Good idea?

[Guest pelmetman]

Pensioners should 'share the pain and pay more tax'

The high level of pensioner home ownership makes for an unfair housing market, says think-tank

 

Pensioners should share the pain of austerity cuts and pay more tax to make the housing market fairer, a think-tank has said.

 

As middle-income workers' wages stagnate and they can’t afford to buy a home, the Fabian Society claims high levels of home ownership among older people threaten fairness across generations.

 

More than three-quarters of pensioners now own homes, compared with just over half 20 years ago.

 

But the last decade has seen a dramatic fall in home ownership among under-45s, the think-tank said.

 

In 1979 middle-income working age households enjoyed an income 93% above that of middle-income retired households. That figure is now 37%, the study showed.

 

“Old age is no longer a proxy for poverty... In financial terms alone, older people are no longer distinct and blanket policies favouring them should be reviewed," the society said.

 

The society argued that pensioners' taxes should increase, their benefits be cut, and a tax on property wealth should be introduced.

 

The key policy should be to raise taxes on pensioners so the 27% they pay as a portion of their gross income would rise to 33%, in line with working age households with the same income.

 

This would raise £7.2billion every year, the society said. But the project should be long-term, to avoid a sharp drop in living standards.

 

In the meantime, the Government should consider measures such as taxing private pension lump sums to help fund universal care services.

 

Specific universal benefits such as the winter fuel allowance - which contributes 3% to middle earning pensioners' incomes - could be re-assessed without threatening the wider principle of universalism, the think-tank said.

 

The age of 80 is an "appropriate starting point" for age-specific benefits "if the policy is aimed at supporting those on low incomes or older people with high social or health needs", the think-tank argued.

 

The Government should also scrap its "triple-lock", which keeps pensions rising in line with the highest measure of inflation, as when working age incomes are falling it "creates inter-generational unfairness".

 

"The adverse impact of either approach on retired households in the middle could be justified by the need to 'share the pain'," the society said.

 

However, Age UK said more than half of pensioners don't have enough money to pay any tax at all.

 

“The Fabian Society is right to point out that there has been significant progress in tackling pensioner poverty in recent years," said Michelle Mitchell, Age UK’s charity director general.

 

"But there are still 1.7 million pensioners living in poverty today, while a further 1.1million have incomes only just above the poverty line.

 

“It can be difficult for older people to adapt to changes in income as their options are likely to be very limited. They have also contributed National Insurance payments throughout their working lives, to receive in return a state pension that ensures a financial safety net but little more.”

 

As well as cutting benefits or increasing taxes, the think-tank backed Labour's calls for a tax on property wealth, saying it could be done through council tax reform.

 

 

I agree all you old duffers should be keeping the likes of me in the style I wish to be accustomed to >:-) (lol) (lol) (lol)

[Tracker]

I certainly think that those in the public sector who stop work with a bloody great predominately state funded pension lump sum and income - far more than they will ever need to live on or be able to reasonably spend in their lifetime in some cases - should perhaps lose their state old age pension entitlement - as should those who retire on vast golden goodbyes, bonuses and extravagant company funded pensions in the private and finance sectors.

 

Would they miss it? I doubt it, but if so the free bus pass will help them cope!

 

As I understand it the income tax threshold for those of working age is rising to meet the over 65 allowance which has been frozen so that we all get the same income tax free allowance and this is already eroding the income of pensioners - including those who are only marginal tax payers - is that fair?

 

As we both have our own pensions it affects us both as a double whammy but I do not resent 'doing my bit' by paying a bit more tax as long as the pension increases take the sting out of paying more tax.

[Basil]

Tracker - 2013-04-22 10:01 PM

 

....................

As I understand it the income tax threshold for those of working age is rising to meet the over 65 allowance which has been frozen so that we all get the same income tax free allowance and this is already eroding the income of pensioners - including those who are only marginal tax payers - is that fair?

..............................................

 

Yes in a word! Why should pensioners have a higher tax allowance, this is something I have never understood!

