The Married Pensioner table only applies to married pensioners OVER 77 years of age. The Married Pensioner Allowance was abolished years ago when the married man's allowance was scrapped. So only The Single Pensioner table applies to all pensioners since the scrapping of the Married Man's Allowance.

The Single Pensioner table has insufficient resolution to show the problem. The problem lies between a total pension income of £25,400 and £30,000. When a pensioner's total income (including interest on savings) exceeds £25,400, then HMRC tax the pensioner at 50% UNTIL all the Age Allowance of £10,500 has been removed, at that point all income is taxed at 20% until the 40% band is reached. This loss of the Age Allowance penalises any pensioner who has sought to be prudent and put aside savings, and paid into a pension scheme.

All the fuss about scrapping the 50% tax rate for earners of £150,000 plus has totally ignored the fact that prudent pensioners have been paying 50% tax for some time.


Oops. I should have made that clearer. The Age Allowance of £10,500 is taxed at 50% until the basic tax allowance of £8,105 is reached.

Osborne said yesterday that aggressive tax avoidance is morally repugnant.

He must have a short memory.... I bet he thought most people had forgotten about this!!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1192245/George-Osborne-flipped-second-home-switching-450-000-mortgage.html



The entire tax system is designed to hurt income. The very rich don't have "income" they have accumulated wealth (which is largely untaxed) and "gains"

It's an outrage. Income is the only thing that allows social mobility, income tax is the most regressive tax of all.

Osborne's 'taxing the rich' appears to have got off to a successful start - they all ran away:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/lond ... 81743.html

Much more of this and VAT will have to rise to 25%.

The rate has only increased 2%. On a home costing £2,000,000 (at which the rate applies) this means paying an extra £40,000 in tax. £140,000 instead of £100,000 as was the rate yesterday.

In the grand scheme of things what's an extra £40,000 to people buying at this level. They can either afford it or they cannot.

The (Central London) market has been driven by foreign investment and by persons looking to shelter money in a safe haven, this measure is aimed at them.

Edit to add:

Interesting section Westonman in the second half of the article you quoted...



Should we be means testing these benefits? The argument here certainly seems to suggest so and that society would be better off for doing so.

140 pounds a week, bring it on. The way I see it, work all your life = 140 pounds per week pension, sign on on the king cole all your life = 140 pounds a week pension, come from another country = 140 pounds a week pension, no wonder foreigners are knocking the doors in, they figured it out.

I think all benefits should be means tested. The big questions are: Is it possible to return to a culture where the State is very much smaller than it is? And, are the political elite prepared to return to a smaller State? I suspect the answer to the second question is a resounding NO!

But let's first get one thing understood, the State Pensions my generation are collecting were paid for in advance over a full working life, they are an EARNED pension – not a right, nor a state benefit. The new arrangements for the State Pension are considerably different, and easier to qualify for than the terms my generation earned its pension by. As I understand it, new pensioners only have to pay into the system for 30 years to qualify for a full State Pension, and there is no longer any accounting of HOW MUCH is paid into the system over a working life. My generation had to pay in for 44 years to qualify, and what I get out is governed by what I paid in. I actually paid into the State system for 49 years; the five additional years bought me NO additional pension.

Back to the benefits of bus passes, heating allowances, and TV licenses. I think they should never have been introduced. And now I think they should at least be means tested, and preferably be scrapped.

One of the major causes of the current economic mess is the State-dependency culture that has been politically encouraged over the decades. This culture has positively discouraged personal responsibility; and it has given ever-more power to the politicians over our lives.

O.K, I've said I am prepared to lose the bus pass, heating allowance, and TV license. I would also like to see child allowance scrapped too, along with Working Tax Credits, Child Tax Credits, etc. etc. And I see nothing wrong with students having to contribute to their higher education. I did a college-supported employer-based engineering apprenticeship over 5 years. Over those five years my pay was very low, very much lower than today's youth expect to receive for a weeks work and training. Today the emphasis is on 'rights' rather than personal responsibility; on instant success rather than earned rewards.

The reductions in benefits and public spending would significantly reduce the demands on the taxpayer and should leave more untaxed income in the pockets of those who earn their way in the world. Then the 'benefits' should become largely unnecessary, accept for that small minority section of society that is too sick or too disabled to earn its living.

