Poll: The Budget

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

The Treasury figures show that 350,000 extra pensioners, according to the BBC, will be taxed in the future.

The biggest impact will be felt by those about to retire who will not get the enhanced benefit.

Interesting however when you consider :
"Many older people never claim their age-related allowance because they do not
realise they are entitled to it."
I was talking to someone at work teh other day who is going to retire in a year or 2, he had never heard of the allowance...

The key point is that they are not going to be worse off compared to working people on the same income, in a few years time they will cease to be better off.

 

[Glaucus]

It's just a simplification of rules. Pensioners aren't worse off, it's just everyone else is better off. With the massive rise in personal allowence there is no need for the extra allowence and compare it to what they where getting just three years ago it's a pretty large increase overall.

 

[RDM]

Currently a 65y/o pensioner on £12k a year will get £7475 + £2465 = £9940 tax free pay. They pay no NI (you still haven't answered that one) so will pay 20% tax on £2060 = £412 tax.

If the rules had not changed then in 2013/14 a 65y/o pensioner would get £9205 + £2465 (not even accounting for any increase in the age allowance) = £11670 tax free pay. So they will pay 20% on £330 = £66 tax

But the rules have been changed. Now any new pensioner in 2013/14 will just get the £9205 tax free pay. So they will pay 20% tax on £2795 = £559 tax.

Oh look, thats more tax than they are even paying currently...still insisting they will pay no more tax and that you understand it fully?

I didn't get back to you on NI because I honestly didnt know that pensionsers in employment didn't pay it. No wonder B&Q are so keen to hire them....

As for your examples above, how exactly is anyone getting less money than they previously were? They aren't.

 

[Destination]

Council tax needs to be scrapped. You're taxing people on nothing essentially, not earning, not purchasing, not even using any services, they are being charged for just sitting there minding their own business. The band system makes it even worse because you're charging different amounts based on nothing but wealth essentially.

UK governments love non means-tested and regressive taxes like VAT and council tax, that hit the poorest the hardest and put pensioners out of their homes. While at the same time loving non means-tested and superfluous benefits like child benefit and the now scrapped EMA.

Why should every single tax be means tested?
Why the hell should those who work and are sucessful pay for those that don't and are not?

Council tax taxes people for council services, oddly, you will find the 'rich' don't tend to use more services from the local authority than those who pay less. They don't get four bins emptied twice per week for being in the top band in comparison for those who are exempt never getting their bin emptied at all. Why should they pay more, when they do not get additional services.

 

[Energize]

EMA was means tested and far from superfluous.

It was a video game and alcohol fund for most people in my experience.

Why should every single tax be means tested?

It ensures that everyone can afford to pay, so pensioners are not forced to move out of their homes as they currently are.

Why the hell should those who work and are sucessful pay for those that don't and are not?

It's the sucessful people that pay the most council tax because it's based on house price. People on benefits don't live in million pound houses.

Council tax taxes people for council services, oddly, you will find the 'rich' don't tend to use more services from the local authority than those who pay less. They don't get four bins emptied twice per week for being in the top band in comparison for those who are exempt never getting their bin emptied at all. Why should they pay more, when they do not get additional services.

That's what I want to know. I don't understand why rich people ie, those with expensive houses, are taxed more.

But you will be using services provided by the local government at some point. Pavement maintenance, refuse collection, libraries, parks, education and museums etc.

Not necessarily, those in remote areas will probably not be using any of those services. And you aren't charged a fixed tax everytime you use the hospital either so why should council services be any different? There's not any relationship between council tax and services anyway because tax is based on house value not service use and the two variables are inversely correlated.

Banding based on wealth seems fair to me too. It would probably turn that way more so if house holds were assessed individually surely? You choose where you live to a degree.

House price does not necessarily indicate wealth, net worth yes, but an old woman living in a large family home passed down through the generations may be on a £10k pension and will be forced out.

 

[Irish_Tom]

EMA was useless and a joke, i couldnt even qualify for the basic pay as my parents earned too much, yet i received very little of their income as direct support

Either give basic EMA to everyone, or dont give it out

That's what means tested means, yes.

