State pension goalposts moved again
Discussion
Welshbeef said:
What 2 teams?
These already exist
1 is called HMRC it collects taxes
2 is called DW&P
We have a system called income tax which is universal and ensures as is in effect means testing.
I'll repeat my question are you and others genuinely suggesting means testing on top of income tax thresholds and LTA ? If so WFt and why?
You have already listed the two teams, neither of which could be described as agile or lean organisations. Removing the pension component from DW&P would mean a significant reduction in both their head count and the systems they have to support at the expense of a much smaller increase of staff needed to manage the change in personal allowance at HMRC. HRMC already manage personal allowances for pensioners, the extra work comes around the monthly "refund" process.These already exist
1 is called HMRC it collects taxes
2 is called DW&P
We have a system called income tax which is universal and ensures as is in effect means testing.
I'll repeat my question are you and others genuinely suggesting means testing on top of income tax thresholds and LTA ? If so WFt and why?
I don't know what WFT means.
Why I have already addressed, it is inefficient to pay out and then tax that pay out, and if we decide that we are spending too much on the state pension then the amount we spend has to be decreased. Current Government strategy is to increase the age you are eligible for state pension and hope enough people die before the point it becomes unaffordable. That is actually means testing already, those with access to better jobs, better food, etc. usually have more money and will live longer. However it is trusting that life expectancy will not suddenly increase and deferring savings rather than enacting them now. For example if we cure some of the major types of cancer then all of their projections go out of the window.
I would rather we base our savings on things we have a better idea of (pension funds have to report on their funds/liabilities so we should know who will and will not have x private pension) and enact those savings now.
I read threads like these and it amuses me in a perverse sort of a way.
How many people have met more than a very few in their 90's? Of those that i have met i think i would take the lives of about 10-20% of them. For many life is a constant round of dressings to be changed, pills to be taken, and being unable to do much more than walk to the loo in between visits to the Doctors, Hospital and funerals of the few people that they still know left (if well enough to attend.)
These are not people spending £10,000's a year on anything but likely living on not much more than that, regardless of actual assets.
This is before we start to think of all those with mental health issues, etc.
Frankly the way that i have lived my life thus far I doubt that there will be much left in the tank by the age of 70 to do more than abuse young people on PH and change my Tenna for Men from time to time. I certainly doubt that i will be pot holing in Australia.
Another little fact i have picked up on is that between the ages of 70 and 80 you age at the same sort of rate you aged between 10 and 20...
Dignitas is going to be a very busy place in 20 years time.
How many people have met more than a very few in their 90's? Of those that i have met i think i would take the lives of about 10-20% of them. For many life is a constant round of dressings to be changed, pills to be taken, and being unable to do much more than walk to the loo in between visits to the Doctors, Hospital and funerals of the few people that they still know left (if well enough to attend.)
These are not people spending £10,000's a year on anything but likely living on not much more than that, regardless of actual assets.
This is before we start to think of all those with mental health issues, etc.
Frankly the way that i have lived my life thus far I doubt that there will be much left in the tank by the age of 70 to do more than abuse young people on PH and change my Tenna for Men from time to time. I certainly doubt that i will be pot holing in Australia.
Another little fact i have picked up on is that between the ages of 70 and 80 you age at the same sort of rate you aged between 10 and 20...
Dignitas is going to be a very busy place in 20 years time.
Rude-boy said:
I read threads like these and it amuses me in a perverse sort of a way.
How many people have met more than a very few in their 90's? Of those that i have met i think i would take the lives of about 10-20% of them. For many life is a constant round of dressings to be changed, pills to be taken, and being unable to do much more than walk to the loo in between visits to the Doctors, Hospital and funerals of the few people that they still know left (if well enough to attend.)
These are not people spending £10,000's a year on anything but likely living on not much more than that, regardless of actual assets.
This is before we start to think of all those with mental health issues, etc.
Frankly the way that i have lived my life thus far I doubt that there will be much left in the tank by the age of 70 to do more than abuse young people on PH and change my Tenna for Men from time to time. I certainly doubt that i will be pot holing in Australia.
