ChatterBank0 min ago
George Osborne is saying "no pensioner will lose in cash terms"
29 Answers
So how then will he be raising the £3bn from pensions if no pensioner will lose cash? I need to explain this to my Dad who is totally confused (and so am I)! Can anybody help?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by chaptazbru. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
There is an added complication.
At present the personal allowance is £7,475pa. This will increase to £8,105 for 2012-13 and to £9,205 for 2013-14. The over-65s personal allowance is currently £10,500 and this is to be frozen. Furthermore, people reaching 65 from April 2013 will not be eligible for the increased allowance, so their allowance will be £9,205 when someone who reached 65 a little earlier will be allowed £10,500. So they will be £259 (£10,500-£9,205 = £1,295 x 20% = £259) worse off. Of course, over 65s who can take advantage of the £10,500 allowance might properly have expected that allowance to increase to cope with inflation, so they too will be worse off, but to a lesser degree. (This incidentally creates yet another layer of unequally treated pensioners. We already have those who draw their pension under the 44/39 year NI contribution rule who are often worse off than those only required to contribute 30 years. The new guaranteed pension of £140 per week, said to be introduced by 2015, will only be available to new pensioners.)
Of course the usual spin is imposed on this. Intriguingly it is reported that the new measure will “save” the government £1bn by 2015. This of course is designed to give the impression that the government is being prudent. In fact quite the reverse is true. The £1bn will not be “saved”. That amount will be an additional burden on pensioner taxpayers and the sum so taken from them, far from being saved, will be added to the amount the government wastes each year. The proper report should read "This will give the government an additional £1bn a year to squander which will be taken exclusively from older people".
It will be interesting to see how the over 65 vote for this apology for a government holds up by the time it has “saved” its precious £1bn.
At present the personal allowance is £7,475pa. This will increase to £8,105 for 2012-13 and to £9,205 for 2013-14. The over-65s personal allowance is currently £10,500 and this is to be frozen. Furthermore, people reaching 65 from April 2013 will not be eligible for the increased allowance, so their allowance will be £9,205 when someone who reached 65 a little earlier will be allowed £10,500. So they will be £259 (£10,500-£9,205 = £1,295 x 20% = £259) worse off. Of course, over 65s who can take advantage of the £10,500 allowance might properly have expected that allowance to increase to cope with inflation, so they too will be worse off, but to a lesser degree. (This incidentally creates yet another layer of unequally treated pensioners. We already have those who draw their pension under the 44/39 year NI contribution rule who are often worse off than those only required to contribute 30 years. The new guaranteed pension of £140 per week, said to be introduced by 2015, will only be available to new pensioners.)
Of course the usual spin is imposed on this. Intriguingly it is reported that the new measure will “save” the government £1bn by 2015. This of course is designed to give the impression that the government is being prudent. In fact quite the reverse is true. The £1bn will not be “saved”. That amount will be an additional burden on pensioner taxpayers and the sum so taken from them, far from being saved, will be added to the amount the government wastes each year. The proper report should read "This will give the government an additional £1bn a year to squander which will be taken exclusively from older people".
It will be interesting to see how the over 65 vote for this apology for a government holds up by the time it has “saved” its precious £1bn.
You're not a burden on them, ladybirder (though their "spin" will have you believe so).
If you've always been a source of income for them I assume you've paid your taxes and NI. Your pension is what you paid you're NI for. Just because successive administrations have pee'd your contributions up the wall instead of investing them on your behalf ready for you to draw, is hardly your fault.
If you've always been a source of income for them I assume you've paid your taxes and NI. Your pension is what you paid you're NI for. Just because successive administrations have pee'd your contributions up the wall instead of investing them on your behalf ready for you to draw, is hardly your fault.
Perhaps to point out to Boy George that to say "no pensioner loses in cash terms" is utterly vacuous and meaningless, we should insist that all MPs receive the same salary "in cash terms" as they did in 1946 ... approximately £1000 - or even (since I'm in a generous mood) they can have what they got in 1979 - £9450.
as a pensioner i seem to be successfully worse off every year. don't know why i worked and saved for all thse years. i only ever managed to save a widow's mite but they have always taxed that and now . . . . i agree with sunny dave. perhaps all politicians with other means should give up their salaries for the good of the country (that means just about all of them) or even better they shoule have to manage all the time on what we get so they really can be in it with us all together.
New Judge - so when Osborne states "No pensioner will lose in cash terms" that is in fact a lie?? So in effect My Dad (and millions of others) will be anything up to £260 p.a. down, meaning over £21 a month less cash in his pocket ?? That's a lot for a pensioner. I despise this Government they also took £100 of his fuel allowance away. Do they just want pensiones to go away and die ....
<i agree with sunny dave. perhaps all politicians with other means should give up their salaries for the good of the country (that means just about all of them) or even better they shoule have to manage all the time on what we get >
Problem with that is that then only rich people would want to become MPs and so would be even more likely to enact measures favouring the rich at the expense of the rest of us.
<Do they just want pensioners to go away and die >
Do you really need to ask that question?
Problem with that is that then only rich people would want to become MPs and so would be even more likely to enact measures favouring the rich at the expense of the rest of us.
<Do they just want pensioners to go away and die >
Do you really need to ask that question?
Latest Posts
Shopping & Style0 min ago
Shopping & Style4 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
Jokes8 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.