Sorry to hear your parents didn't choose to fully support you financially.

So, your saying "Since I didn't get it, no-one should get it" ... nice.

Classic! Couldn't have put it better myself.

It was a video game and alcohol fund for most people in my experience.

Really? In my experience many of my friends wouldn't have been able to afford college without it.

I was *lucky* enough not to be eligible for it.

 

[Energize]

Really? In my experience many of my friends wouldn't have been able to afford college without it.

I was *lucky* enough not to be eligible for it.

Maybe there's a difference in experience between college and 6th form at a school, but the vast majority of students at my school lived in the city and thus had no associated expenditure.

And it wasn't properly means tested either, self employed parents did not declare income so people with a six figure household income were getting £30 a week, and students whose parents had split up were also getting EMA despite the income of both parents significantly exceeding the household limit.

We have the same situation with child benefit.

 

[milgo]

Not necessarily, those in remote areas will probably not be using any of those services. And you aren't charged a fixed tax everytime you use the hospital either so why should council services be any different? There's not any relationship between council tax and services anyway because tax is based on house value not service use and the two variables are inversely correlated.



House price does not necessarily indicate wealth, net worth yes, but an old woman living in a large family home passed down through the generations may be on a £10k pension and will be forced out.

Ok, perhaps not in remote areas. Your point doesn't make sense to me though. I am not paying a fixed tax every time I walk on the pavement. I pay a tax for the local services. The amount I use those services is up to me, but it doesn't mean others should be deprived of them just because I don't use them.

My parents contributed towards the young offenders services when I was growing up. I didn't use that service, but it still needs to exist and is beneficial for everyone even if it is indirectly. But because I wasn't a young offender, does that mean my parents got ripped off?

The old woman would probably struggle to run the house anyway. Unfortunately not everyone can be a winner. What ever system is used there will always be some people that lose.

 

[Energize]

Ok, perhaps not in remote areas. Your point doesn't make sense to me though. I am not paying a fixed tax every time I walk on the pavement. I pay a tax for the local services. The amount I use those services is up to me, but it doesn't mean others should be deprived of them just because I don't use them.

My parents contributed towards the young offenders services when I was growing up. I didn't use that service, but it still needs to exist and is beneficial for everyone even if it is indirectly. But because I wasn't a young offender, does that mean my parents got ripped off?

The old woman would probably struggle to run the house anyway. Unfortunately not everyone can be a winner. What ever system is used there will always be some people that lose.

I'm not saying that tax should not be used to fund necessary public services, (though I think libraries are an outdated service in the internet age), just that council tax is not the way to do it, income tax is, it's based on ability to pay and tax paid increases with income and not an arbitrary property value. Everyone wins. In the USA for example there is a national income tax and a local state income tax to pay for local services, not council tax.

 

[trackrat]

In 20 months time I will become a pensioner.
I have worked since I was 16 with no breaks in my employment.
Apart from paying NI for 49 years when now you only require 32 years for a full pension, (It used to be 40 years),now I find that I am going to be taxed more on my pensions because I am not 65 before April 2013.
So I am not pleased.

 

[toasteh]

i dont like the fact that fags are more expensive now >:C

 

[Hatter The Mad]

In 20 months time I will become a pensioner.
I have worked since I was 16 with no breaks in my employment.
Apart from paying NI for 49 years when now you only require 32 years for a full pension, (It used to be 40 years),now I find that I am going to be taxed more on my pensions because I am not 65 before April 2013.
So I am not pleased.

You're going to live for a long time (a lot more of you are going to live a lot longer than the previous generation) - we (my generation) can't afford it.

I despise the me me me attitude of the yearly budgets... the "what's in it for me" mostly driven by the media.

Sorry, trackrat, I don't mean to throw all of this at you but yours triggered it!

 

[Destination]

You're going to live for a long time (a lot more of you are going to live a lot longer than the previous generation) - we (my generation) can't afford it.

I despise the me me me attitude of the yearly budgets... the "what's in it for me" mostly driven by the media.

Sorry, trackrat, I don't mean to throw all of this at you but yours triggered it!