Another little fact i have picked up on is that between the ages of 70 and 80 you age at the same sort of rate you aged between 10 and 20...
Dignitas is going to be a very busy place in 20 years time.
I've no idea where you get your information from How many people have met more than a very few in their 90's? Of those that i have met i think i would take the lives of about 10-20% of them. For many life is a constant round of dressings to be changed, pills to be taken, and being unable to do much more than walk to the loo in between visits to the Doctors, Hospital and funerals of the few people that they still know left (if well enough to attend.)
These are not people spending £10,000's a year on anything but likely living on not much more than that, regardless of actual assets.
This is before we start to think of all those with mental health issues, etc.
Frankly the way that i have lived my life thus far I doubt that there will be much left in the tank by the age of 70 to do more than abuse young people on PH and change my Tenna for Men from time to time. I certainly doubt that i will be pot holing in Australia.
Another little fact i have picked up on is that between the ages of 70 and 80 you age at the same sort of rate you aged between 10 and 20...
Dignitas is going to be a very busy place in 20 years time.
Zigster said:
JagLover said:
TEKNOPUG said:
I think it should be completely scrapped. Why should the state fund your retirement? Why should the state make pension contributions to people that clearly don’t need the money? We’ve already established that we haven’t “paid into anything”. .
But we have National insurance is paid for the NHS and to build up an entitlement to the state pension. The fact that this is on a PAYG basis rather than into a fund does not change this fact.
It is fair and reasonable for increases in healthy years spent in retirement to result in an increase in the retirement age. Not to remove people's accrued pension rights.
And if it was removed altogether for, say, those under 25 years old, how would the future pension get paid for those aged over 25?
So payments out to old investors is made by using payments in by new investors.....so a Ponzi...
"Companies that engage in Ponzi schemes focus all of their energy into attracting new clients (NI payers) to make investments. Ponzi schemes rely on a constant flow of new investments to continue to provide returns (Pension payments) to older investors. When this flow runs out, the scheme falls apart."
So as you say "if it was removed altogether for, say, those under 25 years old, how would the future pension get paid for those aged over 25?" - we're stuck in this cycle where the demands of those requiring payments outstrip the pace of those paying in. Hence why they have to keep moving the goalposts, either by deferring the qualifying age, reduced the payments or increasing the contributions.
tankplanker said:
ou have already listed the two teams, neither of which could be described as agile or lean organisations. Removing the pension component from DW&P would mean a significant reduction in both their head count and the systems they have to support at the expense of a much smaller increase of staff needed to manage the change in personal allowance at HMRC. HRMC already manage personal allowances for pensioners, the extra work comes around the monthly "refund" process.
I don't know what WFT means.
Why I have already addressed, it is inefficient to pay out and then tax that pay out, and if we decide that we are spending too much on the state pension then the amount we spend has to be decreased. Current Government strategy is to increase the age you are eligible for state pension and hope enough people die before the point it becomes unaffordable. That is actually means testing already, those with access to better jobs, better food, etc. usually have more money and will live longer. However it is trusting that life expectancy will not suddenly increase and deferring savings rather than enacting them now. For example if we cure some of the major types of cancer then all of their projections go out of the window.
I would rather we base our savings on things we have a better idea of (pension funds have to report on their funds/liabilities so we should know who will and will not have x private pension) and enact those savings now.
Third time in asking. - it's a very simple question too. I don't know what WFT means.
Why I have already addressed, it is inefficient to pay out and then tax that pay out, and if we decide that we are spending too much on the state pension then the amount we spend has to be decreased. Current Government strategy is to increase the age you are eligible for state pension and hope enough people die before the point it becomes unaffordable. That is actually means testing already, those with access to better jobs, better food, etc. usually have more money and will live longer. However it is trusting that life expectancy will not suddenly increase and deferring savings rather than enacting them now. For example if we cure some of the major types of cancer then all of their projections go out of the window.
I would rather we base our savings on things we have a better idea of (pension funds have to report on their funds/liabilities so we should know who will and will not have x private pension) and enact those savings now.
