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?

Well let’s start with it being raised by another £550 from next April?

“Today I will maintain all income Tax and equivalent National Insurance thresholds at their current level for three further years from 2030, while ensuring that people only in receipt of the basic or new state pension do not have to pay small amounts of tax through Simple Assessment from April 2027.”

Meanwhile, young people who face higher than ever costs of living do not receive any consideration in order to reduce the effects of fiscal drag. The income tax bands have stayed frozen and will remain frozen until 2031. The costs of living at very disproportionately front loaded - buying a house, settling down, etc etc.

By pension age your living costs should be considerably lower. No mortgage, no childcare, less food etc.

Yet I do not get any benefit at all.

My parents bought a house for £80k that's now worth a million .
They had free uni education.
They know they are very lucky

It doesn't, it says if they only have the state pension they won't pay tax on it. If you have other income you will pay tax on that plus your state pension. That was how some expert explained it on sky news.

I adore my parents. One of the many things that's so great about them is that they're fair-minded and generous and so realise that they were an incredibly lucky generation. It saddens them that their children and, particularly, their grandchildren have such different prospects despite, as you say, really just being younger versions of themselves.

It is unless it is your only income.

It should be taxed at the normal rate.

It is taxed.

Not anymore.

It is difficult to link to this being explained as it isn’t the main budget headline but a quick google brings this up.

”But Rachel Reeves said in her Budget statement that pensioners whose sole income was the basic or new state pension would not have to pay small amounts of tax if it exceeded the personal allowance from April 2027. The government is expected to set out more detail about how this will be achieved next year.”

I think it’s a sneaky way to give workers an effective lower personal allowance.

The standard Personal Allowance is £12,570.

BBC:

"The state pension in April will rise by 4.8% in line with average wages, which means:

the new flat-rate state pension - for those who reached state pension age after April 2016 - will increase to £241.30 a week, or £12,547.60 a year, a rise of £574.60

the old basic state pension - for those who reached state pension age before April 2016 - will go up to £184.90 a week, or £9,614.80 a year, a rise of £439.40

In general, you need 35 years of qualifying contributions to get a full state pension."

But if you have a private pension or other income then it will be clawed back, the limit is £35k with no tiering, under you keep it, over it's taken back.

And a working person’s personal allowance is less than that.

Quite. In today's budget:

Supporting the incomes of over 12 million pensioners through a commitment to the Triple Lock for the duration of this parliament. In April 2026, the State Pension will be uprated by 4.8%, so pensioners will receive up to an additional £575 a year.

A lot of workers would be very, very delighted with a 4.8% increase!

The personal allowance IS the same for pensioners and working people!!!

God MN really does detest older people.

Not to worry, they'll probably die soon 👍

It is.

Good.

working people don’t get any help with their bills. In fact the pensioners of Mumsnet love to disparage young people if they can’t afford anything. I’ve been called a leech and a parasite for still living at home because I can’t afford to get on the housing ladder. Something changes when you hit 66 though apparently. Suddenly you become entitled to all of this extra money.

I’m getting a 20p per hour pay ride as a minimum wage nhs worker. According to Mumsnet that’s the worst thing ever!

It’s not helpful to put one group against another.

Im pleased pensioners are being treated with dignity in their old age. It does not need to come at the expense of chances for younger people. It’s not one or the other.

I have people of all ages in my family, from 11 to 92. Everyone understands that work is best and that people deserve to keep more of what they earn. That we look after the most vulnerable through taxes.

The state has ballooned and overall spending needs to come down. If you don’t need to rely on the state you should work.

Less than what?

The Personal Allowance is the same - £12,570.

It is the same! If your earnings are the same amount as the state pension you don't pay any tax either. The personal allowance applies to all income earned or unearned.

Isn't the 4.8% linked to average pay increases as inflation is lower than that. That must mean most workers have had at least 4.8% increase.

That’s not how it works.

Nailed it.
I saw this thread and my first thought was Here We Go Again.
Endless moaning and spite from posters who are absolutely convinced that no generation has ever had things as tough as they have. Today's much-despised boomers are laughing in their faces as they skip off on yet another cruise, apparently.
I am not quite a boomer (born in 1967) but by the time i retire at 67, I will have worked for 50 years. So - assuming retirement age does reach 70 by the time these moaners get there, they probably still won't have worked as long, assuming they entered the workplace at 21 or 22, which seems to be about normal now.
My generation had lower house prices, that's certainly true, but we had a lot harder working life as parents. I was certainly not counting my good fortune when i returned to work full time (no flex working) when my baby was 12 weeks (6 weeks 90% pay, 12 weeks SMP) and pating full nursery fees (no subsidies).
And before anyone says it, both parents working was certainly the norm in the 90s.
I get utterly fed up of reading how hard done-by young families are when the expectations are so much higher than they were even 20 years ago. Soft play, new toys, annual holidays, 'experiences', takeaways, beauty treatments, activities and lunches out were all very occasional treats when i was beinging up my first child i the 90s.
Yes. I am talking in cliches and attacking younger people, but honestly the bitterness shown towards older people on MN just sickens me.