Hehe, yea it could be seen that you voted in fifty years of governments who fIled to think ahead and provide for your future.
Unfortunately i fear that no govt thinks ahead, as they spend what they have right now, and right now we are in massive mess.

You will find for all their bitterness and complaining, labour if you are ever stupid enough to let them back in, will not reverse the changes they moaned about, and will find methods of wasting money while claiming they are doing everyone a massive favour.

All parties now we have a massive social care timebomb brewing, and we need to pay for this mess, yet none are willing to add the 2% to base rate tax that it will take to fund it, thats everyone paying two more points of tax, and thats to save us the problem that those currently alive will be causing in ten to fifteen years. It'll only get worse later, I think they Are hoping to push the retirement age up so far to kill off folks quicker and save on social care.

 

[Glaucus]

And they spend like that becuase it's run by public option. It's the biggest flaw in democarcy and it's a huge flaw. It's me me me and public opinion. Which means governments can't actually do what is needed and why all parties gravitate towards the centre.

 

[Destination]

Indeed.

You all need to elect me as the ultimate leader, and review my work after 30 years, if I've done a bad job, then execute me then.
You'll hate it along the way but it'll be utopia by the end.

 

[D.P.]

I'm not saying that tax should not be used to fund necessary public services, (though I think libraries are an outdated service in the internet age), just that council tax is not the way to do it, income tax is, it's based on ability to pay and tax paid increases with income and not an arbitrary property value. Everyone wins. In the USA for example there is a national income tax and a local state income tax to pay for local services, not council tax.

Indeed, council tax is antiquated and seriously in need of being replaced. If I remember rightly it pretty much dated back to near medieval times where houses were taxed based on the number of bedrooms because in theory with more bedrooms you could take in more lodgers recieving rent or payment.

I can't think of another country in the world with such a daft system. everywhere else uses a local tax system based on your income or you pay in proportion to adults living in the property earning a salary.

 

[semi-pro waster]

And they spend like that becuase it's run by public option. It's the biggest flaw in democarcy and it's a huge flaw. It's me me me and public opinion. Which means governments can't actually do what is needed and why all parties gravitate towards the centre.

I'm not convinced that parties not going to extremes is necessarily a bad thing. Ok so it robs you of the fun of trying to guess which of the extremes on offer will be least bad and whether they will be able to conjure up an equilibrium point where most people are happy and the country generally works before they overshoot it into the extreme position their ideology leads them to but aside from that - is it really so bad?

If the argument is against short-termism then I'd be more inclined to agree given that in many countries (perhaps even most) the parties elected tend to, naturally, only look towards the next election point and make the vast majority of their policies and decisions for that. However even with that I suspect that the option of giving politicians even longer guaranteed terms would be worse.

Democracy isn't all great but as Winston Churchill said "...No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.".

 

[Glaucus]

As I've said many times, it's the lesser of several evils.

It's both it's short mindedness and the inability to carry out what actually needs to be done as you alliance to much of the population.

Compared to what we should be, it is pretty bad. I'm sure a better balance could be reached somehow. If enough people worked out a better democratic system.

 

[Freakbro]

I didn't get back to you on NI because I honestly didnt know that pensionsers in employment didn't pay it. No wonder B&Q are so keen to hire them....

Well, you do now so you can think about it and come back with a reason why they should or should not still get this tax break.

And what about all the other detailed subsidies they receive from the tax payer, why should they get those, why are you wanting to just arbitrarily remove one tax break?

Just for interest sake, I have been looking around about why and when it first arose and found this

"This tax break was introduced by Winston Churchill in 1925 to recognise that pensioners have lower average incomes and have already spent their lives paying tax and National Insurance."

As for your examples above, how exactly is anyone getting less money than they previously were? They aren't.

Ok....if you don't think £11,441 is less than £11,588 then there's not much more I can say

 

[RDM]

Ok....if you don't think £11,441 is less than £11,588 then there's not much more I can say

But they never got the £11,588. The £11,441 will still be more money than they currently get. They will be better off, just not as well off as they would have been.

I think a pensioner needs to have an income of over £100,000 before they are actually worse off as far as tax goes!