1. We have income tax bandings which are universal which effectively means tests the income you receive.
2. You have the LTA lifetime allowance which is he max value you can invest into a pension pot & its growth if it's over 1.25m (which is about a £30k year pension give or take) then that it specifically taxed at an extra 55% over and above income tax rates.
3. Paying in a lifetime of National insurance payments - paying for the older generations pension and those who spend everything throughout their lives.
So please explain why those people should have to pay even more taxes?
It gets to a point you think sod it I'll spend it all too to avoid it being spent in taxes when I'm older. At least that way I get to enjoy it plus the state will then pay me state pension which is lose otherwise.
You could even try to balance it / worth it he exact Private pension needed not to lose any state pension then spend he rest.
I note you say people should declare all assets on self assessments. Fine art pricy wine expensive rare classic watches tie clips rings classic cars are all tax free so do not need to be declared.
tankplanker said:
I would expect a sliding scale reduction of state pension based on overall income once you hit retirement age that meant you were still better off for having the private pension (or part time job or similar) than you would be for just having the state pension.
That seems fair to me.Maybe I'm in the minority, but I'd like to think if I was a multi-millionaire or retiring on a pension of £50K PA or above I wouldn't be bothered in the slightest if the government didn't give me £8K a year.
Same with winter fuel payments, free bus passes, etc.
Welshbeef said:
2. You have the LTA lifetime allowance which is he max value you can invest into a pension pot & its growth if it's over 1.25m (which is about a £30k year pension give or take) then that it specifically taxed at an extra 55% over and above income tax rates.
MLA is now £1M, but is supposed to increase by CPI from 06/04/18.tankplanker said:
SunsetZed said:
That wouldn't work though for anyone who had pensions that weren't wholly converted into annuities though. Means testing a pension is a really tricky one with pensions freedom, you have to look at assets rather than income but then which assets do you include, e.g. is a primary house, second home included? Or do you solely look at money held in pension wrappers, and if so at what time, when the person is eligible for state pension or at 55 which (currently) is when it can be accessed.
As a broad brush I'd still expect anybody with complicated finances to be completing a self assessment and the difference collected at that point so anything that is a liability today would still apply. However I expect it is the detail around this that is one of the reasons why means testing hasn't been implemented. If you look at the half arsed way they means test child benefit and child tax credits then I expect them to f
k it up the same way with pensions.Welshbeef said:
So please explain why those people should have to pay even more taxes?
It gets to a point you think sod it I'll spend it all too to avoid it being spent in taxes when I'm older. At least that way I get to enjoy it plus the state will then pay me state pension which is lose otherwise.
You could even try to balance it / worth it he exact Private pension needed not to lose any state pension then spend he rest.
I note you say people should declare all assets on self assessments. Fine art pricy wine expensive rare classic watches tie clips rings classic cars are all tax free so do not need to be declared.
I have already, more than three times, please reread my posts again on this as I'm not repeating myself. If you don't believe we need to cut the money we spend on the state pension then please outline where else we can make similar savings and hedge against future rises in state pension expenditure due to an increasing population (assuming free movement is still present in some form with places that want to send us workers after Brexit is finally finished) and an increasing life expectancy. It gets to a point you think sod it I'll spend it all too to avoid it being spent in taxes when I'm older. At least that way I get to enjoy it plus the state will then pay me state pension which is lose otherwise.
You could even try to balance it / worth it he exact Private pension needed not to lose any state pension then spend he rest.
I note you say people should declare all assets on self assessments. Fine art pricy wine expensive rare classic watches tie clips rings classic cars are all tax free so do not need to be declared.
I've also stated several times that it would be a sliding scale, and that it would need to be waited so that those with private pensions would still be better off than those without. I would also expect most to use their private pension to retire earlier than wait till they are 68/69 and then top up their private pension with the state pension at that point.
Taking a pension as a lump sum to avoid future means testing is a problem that will need addressing, there are several ways to achieve that some more draconian than others, which is best is not something I have an opinion on. Anything income producing that is already covered by self assessment is already covered, if it isn't covered then it needs to be added if it becomes a common way to avoid the cap/tax.
