Scared of what labour will do

Pensioners pay no NI, but do not have a higher personal allowance for income tax, what makes you think that?

Eta: they used to have a higher PA, but the 2010 coalition gvt abolished it.

Flat rate state pension for those that retired post April 2016 is £11,502.40. So still under the threshold.

Outside of employer NI contributions, I wasn't aware that Labour have changed income tax?

Pensioners, like all people, are taxed on their income at the moment, but with a higher personal allowance and no NI like younger people. There has been no comment or suggestion that this might change.

'I think the WFA cut was an own goal, raised a billion or so but cost Labour a great deal of credibility, yes there is the issue of handing the allowance to wealthy pensioners but you could make that argument over the state pension too'.

I agree with you on this point 100%

The income tax personal allowance is at the state pension level currently.

I'm assuming this was for me?
You will never find me 'purring' at a failing economy whoever is in power. Taxing and borrowing the way labour has will damage us all, including the public sector.

You stated in your pp that the January tax take was £5b higher than predicted. That is not true. The OBR predicted £20b surplus, they received £15b. So £5b less. This info is widely available.

As for the NI cuts, labour could have easily promised to scrap it and still be elected. I agree with finding the money for compensation which is why I ignored it.

I think the WFA cut was an own goal, raised a billion or so but cost Labour a great deal of credibility, yes there is the issue of handing the allowance to wealthy pensioners but you could make that argument over the state pension too.

Farms IHT? well over due, they are still getting a very good deal.

I'd give Reeves a strong 7/10, Hunt a 1/10, his cut to NI was done to damage Labour, no concern for the country.

Nope.

£20k is far too high for the WFA cut off, it wouldn’t save enough to be worth doing. The income tax personal allowance would work as the threshold.

The WFA cut is welcome in that there are many many wealthy pensioners. It should only be cut with those who’s income is over say £20k a year.

The farmers IHT ought to be tapered. If you have worked the land personally for over 30 years say you should get the full exemption. Less than that should get less exemption. And if you lease to tenant farmers or your farm is over a certain size there should be no exemptions.

The Tories would look pretty silly now having to renounce their plans for tax cuts. The point I was making which you deliberately missed is that the economic landscape would be exactly the same regardless of who was in power. The only difference is that you’d be purring with approval if we had a Tory government regardless of what they did. Economically we’re in the shit and that didn’t suddenly happen last July.

So what is the point of an independent pay review body.. if the recommendations are ignored?
Cameron, ignored these, leading to the strikes we've had over many years.

I note you ignore the compensation payments of £20 billion....

Reverse the NI cuts? how would that go down with the public and what consequences would it lead too in terms of even less consumer spend? .... one cannot hand people an extra £800 on average and then months later, take it away....
Plus had Labour said they'd do this, they may well have ended up in opposition and we'd have Tory Reform Govt....

On the tax take.... HMRC's receipts for the month of January 2025 were close to £112bn, nearly £3.9bn more than the prior record haul of January 2023. Leading the way were income tax receipts which rose by £6.8bn to just under £50bn for a single month, another record

Labours biggest mistake was to promise not to increase taxes on the working people. They should merge NICs into income tax, put 1% on each tax band, make child benefit, tax free allowance and free childcare hours universal. We need growth. Ridiculous disincentives to earn more such as the 67% tax rate on earnings from £100k - £125k (far far worse if you earn that and have nursery age children) is farcical and should be binned.

There are certainly some older people who feel let down. An income a few quid a week over Pension Credit limit, denied the WFA. What was the point of a low earner making sacrifices to pay into a very modest pension, when her next door neighbour, who earned more, didn’t? It’s mainly women living alone who feel the pinch. Now the neighbour gets Council Tax benefits, a free TV licence and the WFA. Particularly hard on the oldest cohort of pensioners, as the old basic state pension is about £50 a week less than those who retired later.

I see a few sometimes having a free hot drink in our local library, which is a designated ‘Welcome Space’.

They’re not illegal. If the UK wants to stop immigrants it needs to pull out of the UN convention on rights of refugees, say no, we’re not giving anyone refugee status anymore. To do so would be fairly controversial internationally but they could do that. But they don’t. They just continue dodging their legal obligations and go on calling those who arrive by boat illegal when they are not doing anything illegal.

Really? I suppose Lou Haigh can no longer answer for her decision on that one.
To answer your other post, I would say private school tax and WFA are very much politics of envy. Also business =bad, rich people =bad.

@TheNuthatch "No there shouldn't have been pay rises that we couldn't afford. Particularly the train drivers as it was handed over without any demands for reform."

It was an entirely pragmatic decision.

@TheNuthatch "Tough decision? Is that lefty speak for politics of envy?"

Please could you define "politics of envy"?

The tax take in January was nearly £5b less than predicted due in part to changes in behaviour by the self employed.

Yep £20bn down to 15bn

No there shouldn't have been pay rises that we couldn't afford. Particularly the train drivers as it was handed over without any demands for reform. You're scraping the barrel a bit there going all the way back to Cameron.

Hunt's NI cut was a trap for Labour. They could and should have reversed it. Any Chancellor worth their salt would have done so.

Where is the evidence for tax take being £5b higher than predicted?
The tax take in January was nearly £5b less than predicted due in part to changes in behaviour by the self employed.

How would you have paid for the unfunded compensation claims? Blood and Post Office - around 20 billion in total, then the billions required for Nurse, Soldier and Teacher pay rises.. all unfunded... or should they have a 0% pay rise, which is what Cameron gave them for 3 years running....

..and before you reply with "ah but the Train Drivers... " the total cost to settle that was £135 million... the strikes cost the UK economy £2 billion... so money well spent.

Which services would cut to pay for Hunts NI cuts? thats £10 billion per year to find....

Easy to throw insults and criticisms but have no alternative spend and tax plans... bit like Badenoch.

As for Reeves has reduced tax take, its actually £5 Billion higher that predicted, trouble is, Reeves has had to borrow to pay for all of the above....

Of course she will, whilst introducing austerity#2.

Ah but Reeves would say they had to do all this because of the “black hole” Labour inherited. Wouldn’t be surprised if she was still referring to it in her spring statement.