don't know where you dig these fanciful figures up from, but I only know one couple out of many in my circle of friends who have such a level of income.
|
Well there are some. A number on this forum I would think.
But the same argument holds if the pensioner couples income is identical to the working couple at £25,000 doesn't it? How would you justify it to that couple? I can see no logical argument for it. It just an anomaly.
|
>> But the same argument holds if the pensioner couples income is identical to the working
>> couple at £25,000 doesn't it? How would you justify it to that couple? I can
>> see no logical argument for it. It just an anomaly.
The older couple are likely to need their heating on all day, while the younger working couple would not.
The older couple are likely to need their thermostat set somewhat higher than the younger working couple.
The additional £200 might just cover the difference.
|
...Bill Gates might have a good point here.....
www.ft.com/content/d04a89c2-f6c8-11e6-9516-2d969e0d3b65
...but the bigger question is, "should they then be entitled to the Winter Fuel Payment? (if they last that long)"
;-)
|
It's surely just a bit of muddled thinking giving a sop to the perceived elderly struggling on an inadequate state pension, forgetting that a great many pensioners are not solely dependent on the state pension.
The simple and fair solution surely would be to abolish it but increase the pension credit a bit?
That's already means-tested anyway.
But it is quite useful - this year it bought two truckfuls of logs because our own supply ran low, last year it bought a new chainsaw.
|
>>Well there are some. A number on this forum I would think.>>
Thinking and facts are two different things.
The husband in the couple in question is paid a private pension entirely in keeping with his business status and, in fact, it's almost certainly considerably more than the figure mentioned. But he is also outstandingly generous to a wide range of family, friends, local churches, charity, sporting and other organisations and is very happy he has the abiility to be able to do so.
|
|
I don't think anyone has mentioned disposable income, being retired with a reasonable pension, a newish small car, not supporting children, a huge south eastern (or any) mortgage or rent, two executive cars, and commuting costs can make for a comfortable lifestyle.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sun 19 Feb 17 at 15:46
|
"don't think anyone has mentioned disposable income, being retired with a reasonable pension, a newish small car, not supporting children, a huge south eastern (or any) mortgage or rent, two executive cars, and commuting costs can make for a comfortable lifestyle."
Quite so and a gross household income of £50,000 per annum in retirement in fairly easily achievable especially in the South East. for some couples retiring now
If the husband is earning around £45,000 a year - a tube drivers wage *, and his wife £30,000 a year they could easily have defined benefit pensions of £40,000 a year between them. Add in another £13,000 in state Pension and you are well over the £50,000 I mentioned
*A newly-qualified tube driver starts on a salary of £49,673 a year. This can rise after five years to anything between £50,000 to £60,000.
|
Very good of him but why does he need a tax free heating allowance?
Tony Blair will automatically receive a tax free heating allowance of £100 next year. Why does he need one?
OK. Some better off pensioners give the allowance away to charity - I donate mine to Age UK but it does seem a bit of a blunderbuss method of distributing help to those who might really need some help with their heating.
Surely a more focussed system helping those who really need help is required.
|
>>Surely a more focussed system helping those who really need help is required. >>
I fail to understand why you are getting so worked up about the subject. If someone has paid into a system all their working lives, whether rich or poor they are entitled to the benefits when they retire.
What they actually do with the £200 heating allowance and £10 Christmas bonus is entirely up to them and not someone who apparently thinks they know better than anyone else.
|
Just discussing. This is a discussion forum is it not?
Presumably the heating allowance was introduced to assist the elderly poor who were unable to keep warm in the winter due to the price of fuel was it not?
There are undoubtedly still a number of people who fall into that category. Would it not make a little bit of sense that the government should stop paying the allowance to those who don't need it so that those who do could perhaps have a little bit more?
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Sun 19 Feb 17 at 17:26
|
|
IF HMRC and DWP shared some data, it would be easy to work out who should and shouldn't get a winter fuel allowance.... But that would make too much sense - government departments cooperating.
|
>> IF HMRC and DWP shared some data
>>
They do, at least from DWP to HMRC, like any organisation which pays people.
What DWP do not have, as far as I know, is any mechanism to alter what they pay because of someone's tax code, hence benefits are paid untaxed and any tax due on someone's income is assessed by HMRC and recovered accordingly.
Means tested benefits, heating allowance etc, mentioned elsewhere, are similar, no mechanism to tax at source. Could be picked up by HMRC but it would be expensive to do so , given the limited income from taxing them and like any means tested benefit, there would be a reduction in take up from people who are reluctant or otherwise have difficulty in claiming. How many 70+ year olds, excepting those on here, are comfortable with either IT or otherwise completing forms?
|
>> How many 70+ year olds, excepting those on here, are comfortable with
>> either IT or otherwise completing forms?
>>
Don't know, is the short answer.
I would guess that 80-90% are up with mobile phones and emails etc. A member of my family has no mobile phone. no PC, not even an answering machine.
I have got all the gear, but have no idea how it works, I suspect that there are a lot more like me.
|
>> I would guess that 80-90% are up with mobile phones and emails etc. A member
>> of my family has no mobile phone. no PC, not even an answering machine.
Based on CA clientele, both drop ins and those telephoned by appointment re utility bills, I'd say mobile phones are near universal. Many, probably most, of the over seventies though only use them as phones. Even then they can be shaky on how to use. Particularly remember one who repeatedly insisted I was shouting at her and background noise in office was intolerable. Couldn't persuade her that her old Nokia had a volume control and it was set at full.
Eventually got a landline number from her which solved the problem.
The direct question 'are you confident/comfortable using the internet' rarely elicits a positive yes from that age group though some some can with help from younger family members.
Plenty over forties not that sharp either. Come to think of it plenty of my colleagues are slow 'cos they don't make best use of things like side keypad, tab between fields in forms and keyboard shortcuts, particularly CTRL P to print.
|
|
And just to keep matters factually correct you don't need to have paid into the system all your working life or be entitled to a state pension to qualify for heating allowance. Just living here for a week in September is enough.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Sun 19 Feb 17 at 18:15
|
>> And just to keep matters factually correct you don't need to have paid into the system all your working life or be entitled to a state pension to qualify for heating allowance. Just living here for a week in September is enough.>>
Whatever, but no matter which pedantically way you look at it, there's no doubt you are extremely irked by the subject. Getting really heated, in fact...:-)
Not good for the blood pressure!!
|
Irked? Not in the slightest old chap. I don't do irked.at least as regards stuff in Internet forums. I do enjoy a bit of banter on the forum though and admit to a bit of mild winding up of the more fixated at times.
It you seem to have a very Trump like attitude to anyone contradicting your point of view. Keep it light and don't take everything so seriously and try to understand that other people can have a diiferent point of view or that sometimes you can be plain wrong.
|
>>.. a very Trump like attitude to anyone contradicting your point of view..>>
Anyone who sees my comments on a regular basis would probably disagree with you and, believe you me, I've always displayed a sense of humour, deprecating or otherwise.
We just tend, up North, to get tired of those who come across as possibly being condescending, patronising southerners...;-) ;-)
But we do make allowances for those engaged in heated arguments....!!
Off now to enjoy a pint or two of Guinness at much cheaper northern prices...!!
Last edited by: Stuartli on Sun 19 Feb 17 at 20:20
|
|
Southern and patronising eh? I didn't even mention keeping coal in the bath. :-)
|
>> >> If
>> someone has paid into a system all their working lives, whether rich or poor they
>> are entitled to the benefits when they retire.
>>
But they haven't paid into the system, and it hasn't existed for all their working lives.
Eligibility for the fuel allowance is dependent on age, not contributions, and not related to receipt of a state pension.
The allowance was introduced in 1997.
|
>>
>> But they haven't paid into the system, and it hasn't existed for all their working
>> lives.
>
I think that's what I said. The payment is dependent only on age and where you happen to be living in the a specified week in September preceding the winter in question. It was intended as a stop gap measure to avoid hardship when it was introduced. It really makes little sense in terms of pension strategy but it has become politically difficult to remove or alter.
It will probably have to wait until after the next election before it is consolidated into the pension.
|
I see some skinflints are trying to end the free bus pass travel as well.
On Merseyside, we've had free bus, train and ferries travel through Merseytravel for those over 60 (men had to wait until they were 65 until there was a successful challenge in 2002 over discrimination) since the early 1990s. The disabled are given the right to free transport at any age.