Digga said:
Hoofy said:
Rovinghawk said:
Hoofy said:
If you're talking about 60-somethings in the future ie those in their 30s and 40s, they will probably be able to use whatever new version of Excel exists in 20-30 years' time. And those who are coding apps now will happily be able to code apps for whatever devices exist in 20-30 years' time.
For one start up I'm involved with, I'm both the oldest and the most technically capable. I usually have to provide support when the others are struggling. And our external tech support guy is about 5 years older than me.
We can't all just tap away at computers- someone somewhere will actually have to do something in the real world.For one start up I'm involved with, I'm both the oldest and the most technically capable. I usually have to provide support when the others are struggling. And our external tech support guy is about 5 years older than me.
When I was first booted up, life was simple, it was all ones and zeros. I'm not so sure any more. :-(
200Plus Club said:
I suspect you aren't an industrial pipefitter, or contract floor layer. Neither of whom are likely to have much left of their knees or backs by 70 yrs old.
We need to think about the people who will genuinely be physically worn out at 65+
What will they do for the remainder?
I'm a Paramedic so this affects me greatly. For example at 67 we would still be expected to carry people downstairs. On top of 30/40 years wear and tear on knees and backs. It's just not viable to expect people to do this job in your 60's. I see all the time with staff over 60. They slow down, their driving deteriorates and the night shifts kill them. We need to think about the people who will genuinely be physically worn out at 65+
What will they do for the remainder?
tankplanker said:
have already, more than three times, please reread my posts again on this as I'm not repeating myself. If you don't believe we need to cut the money we spend on the state pension then please outline where else we can make similar savings and hedge against future rises in state pension expenditure due to an increasing population (assuming free movement is still present in some form with places that want to send us workers after Brexit is finally finished) and an increasing life expectancy.
I've also stated several times that it would be a sliding scale, and that it would need to be waited so that those with private pensions would still be better off than those without. I would also expect most to use their private pension to retire earlier than wait till they are 68/69 and then top up their private pension with the state pension at that point.
Taking a pension as a lump sum to avoid future means testing is a problem that will need addressing, there are several ways to achieve that some more draconian than others, which is best is not something I have an opinion on. Anything income producing that is already covered by self assessment is already covered, if it isn't covered then it needs to be added if it becomes a common way to avoid the cap/tax.
I'm sorry but you have not. I've also stated several times that it would be a sliding scale, and that it would need to be waited so that those with private pensions would still be better off than those without. I would also expect most to use their private pension to retire earlier than wait till they are 68/69 and then top up their private pension with the state pension at that point.
Taking a pension as a lump sum to avoid future means testing is a problem that will need addressing, there are several ways to achieve that some more draconian than others, which is best is not something I have an opinion on. Anything income producing that is already covered by self assessment is already covered, if it isn't covered then it needs to be added if it becomes a common way to avoid the cap/tax.
I'll ask for the 4th time.
1. we have income tax. Which is universal and means tests income.
2. We have a lifetime pension pot of c£1m anything beyond that when it's paid out you pay your prevailing income tax rate PLUs 55% additional tax charge.
What are you taxing ? It's beyond 100%.
Why should pensioners have a different income tax banding? What if a pensioner elects to carry on working but it's utterly financially unviable as the taxes you are angling towards are so punitive no one would bother.
As I said if you tax it too high you'd instead spend it instead and enjoy it during your working life then let the state take care of you as what's the difference you'd pay it in tax instead.
Or let's say instead you put it into ISAs are you suggesting that actually the govt would then remove the tax free wrapper from ISA investments? Is that the same for premium bonds too?
Think.
The govt want to have less people reliant on the state in old age. Guess what a policy which is very unpalatable will mean fewer people bother to save for the future. You need to encourage the correct behaviour
As for free tv licence bus passes winterfuel payments. Roll them all into the state pension as it's toxic to take away then you have the income tax thresholds which will draw it back.
I find it very amusing when some celebs say they have sent a cheq to HMRC for the winter fuel allowance stating they don't want it... however that means they have paid back the gross value not the net ... lol silly boys.
Welshbeef said:
2. We have a lifetime pension pot of c£1m anything beyond that when it's paid out you pay your prevailing income tax rate PLUs 55% additional tax charge.