Reducing the benefits system down to the bare minimum would also reduce the opportunity for politicians to interfere in our lives, many of them would become redundant, along with much of the bureaucracy.

Turning to higher education and student loans. I see nothing wrong with students having to contribute to their higher education. I did an engineering apprenticeship over 5 years. Over those five years my 'pay' was very low, very much lower than today's youth expect to receive for a weeks work and training. After completing my apprenticeship I had to work my way up through the ranks; junior engineer, engineer, senior engineer, etc. etc. Today, despite the youth unemployment problem, the emphasis tends to be on 'rights' rather than personal responsibility; on instant success rather than earned rewards. The day release college courses I attended during my apprenticeship had to be paid for in advance by myself. My employer would only refund the course fees if and when I passed the exams at then end of the academic year. I can't see that system be very popular today.

Now I will ask the reciprocal question to the one about pensioner bus passes and heating allowances. Should child allowance, youth bus passes,and all other so-called family benefits be means tested?

In my day when part of the work force, any unemployment entitlement was based on the number of stamps you accumulated, if you were out of work your cards would be franked by the labour exchange so you did not fall behind whilst looking for a job, your dole money would be paid out and the amount governed by the number of stamps, or franks on your cards, this was a cumbersome arrangement but it worked, it was superseded as for some it became a bit of a chore having to get up and present yourself to collect your dole money, pittance that it was. now you dont even have to get out of bed, I wonder if its paid direct into your account the baccs system like wages are paid in, i have not a clue as its been nearly 50 years since I had any hand out.

_________________
Its not always the biggest and the bestest, its them that make the least mistakes.

Are they not already means testing these things? Child allowance is being cut back for high earners, Tax Credits are income based on the basis once you pass a certain ceiling you don't qualify! Youth bus passes I don't know enough about them except to say there are unusual levels of obesity being experienced in today's youth that were not there in the last generation. It would be a good thing if they got a bit more exercise.

I agree tax credits should never have been introduced, it was a measure introduced by New Labour to create a dependant class and to win them (ongoing) elections by having that dependant class.
Indeed many of the problems they cite today surrounding the deficit can be traced back to the ever increasing money that had to be borrowed by the Government to fund these schemes.

With Labour all expenditure has to be state controlled, the individuals who think for themselves are not part of the system and considered as trouble makers, China is now trying to control the population levels and has finally grasped the nettle. here we still have a backward looking socialist ideology of government knows best, and slowly but surely will stifle out entrepreneurs and wealth creators, new inventions will become state owned as we balance on the edge of the slippery slope.

_________________
Its not always the biggest and the bestest, its them that make the least mistakes.

I agree with a lot of that.

I disagree that Child Allowance is means tested. It is a 'universal right'; that is until now, where it is only disallowed when one member of a household earns MORE than £60,000. And I believe ALL Child Benefit to all claimants should be means tested. £60,000 per annum is a lot greater than the pensioner incomes that are losing their Age Allowance.

Even where means testing of 'benefits' is imposed it doesn't take into account the full reasons as to WHY a benefit should be paid. For example, myself, along with many other responsible and prudent pensioners who have paid into to pension schemes and saved money for their retirement do not qualify for State benefits such as Pension Top Ups, Council Tax discount, or Cold Weather Payments. But those who have had spent and enjoyed their money over the years and made no provision for themselves, DO qualify for State benefits. The same failures apply right across the whole of the benefits system. Means testing should also take into account as to WHY a person has not provided for themselves.

The current national debt and deficit are only going to be properly addressed when the whole of the benefits system is thoroughly cleaned up and rationalised. A fist step to cutting back on Child Allowance would be for Government to announce that any child born 9 months after the announcement date to stop Child Allowance would not receive the allowance.

Over the last 48 hours some powerful voices have declared that the claw-back on the pensions Age Allowance is fair and reasonable. If these voices have their way then the pensioner community is going to be demanding that other less responsible members of society also have their benefits clawed back. The attack on the pensions Age Allowance may well turn out to be the beginning of the end of the State benefits system.