In fact Merseytravel is a Government organisation and its task is to co-ordinate the transport system in Merseyside, plus the Mersey tunnels, to maximum effectiveness. It's proved very successful on the whole and the profits from the tunnels' revenue is re-invested into the various forms of transport.
|
Lucky northerner:-) We "pampered" southerners, even expatriate Scots, have to wait until retirement age, 66 in my case, before we get free bus travel.
|
>> Lucky northerner:-) We "pampered" southerners, even expatriate Scots, have to wait until retirement age, 66
>> in my case, before we get free bus travel.
I live in Hertfordshire. I have a bus pass, I won't get my state pension for another 15 months.
Are you of the male persuasion? The rule is that you can have a pass at the age you would get your state pension if you were a woman.
www.gov.uk/apply-for-elderly-person-bus-pass
Last edited by: Manatee on Mon 20 Feb 17 at 08:49
|
....indeed, but the male/female state pension age is rapidly converging to 66.
(with a birth date of around Oct/Nov 1954)...
Last edited by: tyrednemotional on Mon 20 Feb 17 at 09:01
|
South Bucks, Male.
Bus pass is, as you say, the age at which a woman, born on the same day will get her pension, which is 66, same as a man born on that date.
|
>> Are you of the male persuasion? The rule is that you can have a pass
>> at the age you would get your state pension if you were a woman.
>>
>> www.gov.uk/apply-for-elderly-person-bus-pass
Same principle applies to Pension Credit.
Equalisation of pension ages will be complete in November 2018. It then rises to 66 by September 2020 for those born before April 1960 before moving on in phases to 67.
|
>> Lucky northerner:-) We "pampered" southerners, even expatriate Scots, have to wait until retirement age, 66 in my case, before we get free bus travel.>>
For those who live on Merseyside (a vast administrative area), the qualifying age is 60 for both sexes for the bus/train/ferries travel pass. In certain circumstances those who are, for instance, disabled and live in neighbouring areas such as Cheshire, are given limited exemption from paying Mersey tunnel charges to enter or leave Liverpool.
I'll point out again that Merseytravel is a Government agency, so your "lucky" comment is perhaps true, although it seems strange that such benefits haven't spread to other parts of England; even more so as Gordon Brown made great play of "free bus travel" in the mid-2000s. At that time we had enjoyed such benefits for more than 10 years...:-)
One particular bonus for me is that if I go into the town centre I don't need to use my car (unless doing a big shop) as my main bus route has a 12 minute service during the day (was 10 minutes until last year!)
In fact travel pass holders can go as far, for example, as Chester from all parts of Merseyside by train and even from Liverpool to Preston on Stagecoach buses.
|
|
We have bus passes - never used 'em, though!
|
Buses are really really expensive round here, to my mind. So we don't use them either.
Bus passes will be a long lost fantasy by the time we get to the current qualifying age anyway.
|
>> Buses are really really expensive round here, to my mind. So we don't use them either. >>
In many cases, if there are two or more paying bus fares, it's as cheap or cheaper by taxi and, even better, door to door!
|
Glurk!
Village bus - two people return to Cambridge, which is eight miles by most direct route, but bus goes all over the place of course. £12.80 return in total, takes about an hour and a quarter.
or
Guided bus - one mile to bus park, either walk or pay £1 to park. Then still £12.80 return in total, straight into town, takes about 30 minutes.
or
Taxi from house to town centre, £30 one way.
|
>>Taxi from house to town centre, £30 one way.>>
I live in a seaside resort and which has three main taxi firms all charging some of the keenest prices in the UK.
In fact you can travel by taxi from here to Liverpool (20 miles) or Manchester Airport (45 miles plus) for approximately £30 and £45 respectively one way.
|
|
Must....stop...spending...life...on...Rightmove...
|
They built new super hospital with a small no. of car spaces.
The reason was "Hospital Buses" - I live 5/6 miles away & the hospital bus took well over 1 hour - going round the town & villages to pick up & dro[ off.
Massive failure for 3 years - they have now got 2 x the spaces & still not enough. There are no hospital buses now.
They wanted staff & patients to travel by bus - what they forgot was staff dropped off wife/husband, children @ nursery/school, grandparents etc etc and the bus did not follow their route or get there quick enough.
I have a bus pass. Never use it, takes too long - much better in your own space etc etc
Paid for the car so why not use it?
|
To compare accurately Crankcase we need to know the cost of driving into Cambridge in your own car and paying for parking.