I see you have amended your MLA, but your understanding of the excess tax charges is incorrect.If you take the excess as a lump sum the one off tax charge is 55%. If you take the excess as a pension over time then the one off charge is 25% plus income tax as you draw it.
Having said all that I don't know why you are bringing in personal/occupational pensions into a state pension discussion.
Entitlement to State Pension is not linked to your income tax so you argument is fundamentally flawed. It is based on NI history or notional credits received during your working life.
I do agree that it would be wrong to means test it though as it is not a 'free' benefit.
PurpleMoonlight said:
I see you have amended your MLA, but your understanding of the excess tax charges is incorrect.
If you take the excess as a lump sum the one off tax charge is 55%. If you take the excess as a pension over time then the one off charge is 25% plus income tax as you draw it.
Having said all that I don't know why you are bringing in personal/occupational pensions into a state pension discussion.
Entitlement to State Pension is not linked to your income tax so you argument is fundamentally flawed. It is based on NI history or notional credits received during your working life.
I do agree that it would be wrong to means test it though as it is not a 'free' benefit.
Because people on here are talking about means testing hence it's totally relevant. If you take the excess as a lump sum the one off tax charge is 55%. If you take the excess as a pension over time then the one off charge is 25% plus income tax as you draw it.
Having said all that I don't know why you are bringing in personal/occupational pensions into a state pension discussion.
Entitlement to State Pension is not linked to your income tax so you argument is fundamentally flawed. It is based on NI history or notional credits received during your working life.
I do agree that it would be wrong to means test it though as it is not a 'free' benefit.
Plus if you invrease state pension age then it forces up the private pension age/earliest you can draw it which it utterly unfair. We have our own pots why can we not draw it from the 55yo age? That is our house once pot is gone it's gone. Our choice.
Welshbeef said:
Plus if you invrease state pension age then it forces up the private pension age/earliest you can draw it which it utterly unfair. We have our own pots why can we not draw it from the 55yo age? That is our house once pot is gone it's gone. Our choice.
Because there are tax advantages to saving in a pension scheme, so the Government put restrictions on when you can access it. 10 years before SPA is fair I feel.Other then serious ill health it has almost always been 10 years with the exception for 2006 - 2010 (I think from memory).
Robertj21a said:
I'm not even sure that the subject needs the 10 pages so far dedicated to it.
The change is just adding 1 year - it's totally logical - it doesn't take effect for ages - it's really not a big deal.
It's The change is just adding 1 year - it's totally logical - it doesn't take effect for ages - it's really not a big deal.
1. £8.5k loss to all of those in that group of people. (£30pcm for the rest of their working lives)
2. Private pensions currently on 55yo which can be drawn will now start 3 YeaRS later - depending on what your pension fund or final salary is you've lost 3 years regardless let's say £6k a year on average so £26k net loss!
3. It's restricting job opportunities for younger people as oldies stay on longer working filling jobs causing out of work benefits to be paid.
4. Generally speaking the OAP retirement you want to get the big holidays out of he way before your 70yo as beyond that your starting to get frail. Hardly anyone in their 80's goes overseas on holiday partly due to no one will give you travel insurance but also your old frail tired too hot for you etc.
So yes pretty important.
Welshbeef said:
It's
1. £8.5k loss to all of those in that group of people. (£30pcm for the rest of their working lives)
2. Private pensions currently on 55yo which can be drawn will now start 3 YeaRS later - depending on what your pension fund or final salary is you've lost 3 years regardless let's say £6k a year on average so £26k net loss!
You really are on a role today!1. £8.5k loss to all of those in that group of people. (£30pcm for the rest of their working lives)
2. Private pensions currently on 55yo which can be drawn will now start 3 YeaRS later - depending on what your pension fund or final salary is you've lost 3 years regardless let's say £6k a year on average so £26k net loss!
Agree with the one years pension loss, on top of the two years loss announced a few years ago. Nothing like what some women lost moving from age 60 though.
You haven't lost any private pension because the money is still there in the pension scheme because you haven't drawn upon it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff