To be annoyed pensioners effectively now get a bigger personal allowance

[FlightBeforeXmas]

So because of the fiscal drag from not increasing personal allowances the chancellor has announced basic state pension will not be taxable.
So if you earn this amount you pay tax on it despite having the extra costs of working.
Pensioners are also much more like to own their homes.
How on earth does this make any sense?

Unless your friend has over £16k in savings they would be eligible for other benefits too - council tax and possibly housing benefit. I have a family member who receives state pension only and he pays no council tax as he has no savings.

A pensioner paying rent of £740 per month is not expected to survive on just £12,500 state pension. Filling in the forms on the entitledto website a pensioner in a band C property in my post code would be entitled to £190 a week in housing benefit and council tax support, i.e. £9,880 a year, (£823 a month in benefits, more than covering the rent). Total annual income £22,380, which is £3,057 below minimum wage for a 40 hour week.

Yeah it's pretty annoying and it's not fair but, that's life.

My next door neighbor is a pensioner, he worked for our city in a laborer position.
I have talked to many people who have known him over the years and they said "oh yeah, he barely worked it all, he should have been fired long ago but, Union protection" and yet he collects a bigger pension in a month sitting around doing nothing than I make working 2 full time jobs.

And yet, if anyone tries to collect for any type of charity he's the first one to scream that "he's on a fixed income."

Yes well, if you were receiving a million pounds a month every month, that too is a fixed income, isn't it?

What are you going to do? Life isn't fair. But we can complain about it I suppose

Exactly this. The pensioners living on JUST the state pension have over £16k in savings.

If they have rent costs they would be entitled to housing benefit (or whatever it’s been replaced by) provided they don’t have over £16k in savings.

If they get just the SP (and have under £16k) they will pay very little/ no council tax. It’s not just about what you get, it’s about what you don’t have to pay. That could be £2.5-£3k a year or more.

If you get SP only but have a mortgage, you won’t get help with housing but you would still get help with council tax (again, if you have under 16k in savings). This group will probably be the worst off, depending on their mortgage balance, but there aren’t many people over SPA paying a mortgage.

If they don’t qualify for full SP, they can get pension credit and the extra things that entitles people to. Plus housing help and council tax. Again, if thy have under £16k in savings.

There’s a thread at the moment about how people are openly resenting the expense to taxpayers that autistic children cost. I think maybe people are just very unhappy about pay outs. And agism is more acceptable than ableism.

Yes we will all get old one day but the big difference is our pensions are dwindling. The start date keeps getting later (I’ve been told to budget for 68) and tbh I wouldn’t be surprised if the state pension is phased out.

But this is not unique to your generation. I started work at 18 in 1987. At that point, women's pension age was 60 (which is clearly ridiculous, by the way). I will retire at 67, a whole seven years later.
It's just the way things are, but younger people will benefit from auto enrollment, which will give them better workplace pensions with employer contributions, which older people have not got.
It's swings and roundabouts, but younger people REALLY REALLY do not have a worse time of it than any generation before them. A different set of problems, yes, but not a more difficult set.

To be fair, there is some sense in making older people better off, as poverty is linked to higher dependence on public services, and the older you get the more this is the case. If a few extra pounds a week allow older people to eat properly and heat their homes, they will be less strain on the NHS and care services. The problem lies when the extra income isn't means tested so is 'wasted' on older people who don't need it. However means testing can be more expensive than a blanket benefit to all, so there's that to weigh up.

What a load of rubbish. If people retiring at 65 are going to spend as much time retired as working that means you think they will live to be 115 (school leaving age was 15 in the 1960s, only 5% or so went to university) If you believe you will only have 10 years of retirement does that mean you intend to work till you are 100?

You don't pay higher taxes now. Income tax basic rate in 1978 when I started working was 33%.

It was just as hard to find employment then. The unemployment rate was 5.8%, very similar to today's 5%.

Why on earth do you think working hours were shorter? The working time directive didn't come in to force until 1993. Before that the Labour market was a free for all.

Of course current pensions are paid by those working. That's how it works. We paid for the pensioners who were retired when we worked. Perhaps you should direct your energies to trying to get more people employed and contributing rather than making up half baked allegations about other people's income in retirement.

I get a small SP as I worked part time a lot whilst bringing up children and caring for sick OH. I also get a tiny work pension and £1000 a month widows pension from NHS.
I pay tax on this total, and get no further benefits because I have £50k in savings.
My mortgage is now paid off.

I count myself lucky and am happy to pay the tax .. I wish the millionaires amongst us could feel the same and pay their tax with a good grace and a sense of community.

I have no doubt thst in the fullness of time my savings and the value of my semi will be needed to pay for care.

I think it is worth remembering that the money that lands in pensioners pockets also lands up benefitting the economy not just through tax but also in what we spend.

