Age Allowance for Income tax should apply regardless of income.

[Taxpayer]

I think it is very wong that your age allowance is reduced when your income hits £24,000 in retirement.
In order to thank pensioners for paying tax at 40% while they were working the Age Allowance should not be reduced regardless of income and all taxable income should only be taxed at 20% when you reach 65.
Also pension credit etc should be abolished to finance this.

Taxpayer

[EDDIE51]

So a 66 year financier on £12 million a year should only pay 20% tax !!! and you want to finance this by abolishing pension credit which helps the poorest pensioners have an acceptable standard of living ? nice one, don't expect much sympathy with this.

[cathfromsaron]

ditto

[Taxpayer]

Why should the 66 year financier pay more than 20% tax. He should be thanked for all the tax he paid up to 65.

Taxpayer

[bednobs]

well taxpayer, all you have to do is become prime minister and then you can make all the changes you want

[New Judge]

I don't think so, bednobs. David Cameron is allegedly Prime Minister at the moment and he cannot do so much as draw a deep breath without the permission of Nick Clegg.

[brenda]

Taxpayer-- without pension credit many would find it impossible to survive.

[New Judge]

But back to the question.

The 66 year old would pay £2.4m, Eddie. Surely sufficient for any individual. Instead of finding ways to raise ever-increasing amounts of income the government should concentrate on finding ways to stop wasting money. As a start it could cease all overseas aid immediately and also find out why, in the face of “unprecedented cuts” in public spending, fourteen departments have increased their staff headcounts by between and 5% and 10% in the past six months. There might then be enough cash to provide everybody with a decent State pension (without resorting to the ridiculous Pension Credit rigmarole) and be no need to nick 50% of high-earners income from them.

[Taxpayer]

Brenda

If a person has only contributed enough to have say £10 a week that is all they should get.
Another good cut would be to abolish the royal family and get rid of Lord Mayers.
Don't heat jails. Flog offenders instead of putting them in jail in some cases.

[VHG]

Obvioulsy "taxpayer" has no concept of what it is going to cost the government to support the aging population in the next 50 years or so.

If you study the population pyramid of the UK (see below) you see we have a huge number of people in the 40 to 60 age group, and a SMALLER number of people in the 0 to 30 age group.

As the people in the 40 to 60 age group get older they will need to be supported (ie paid for) by those currently in the 0 to 30 age group, and there just are not enough of them earning money and paying taxes to do that.

If you think it is bad now it will get a lot worse in the next 10 or 20 or 30 years.

This is why the government are tryng to reduce the pensions of the public sector workers, this country just cant afford to fund pensions for a population that is living longer and expecting better care and support.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/..._structure_rev5.shtml

[Taxpayer]

Hi VHG.

Nobody is supporting me. I pay more in tax than what I get in state penson.

[VHG]

>>>>Nobody is supporting me.

No but there are milllions of others who DO need support.

Anyway you may not need support now but if you have a bad stroke you could need 24 hours care for the next 10 or 20 years and someone has to pay for that.

So unfortunately anyone who earns a decent amount (be it in a job or getting a decent pension) will have to pay a part of it to pay for the support of the aging population.

[Taxpayer]

Everybody should pay the same amount.

[Taxpayer]

They could also put cigarettes up to £20 for a packet of 10.

[dzug2]

I do find taxpayers idea of an ideal society umm interesting

Stil there won't be any need for a state pension in his utopia. The old will have either starved to death, frozen to death, died of disease or been flogged to death or hung for flouting the anti-begging laws.

[factor-fiction]

Hi taxpayer- the age allowance is a tax concession (allowing pensioners to earn more before they start paying tax than a non-pensioner earns before paying tax)), so all that is happening is that the concession is gradually withdrawn once a pensioner's income reaches £24000.

I agree that pension credit (with associated means testing) needs to go as the process puts off deserving cases and it also discourages provision of private pensions- provided the state pension is boosted accordingly.

[cathfromsaron]

probably means lord mayors?

[Flyhalf]

First, Age Allowance: possibly an outmoded option, should perhaps be deferred to age 75 these days. I do agree it is silly, and probably not cost effective to phase it the way it is now - give it to all, or none.
Reduced tax for over-65's on ALL income: all that would happen is that those who can exercise control over their income would suddenly have reduced income between 60 and 65 for it to miraculously swell again once the age is reached. As ever,only the well-off would gain.
What could be a fair middle road would be to exempt state pension, and perhaps a small portion (no more than 10%) of ANY pension. This already happens with pensions based on service abroad. Then Age Allowance could be removed altogether.

[Taxpayer]

Hi BIGJACK

Everyone should pay their way regardless of income.
If it costs say £3,000 per year to run the public services that is what everybody should pay.
I do not see why I should pay more because I saved to get myself a decent pension.

[Flyhalf]

You resisted the temptation to say "I'm all right, Jack", which seems to sum up your philosophy on this matter. Your "decent" pension implies "decent" or better earnings while working - not everyone is so fortunate.
What did you earn when you first started in your career, and were you happy to pay the same amount as the bosses, who I imagine earned 5, 6 or more times what you did? I suspect not, and you should have some sympathy for those on lesser incomes than yours today.
Even the Sheriff of Nottingham knew there was only so much you could squeeze from the poorer folks!

[1eyedjack]

This notion that the younger taxpaying public owes to its retired population a debt in recognition of past tax contributions of the latter during their working life is a novel concept.

Current taxation is generally raised to fund current expenditure. The 40% tax (or whatever) that the OP paid during his working life paid for the health, education, defence, local services etc of the society of which he was a part during his working life. It was never ringfenced to fund his lifestyle in retirement. That is what pension contributions are for.

On the subject of fairness, it is perhaps more relevant to ask, why should an individual, who has paid off his mortgage, divested himself of dependent children, and no longer has a commitment to commuting charges, also be provided through the tax system with an advantage over someone who is in receipt of the same level of taxable income but is encumbered with those expenses?