 

Bas

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

pelmetman - 2013-04-22 8:23 PM

 

 

I agree all you old duffers should be keeping the likes of me in the style I wish to be accustomed to >:-) (lol) (lol) (lol)

 

Perhaps you could think about keeping yourself in the style you wish to be accustomed to by doing some work earning and paying taxes that many of us old duffers do, or did right up to the age of 65 as I did, instead of spending it would seem almost everyday 24/7 coming on here with inane posts. ;-)

 

As for the over 65 tax allowance that some don't understand, perhaps we deserve it after a lifetime of paying taxes eh.

[Guest pelmetman]

1footinthegrave - 2013-04-23 8:34 AM

 

Perhaps you could think about keeping yourself in the style you wish to be accustomed to by doing some work earning and paying taxes that many of us old duffers do, or did right up to the age of 65 as I did, instead of spending it would seem almost everyday 24/7 coming on here with inane posts. ;-)

 

 

No fear 8-)................I've had 40 years in gainful employment..........so soon as the house is sold were off B-).............to a life of idle bliss in our old banger making a general nuisance of myself and posting inane threads :D.................well a blokes got have a hobby >:-)

[malc d]

Basil - 2013-04-22 10:13 PM

 

Tracker - 2013-04-22 10:01 PM

 

....................

As I understand it the income tax threshold for those of working age is rising to meet the over 65 allowance which has been frozen so that we all get the same income tax free allowance and this is already eroding the income of pensioners - including those who are only marginal tax payers - is that fair?

..............................................

 

Yes in a word! Why should pensioners have a higher tax allowance, this is something I have never understood!

 

Bas

 

 

 

The government still owes me two years ' civilian ' pay from when I was conscripted !

 

 

;-)

[CliveH]

Basil - 2013-04-22 10:13 PM

 

Tracker - 2013-04-22 10:01 PM

 

....................

As I understand it the income tax threshold for those of working age is rising to meet the over 65 allowance which has been frozen so that we all get the same income tax free allowance and this is already eroding the income of pensioners - including those who are only marginal tax payers - is that fair?

..............................................

 

Yes in a word! Why should pensioners have a higher tax allowance, this is something I have never understood!

 

 

 

Bas

 

It is so that pensioners on low incomes can gain interest tax free on more of their savings than a working person can and also extend their 10% savings stating rate.

 

This helps the genuine low income pensioners and is a good thing in my view.

 

The benefit is clawed back for those pensioners who have "good" incomes by way of a charge on the starting rate 10% tax band and well as for those in receipt of Age Allowance - any income over the limit is offset against their personal allowance in the ratio of £2 income to £1 Allowance.

 

So for a Pensioner who receives £1000 income over the Age Allowance Limit, they would have their Personal Allowance reduced by £500 - and this carries on until their Personal allowance reaches the level that all under age 65's enjoy.

 

So whilst some OAP's do get enhanced allowances - those who receive a large pension or have considerable investment income - these allowances are clawed back.

 

This "clawback" of allowances also applies to high earners such that those earning over £100,000 start to lose their Personal Allowance on the same basis - £2 earnings reduces their personal Allowance by £1.

 

So someone earning £110,000 would have a personal allowance £5000 lower than that stated for an under 65 year old.

 

The limits are on the HMRC website

 

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/incometax/personal-allow.htm#1

 

So the guy earning £110,000 will have his Personal Allowance reduced from £9440 to £4440. And if he earned £118,880 he would lose his entire Personal Allowance.

 

Similarly a Pensioner with income of £28,100 enjoys income £2000 over the £26,100 Age allowance limit, so their Age allowance of £10,500 (65 to 75 yrs) or £10660 (over 75 years) would be reduced by £1000 (£2 income = £1 Allowance reduction) to £9500 or £9660 respectively.

 

The difference is that with the Pensioners - their allowance does not go lower than the Personal Allowance of an under 65 year old - £9440 unless their pension and investment income is such that they enjoy an income of over £100,000.

 

 

[Brian Kirby]

CliveH - 2013-04-23 5:32 PM....................The difference is that with the Pensioners - their allowance does not go lower than the Personal Allowance of an under 65 year old - £9440 unless their pension and investment income is such that they enjoy an income of over £100,000.

Apologies for OT, and not a quibble with what you say, Clive, but for some reason the concept of a "pensioner" with an income exceeding £100,000 pa, always strikes me as something of an oxymoron. Just the association of words I guess, but "pensioner" always seems to me to suggest (sadly) someone of very modest means. Am I the only one afficted this way? Should we refer to the richer retired in some other way? Any offers?

[PJay]

I thought a pensioner was some one who gets the State Pension? i do know of some younger people who are retired on company pensions, but don't yet qualify for the state pension.

We are fortunate to both get company pensions, as well as the state pension, though I could not live on my state pension (just over £200 per 4 weeks)

PJay

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

Brian Kirby - 2013-04-23 7:19 PM

 

CliveH - 2013-04-23 5:32 PM....................The difference is that with the Pensioners - their allowance does not go lower than the Personal Allowance of an under 65 year old - £9440 unless their pension and investment income is such that they enjoy an income of over £100,000.

Apologies for OT, and not a quibble with what you say, Clive, but for some reason the concept of a "pensioner" with an income exceeding £100,000 pa, always strikes me as something of an oxymoron. Just the association of words I guess, but "pensioner" always seems to me to suggest (sadly) someone of very modest means. Am I the only one afficted this way? Should we refer to the richer retired in some other way? Any offers?

 

My offer is......................Lucky bastards. :D

[Guest pelmetman]

1footinthegrave - 2013-04-23 7:32 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2013-04-23 7:19 PM

 

CliveH - 2013-04-23 5:32 PM....................The difference is that with the Pensioners - their allowance does not go lower than the Personal Allowance of an under 65 year old - £9440 unless their pension and investment income is such that they enjoy an income of over £100,000.

Apologies for OT, and not a quibble with what you say, Clive, but for some reason the concept of a "pensioner" with an income exceeding £100,000 pa, always strikes me as something of an oxymoron. Just the association of words I guess, but "pensioner" always seems to me to suggest (sadly) someone of very modest means. Am I the only one afficted this way? Should we refer to the richer retired in some other way? Any offers?

 

My offer is......................Lucky bastards. :D

 

Wrinklies with the Crinklies? :D

[CliveH]

Top Tier Civil Servants is probably the most accurate description.

 

The rules have changed now but Judges (members of the Judicial pension scheme which is is part of the Public Service pension scheme) used to accrue 4/80th of final salary for each year served.

 

So they could accrue 40/80th of final salary as a pension - fully indexed linked in just 10 year.

 

And because they were invariably Barristers before being selected as a Judge and because becoming a Judge is relatively rare for them - they would have used their considerable earnings as a Barrister to fund a Private Pension.

 

Now A-Day in 2006 ended much of this bean feast - but that just meant that lots of Judges went part time - and as part time judges managed to manipulate the system such that they accrued substantial public Sector pension benefits.

 

Much of which would provide them with pensions well over £100K a year.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9876033/Part-time-judges-to-get-up-to-2-billion-in-public-pensions.html

 

Nice to think that the likes of Cherrie Blair voted for such a huge benefit courtesy of the all paying taxpayer so that she herself, can benefit.

 

 

 

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

CliveH - 2013-04-23 8:16 PM

 

Top Tier Civil Servants is probably the most accurate description.

 

The rules have changed now but Judges (members of the Judicial pension scheme which is is part of the Public Service pension scheme) used to accrue 4/80th of final salary for each year served.

 

So they could accrue 40/80th of final salary as a pension - fully indexed linked in just 10 year.

 

And because they were invariably Barristers before being selected as a Judge and because becoming a Judge is relatively rare for them - they would have used their considerable earnings as a Barrister to fund a Private Pension.

 

Now A-Day in 2006 ended much of this bean feast - but that just meant that lots of Judges went part time - and as part time judges managed to manipulate the system such that they accrued substantial public Sector pension benefits.

 

Much of which would provide them with pensions well over £100K a year.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9876033/Part-time-judges-to-get-up-to-2-billion-in-public-pensions.html

 

Nice to think that the likes of Cherrie Blair voted for such a huge benefit courtesy of the all paying taxpayer so that she herself, can benefit.

 

 

 

Nice to know we are all in it together................except when it comes to pensions. :D >:-)

[Guest pelmetman]

1footinthegrave - 2013-04-23 11:08 PM

 

CliveH - 2013-04-23 8:16 PM

 

Top Tier Civil Servants is probably the most accurate description.