I think the main problem is one of proportions, ie that the retired cohort is now much larger than the working, tax-paying cohort - a problem of which all governments since the 1960s have been aware would happen.

When all the baby boomers were working, their taxes were more than sufficient to pay for the the meagre pensions of the OAPs of that time. Now that the majority of boomers are retired, it's very different. Governments should have made provision long ago.

The state pension age should have been rising with life expectancy since the 1970s. Had it risen gradually over many decades, we would have avoided the cliff-edge increases of recent years.

Auto enrolment in pension schemes should have come in decades before it did.

I think the main problem is one of proportions, ie that the retired cohort is now much larger than the working, tax-paying cohort

Pensioner cohort = 13 million, working population = 43 million.

That is the crux of the matter.
But it's not justificstion for the spite and unpleasantness shown to pensioners on MN.
They were born when they were - it's not their fault.

Never let the truth stand in the way of a good rant!
I think @Saz12 Needs a reality checker before she posts such utter nonsense

Exactly this.

i look at it the other way - it's a saving to the tax payer as it would cost far more to collect that tax than it would raise. Simplification measures like this should be welcomed. We shouldn't want a large administrative burden to collect a relatively small amount of tax.

and anyone who has dealings with Hmrc dimple assessments will know they are rarely correct anyway and cause so much wastage of costs to administer. It's, sadly, much easier and more efficient to self assess when actually you shouldn't need to rather than rely on Hmrc to get it right.

Pensioners can’t go and earn extra income.

and not all are wealthy

This is such bollocks.
For one it implies those under pension age can just earn more money if they want more money.
For two, most pensioners could try to get a job to earn extra money if they wanted. Most aren't incapable/in very poor health. They might not be able to get a job (much like younger people) but that's a different argument.
And three, many live in big houses and could free up lots of money downsizing which would also reduce running costs for a house.

Fully expect you to come back and say 'not all pensioners ... '
Yes, I know.
But 'pensioners can't earn extra money' is a rubbish argument.

I think it's you talking bollocks.
You do realise pensioners are any age from 67 upwards, don't you? My DH is 62 (so not even a pensioner yet) but struggled to find a job when he was made redundant. Who do you think will want to hire an 80-year-old, even if they were capable of work?
Where have you got the data which states confidently that 'most' pensioners aren't incapable or in poor health? I can't find anything at all so I am guessing you are making that up.
As for the house argument, that may be a fair point, but would be a last resort for most, although stating they have no money while sitting on a valuable asset could be annoying (although don't forget, despite the rhetoric, that not all pensioners like in £1m houses and they would have to buy a smaller house which will ties up a big chunk of the house sale money anyway).
Anyway, point one and two, absolute nonsense, you are allowing your jealousy and bitterness to cloud your sense.
Point three, possible but not as simple as you seem to think.

It really isn’t. Particularly since the increase in pension age. Currently five million pensioners are aged 75 and over, and over 1.4 million are 85 and over. Who’s going to give people that age jobs? We don’t need pensioners taking up jobs when we have nearly a million NEETs, they’re the ones who should be taking the available jobs. The vast majority of current pensioners started work when they were 15 or 16 and worked for around 50 years. “Pensioners can’t earn extra money” is a fact. And the pensioners subsisting on the state pension alone are highly unlikely to be living in big houses with massive equity.

I’m actually similar age to you @Katyppand have been working in some shape or form since I was 15. As well as the rise in state pension retirement age, my workplace pension has also become less favourable than previously going from final salary to career average. I do feel that the current older generation have had / are having a good deal on the whole - many in my family have been retired for 30 years and live in huge houses. That’s just not going to happen anymore. And I worry a lot about my DC’s futures as despite earning good salaries (60k plus) they can’t afford to buy a house as we live in the SE. Yes, they could buy somewhere cheaper but then they wouldn’t have their jobs!

I think the sinple fix for this would be to peg the Income Tax threshold to the basic state pension level. That would mean working people for some benefit from the triple lock as the incomonly tax threshold would rise by that every year.

I think the sinple fix for this would be to peg the Income Tax threshold to the basic state pension level. That would mean working people for some benefit from the triple lock as the incomonly tax threshold would rise by that every year.

I think the sinple fix for this would be to peg the Income Tax threshold to the basic state pension level. That would mean working people for some benefit from the triple lock as the incomonly tax threshold would rise by that every year.

I doubt they would do anything that sensible

This is a good point. I started work around the same time.

Over the years, I’ve seen the pension age rise. I’ve never been up in arms and ranting about how lucky those older than me are.

When I first started work, there was no option to join pension schemes. One company, you had to be over 30 to join, another you couldn’t join until you’d been there for two years. Auto enrolment and employer contributions are a great thing, but not all of us will have had years of that to accumulate.

Definitely swings and roundabouts, with a few seesaws thrown in too.