Pat
|
Parking in Cambridge is a second mortgage job. City centre car park will cost you £17 for 5 hours.
Will be there on Friday. Park and Ride the best option. If you have a bus pass they accept them on the Park and Ride
|
Us lucky Londoners get a Freedom Pass at 60 (Yes, 60 with no ifs or buts) thanks to Boris Johnson's pre Mayoral election pledge. I make a lot of use of it and we're now seriously thinking of dumping one of our two cars.
We get free travel on buses, tubes, trains and trams within the entire Transport for London area, which give or take a bit, pretty much covers the whole M25 ring.
I may feel a twinge of guilt saving maybe £7 going to Heathrow on the tube when heading off for a long haul jaunt - but hey ho - I've got one and use it. It's handy for click and collect items too. I'm happy enough whiling away an hour or two getting a tour of London visiting various outlets to collect internet ordered stuff. Doesn't work well for fridges and dishwashers though.
|
|
You shouldn't feel any guilt! We've earned our perks and two fingers to those whose envy, frankly, says more about them than us. But they will be old and grey themselves one day and they will almost certainly sing from a different hymn sheet..:-)
|
Well of course, I'm bang to rights on the parking, as I can park for free right in the town centre. Zoe costs about 4p per mile all up, so two of there and back is 64p. Unless bus is free it'll never compete.
|
|
Not sure a . Zoe would make it from Nowich to Cambridge and back though so I would have to factor in a night's stay in a hotel while the thing was charging. :-)
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Mon 20 Feb 17 at 19:59
|
i accept the smiley, of course, but you know Sheldon Cooper has nothing on me for pointing stuff out unnecessarily. So just as a observation, only Zoe you'd be able to buy now would be the new longer range one.
Assuming Norwich to Cambridge return is about 125 miles, you'd probably do that in winter with no bother, and in summer, you'd do it with 50-60 miles spare at the end.
Even in the older one, like mine, I'd get to Cambridge in one go, then 30 minutes at Ecotricity Cambridge services (£6.50) would get me back again.
PS Queen Ann terrace is cheaper to park.
Last edited by: Crankcase on Mon 20 Feb 17 at 20:10
|
Obviously getting better but door to door it would be 134 miles return so at a winter range of 150 miles I think the old range anxiety would start to build somewhere around Thetford on the way home. Quite like the idea of n electric car but as a one car household it wouldn't really work for me.
Yes I know St Anne's Terrace is a bit cheaper that's the central parks but the park and ride works quite well for me.
Interesting the price of parking in Cambridge with that in Bruges Belgium. Both are historic cities with a huge amount of visitors. I was in Bruges before Christmas and paid 8 Euros A DAY for parking in the most centrally located underground car park in the city. A Belgian I spoke to thought that was dear!
|
Another dimension to the debate. The conventional view is that we save during an accumulation stage, i.e. while working. We cease to save when we enter a dispensation stage, when retired. But I wonder how many pensioners continue to save, thus "have more money" in that sense. I do.
|
|
I think there are savers and non-savers. Not really to do with having more money. Have always saved a portion of my income even when things were very tight. Still do.
|
>> Another dimension to the debate. The conventional view is that we save during an accumulation
>> stage, i.e. while working. We cease to save when we enter a dispensation stage, when
>> retired. But I wonder how many pensioners continue to save, thus "have more money" in
>> that sense. I do.
Great observation ambo.
I've found it hurts to spend money while my regular income (excluding what I take from drawdown, which feels, and is, like spending savings) is a lot less than my outgoings.
This is irrational, because this is what I saved it for. From mid 2018, if spared, I will have my biggest occupational pension, plus the state pension and I expect to be properly solvent. Within reason, I can spend what I want.
I should have had more holidays in the last four years as a mostly retired person, in fact I have had fewer which has been unnecessary. But after a lifetime of putting money away it's hard to reverse the process.
Legacylad is my guiding light, although I do have a wife to consider so I might not go that far.
|
Strange I tend to behave similar.I have always been carefull with money and bringing up three children not easy to save.
I have spare cash but spending for the sake of it I won't.I've had all the holidays going abroad and I forgot most of them.
|
Pensioners have more money than workers. Discuss - CGNorwich