 

The rules have changed now but Judges (members of the Judicial pension scheme which is is part of the Public Service pension scheme) used to accrue 4/80th of final salary for each year served.

 

So they could accrue 40/80th of final salary as a pension - fully indexed linked in just 10 year.

 

And because they were invariably Barristers before being selected as a Judge and because becoming a Judge is relatively rare for them - they would have used their considerable earnings as a Barrister to fund a Private Pension.

 

Now A-Day in 2006 ended much of this bean feast - but that just meant that lots of Judges went part time - and as part time judges managed to manipulate the system such that they accrued substantial public Sector pension benefits.

 

Much of which would provide them with pensions well over £100K a year.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9876033/Part-time-judges-to-get-up-to-2-billion-in-public-pensions.html

 

Nice to think that the likes of Cherrie Blair voted for such a huge benefit courtesy of the all paying taxpayer so that she herself, can benefit.

 

 

 

Nice to know we are all in it together................except when it comes to pensions. :D >:-)

 

I reckon we should bring in some Eastern European Judges ;-)..............they'll be much cheaper than our lot >:-)

[CliveH]

(lol) (lol) (lol)

 

Could work Dave

 

Could work.........

 

Could stop the revolving door debacle of our courts - I wonder if they could send offenders to a Gulag?

 

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

CliveH - 2013-04-24 8:14 AM

 

(lol) (lol) (lol)

 

Could work Dave

 

Could work.........

 

Could stop the revolving door debacle of our courts - I wonder if they could send offenders to a Gulag?

 

 

 

This ideas got legs Clive :D.................looks like the conservatives are thinking along the same lines for asylum seekers ;-)

 

Tories to hold asylum seekers abroad

 

Asylum seekers could be held on foreign islands "far far away" from Britain, shadow home secretary Oliver Letwin said.

The Tories are drawing up plans to take asylum seekers to offshore application centres to process their claims.

Mr Letwin today said the centres would be on foreign soil and not in British territories. But he said the exact locations would not be chosen until the Conservatives were in power.

 

A spokesman for Mr Letwin said: "There has been lots of speculation it could be a British territory like the Falklands but it definitely, definitely will not be.

 

"It will definitely be a foreign territory. It won't necessarily be outside Europe but Mr Letwin has said it would be 'far, far away'."

Mr Letwin himself said the centres would need to be outside the UK. But he said he could not select sites while in opposition.

"I am not going to go round the world and negotiate with foreign governments until and unless we are in government."

He told the BBC's Breakfast with Frost: "You can't do that rationally. No government is going to negotiate with you on that basis. The Australians use Nauru and Papua New Guinea. That gives you an idea of the sort of places that could be used."

 

He said the asylum system had to be brought back under control to save money and restore public confidence. The system was currently costing British taxpayers £1,800 million a year, he said, and economic migrants needed to be deterred from using the asylum system to get round migration controls.

The proposals have been drawn up by a commission, set up by Mr Letwin and chaired by Tory MEP and former Home Office minister Timothy Kirkhope.

 

 

So the natural progression is we allow hardworking Eastern Europeans in.........and in return they take our prisoners as I expect their hotels....oops I mean prisons are cheaper to run than ours >:-)

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

It's all jam tomorrow with the Tories, EU referendum, now this, the next thing you'll hear is they are getting Abu out of the country, but again only if they win the next election. >:-(

 

Funny that that both the main parties are coming up now with what would have been written off as bigoted BNP talk a couple of years ago. :D

[Patricia]

Sorry Dave but Oliver Letwin is a Tory, not Shadow Home Secretary. He is Minister of State at the Cabinet Office.

[Tracker]

1footinthegrave - 2013-04-24 9:29 AM

It's all jam tomorrow with the Tories

 

Unlike Labour where there is never any jam - unless you work for the government or are on benefits - in which case everyone else who has built a good income pays.

 

Tell me Mike - were you born negative and depressed or have you have to practise over many years!

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

Tracker - 2013-04-24 11:43 AM

 

1footinthegrave - 2013-04-24 9:29 AM

It's all jam tomorrow with the Tories

 

Unlike Labour where there is never any jam - unless you work for the government or are on benefits - in which case everyone else who has built a good income pays.

