To be annoyed at the new tax brackets?

I have just read this thread. Your contributions made me cringe a little. You seem out of your depth so am glad you saw the sense to stop posting. I am not the best with financial concepts so have learned some information from the other more knowledgable posters here. I suggest you do the same.

Though I have to say, I don’t love the mocking tone from some. Not everyone is financially literate. And people saying that it is not the lack of knowledge they are criticising, it is the scaremongering, well that is just disingenuous. It is clear that some here are simply mocking others for the lack of tax knowledge.

Do I bow to your superior knowledge of mankind? Is that what you want. You have it. Goodbye.

Maybe actually read my posts before you post that drivel. I have not ridiculed the OP.

And I'm not the one who posted just a series of exclamation marks, which can hardly be described as "pearls of wisdom".

I can't think of that many topics where accuracy is vital than tax though, to be honest.

Telling someone "people won't like you" is bullying, by the way.

I am not using it as an insult. I pointed out that being pedantic is not nice, and if you keep that up, people won't like you.

To be more concerned with literal accuracy and formality than the subject in mind is not a nice thing to do. It is similar to splitting hairs, and people will not like you if you continue to wage an argument without any depth to the discussion.

What have you learned from this threat? What pearls of wisdom have you posted on the thread? You seem to have used this thread to attack people's views, rather than to say something constructive.
Many of the posters are more concerned to ridicule the OP because she was mistaken. She didn't post to be ridiculed and embarrassed. She was expressing a genuine fear for her future, and the clever devils on here though to belittle her.

"literal accuracy", yes - being correct. As I said.

You can't be "too concerned" with accuracy.

I know YOU'RE trying to use it as an insult but I consider it a compliment. So, thank you! And as you said I was being pedantic you obviously agree and accept I was being accurate.

If it is New State Pension then yes, it is under the personal allowance. However there are some pensioners who are on the old style state pension of £169 per week some of whom may also have the 2nd state pension which may be enough to just tip them over into paying tax on their state pension. This would apply to people who's state pension came into payment before April 2016 who had not been contracted out.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pedantic means "like a pedant," someone who's too concerned with literal accuracy or formality. It's a negative term that implies someone is showing off book learning or trivia, especially in a tiresome way.

So I was right - even from April 2025 if your only income is state pension then it is below the personal tax allowance so not taxed?
"New State Pension
If you receive the new State Pension, the full amount you’ll receive for the 2025/26 tax year will be £230.25 a week (compared to £221.20 a week for the 2024/25 tax year)." That is £11,973. "The standard employee personal allowance for the 2025 to 2026 tax year is: £242 per week. £1,048 per month. £12,570 per year"

No, you are totally wrong. Please stop spreading misinformation. You need to ADD your personal allowance for goodness sakes.

Anyone who can’t add up can always use a website like Listen to Taxman which has a calculator.

So, DWP could reduce the pension payment by the tax required and pay that sum to HMRC.

Or, they buy in a payroll service to do it.

Or, people who now fall into tax payments do a simple assessment each year, though I'd imagine that will be tricky to monitor.

The payroll service seems the best option. Probably cost more than the tax take though!

@SerendipityJane
No money moves from a bank account to another bank account.

The DWP pays out benefits. It does not receive money from pensioners.
HMRC pays out refunds and receives amounts due

In what way is "allocating a deemed amount" not "paying" ?

As far as someone in receipt of Carers Allowance is concerned, their NI is paid by the DWP.

If it emerges that through some weird systemic oversight the DWP are not able to credit HMRC for other payments (e.g. pensions) then we really need to ask who in the name of holy fuck signed off on a system that doesn't do basic accountancy. All of a sudden Birmingham Councils non-accounting accounting system starts to look positively overpowered.

But that is beyond the scope of this thread 😀I'd need a new "F" key for a start.

So they are allocating a deemed amount, not actually handling receipts or payments

https://www.gov.uk/carers-credit

You could get Carer’s Credit if you’re caring for someone for at least 20 hours a week.
Carer’s Credit is a National Insurance credit that helps with gaps in your National Insurance record. Your State Pension is based on your National Insurance record.

Where do DWP collect NI ?

NI is on PAYE and self assessment, it not on benefits and pensions.

But they can collect NI.

Fewer and fewer pensioners will be staying outside the scope of tax from April
https://www.gov.uk/apply-tax-free-interest-on-savings

The starting rate for interest stays at the current £5000 but is reduced by any other income that exceeds the personal allowance

State pension is paid by DWP who have no capacity to collect tax

The interest free changes were the ones done by Hunt but savers are now having the full impact of the lower allowance and higher interest rates on their savings.

Several friends have been caught by trivial amounts that tip them into taxpaying.

State pension - many older people get additional state pension which has never been taxed at source before, all of a sudden it has hit the limit.

All of the accountancy forums I am on are still trying to work out how HMRC will handle it as DWP have no tax deduction mechanism.

Yes, I was confused by that comment too.

I don't need your patience. "Pedantic" is another word for "correct", so thank you for agreeing I am right.

I didn't, by the way, say it was "fake news". It's not even pretending to be news. It is mere speculation. This is denoted by the word "could" in the headline. That shows you that it's just someone's guessing about something. Not that it makes any sense to do that when the source of the funding has been made clear by the government.

If I say "the world could end tomorrow" would you consider that "news"? Or just made up speculation? Because it has as much validity as the "editorial" piece you're referring to on GB News.

And I am very happy, but thank you for caring.

Simple Assessment is the method HMRC collect tax on state pension if necessary. No need for a tax return

It was a news report.

No it wasn't. It was an entertainment piece from an entertainment channel that is registered as such with OFCOM. When they change to register as a news channel, they can be described as such.

Why does it matter to you if you think it fake news?

We all share a duty to call out lies intended to weaken and corrode our country. Robust debate and disagreements and opinions are welcomed. But if you need to use lies to win your argument, then it's fuck all of an argument isn't it ?

If news is a reporting of events then "fake news" is lies. Calling it lies saves 5 keypresses. If we all did that the UKs productivity crisis would be solved overnight.