 

Tell me Mike - were you born negative and depressed or have you have to practise over many years!

 

I don't see the need for a personal insult, I'm merely saying they could have had held a referendum during this term of office, and could have also sorted out the asylum issue and immigration instead they still preside over a backlog of 300,000 cases. I am no Labour supporter either who opened the floodgates to uncontrolled immigration.

Unlike the great majority of the UK population I vote according to policies, not party loyalty. ;-)

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

1footinthegrave - 2013-04-24 12:11 PM

 

Unlike the great majority of the UK population I vote according to policies, not party loyalty. ;-)

 

 

I confess it always puzzles me why people vote lemming like for the same party every election :-S.............Its why nothing really changes...............and why there is so little difference between the usual suspects *-)

 

The holy grail for your professional politician is a safe seat ;-)..............as they know once installed they have a job for life, due to the high lemming count amongst the local electorate :-S

[Symbol Owner]

pelmetman - 2013-04-24 8:40 AM

 

CliveH - 2013-04-24 8:14 AM

 

(lol) (lol) (lol)

 

Could work Dave

 

Could work.........

 

Could stop the revolving door debacle of our courts - I wonder if they could send offenders to a Gulag?

 

 

 

This ideas got legs Clive :D.................looks like the conservatives are thinking along the same lines for asylum seekers ;-)

 

Tories to hold asylum seekers abroad

 

Asylum seekers could be held on foreign islands "far far away" from Britain, shadow home secretary Oliver Letwin said.

The Tories are drawing up plans to take asylum seekers to offshore application centres to process their claims.

Mr Letwin today said the centres would be on foreign soil and not in British territories. But he said the exact locations would not be chosen until the Conservatives were in power./QUOTE]

 

Are you really saying that the Tories are considering the Australian way of dealing with asylum-seekers/illegal immigrants Dave? They use an offshore Island, Nauru. Perhaps, when Scotland secedes from the U.K., we could use Orkney -- or Staffa -- that's uninhabited >:-)

 

Give us a link Dave -- where did you get this rubbish from? Letwin ( on current form) would appear to be certifiable(!) [ I always did want to 'section' an M.P. when I was in social work -- you have to apply to the Speaker of the House of Commons -- but he is probably certifiable too!]

Cheers,

 

Colin.

[Guest pelmetman]

Symbol Owner - 2013-04-24 12:29 PM

 

 

Give us a link Dave -- where did you get this rubbish from? Letwin ( on current form) would appear to be certifiable(!) [ I always did want to 'section' an M.P. when I was in social work -- you have to apply to the Speaker of the House of Commons -- but he is probably certifiable too!}

Cheers,

 

Colin.

 

There you go Colin ;-)

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-200224/Tories-hold-asylum-seekers-abroad.html

[Symbol Owner]

Thanks Dave, might have known that it would be the Daily Wail! >:-(

 

C.

[Guest pelmetman]

Symbol Owner - 2013-04-24 12:29 PM

 

Are you really saying that the Tories are considering the Australian way of dealing with asylum-seekers/illegal immigrants Dave? They use an offshore Island, Nauru. Perhaps, when Scotland secedes from the U.K., we could use Orkney -- or Staffa -- that's uninhabited >:-)

 

 

Sounds like they'll be happy there Colin ;-)

 

What are the top five happiest parts of the UK?

 

The BBC's Mark Easton says well-being is about a lot more than money

More from Mark

I need more time to digest the new statistics on national well-being, but one finding got me sitting bolt upright in my chair today.

 

Among the four questions asked as part of the survey is "Overall, how anxious did you feel yesterday?" Respondents must pick a score between 0 and 10 with any score below three being regarded as indicative of a pretty chilled-out individual.

 

So where are the most relaxed places in the UK? You take the high road and head north.

 

The least anxious area is the most northerly - Eilean Siar, Orkney & Shetland. In the outer isles some 71% scored three or less. Next is Moray. Then Aberdeenshire followed by Angus and Highland. The five most laid back places in Britain are all in the north of Scotland.

 

And the region doesn't just do well on its anxiety rating. Eilean Siar, Orkney & Shetland also comes out top when people were asked how happy they were yesterday and how worthwhile they considered their life.