PPRuNe Forums


Jet Blast Topics that don't fit the other forums. Rules of Engagement apply.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 19th May 2017, 15:10   #9421 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 69
Posts: 330
Quote:
Originally Posted by vctenderness View Post
One minute McDonnell is setting out his plans to tax the 'rich' that being anyone earning over £80K. The next he is ranting at the wicked, evil Tories planning to take the winter fuel payment away by means testing it.

I am guessing that the means testing will be based on higher rate of tax so therefore those earning over £80K will definitely not be receiving it.

So what does he want? Take money from them or not?
When you read his comments fully, he has expressed a belief that the plan will be to take away the fuel allowance from those pensioners who do not qualify, or claim, pensions credit. As May has not given any costings etc to any of her pie in the sky promises, McDonnell had to come to this conclusion by looking at how much the Tories want to garner via the fuel allowance move (£1.5 Billion) and work back from that figure. 10 Million could thus see their allowance cut. And 10 Million is not the number of pensioners who are on generous pensions.
See? Easy isn't it?
KelvinD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th May 2017, 15:22   #9422 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Richard Burtonville, South Wales.
Posts: 1,543
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seldomfitforpurpose View Post
If your income is above the 40% tax rate you have absolutely no need of the winter fuel allowance, no doubt someone will come along and say otherwise but as a principle pensioners paying 40% tax on their income have no need of another £300 for winter fuel.

Truth be known they also don't really have a need for a free bus pass, free tv licence or a state pension but that would probably be a grab to much.
And for Wales, add free prescriptions, which I think are a disgrace.

CG
charliegolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th May 2017, 16:35   #9423 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 59
Posts: 1,944
Absolutely CG, got friends in Carmarthenshire who are pulling down fairly serious bucks yet don't pay anything for prescriptions which doesn't really seem right.
Seldomfitforpurpose is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 19th May 2017, 16:50   #9424 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Lincoln
Age: 65
Posts: 398
This is from the NHS England site; I take it in Wales under 60's get free prescriptions as well?:

You can get free NHS prescriptions if, at the time the prescription is dispensed, you:

are 60 or over
are under 16
are 16-18 and in full-time education
are pregnant or have had a baby in the previous 12 months and have a valid maternity exemption certificate (MatEx)
have a specified medical condition and have a valid medical exemption certificate (MedEx)
have a continuing physical disability that prevents you from going out without help from another person and have a valid MedEx
hold a valid war pension exemption certificate and the prescription is for your accepted disability
are an NHS inpatient
You are also entitled to free prescriptions if you or your partner – including civil partner – receive, or you're under the age of 20 and the dependant of someone receiving:
Income Support
Income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance
Income-related Employment and Support Allowance, or
Pension Credit Guarantee Credit
Universal Credit and meet the criteria
If you're entitled to or named on:
a valid NHS tax credit exemption certificate – if you don't have a certificate, you can show your award notice; you qualify if you get Child Tax Credits, Working Tax Credits with a disability element (or both) and have income for tax credit purposes of £15,276 or less
a valid NHS certificate for full help with health costs (HC2)
People named on an NHS certificate for partial help with health costs (HC3) may also get help.
Exrigger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th May 2017, 17:17   #9425 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Richard Burtonville, South Wales.
Posts: 1,543
Exrigger: everyone.
charliegolf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th May 2017, 17:24   #9426 (permalink)
Thought police antagonist
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Where I always have been...firmly in the real world
Posts: 830
The Labour proposal was for only those in the top 5% to be excluded from the winter allowance.

And as somebody who is a regular bus user ( it makes sense to save money ) and, in Derby, the bus network is very efficient, I can assure you that the demographic of those also using a bus, and bus pass, doesn't include the top 5%...

However, pure Tory enticing hypocrisy surfaces.....

True, it does get cold in Scotland, but it also gets cold in Wales, England and N.I.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...mcdonnell-says
Krystal n chips is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th May 2017, 17:28   #9427 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Lincoln
Age: 65
Posts: 398
CG, thanks, never knew that, I have said elsewhere; everyday is an education on here.
Exrigger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th May 2017, 17:56   #9428 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seldomfitforpurpose View Post
If your income is above the 40% tax rate you have absolutely no need of the winter fuel allowance, no doubt someone will come along and say otherwise but as a principle pensioners paying 40% tax on their income have no need of another £300 for winter fuel.

Truth be known they also don't really have a need for a free bus pass, free tv licence or a state pension but that would probably be a grab to much.
Spot on. If we want a fairer society (isn't that a Labour mainstream policy?) then it seems perfectly reasonable that the state should support those in need, not those who patently are not in need.

After all, the average income in the UK is around £26.6k, so anyone earning, or in receipt of a pension, that is more than that is, by definition, on an above average income.

What's so special about pensioners (and I am one) that those on an above average income should receive a host of free handouts, funded by those who may well be earning less?

It's patently unfair to give away tax payers money to those who don't really need it. And, just in case some think that all pensioners need more money than everyone else, I can confirm some words of wisdom from my late father in law (a retired BA senior captain as it happens). When I was offered early retirement (part of the first wave of government cost cutting, following the financial crisis) I was a bit concerned at my salary halving. He told me not to worry, as for some reason your outgoings fall a fair bit after you retire (he was in his late 70's when he said this).

He was absolutely right. My salary halved, but my income only dropped by around 30% or so, because of the change in income tax and national insurance. That income drop was largely compensated for by what had been work-related costs that I no longer incurred, like commuting, work clothes (I've never worn a tie since retiring!), wear and tear on the car, etc, etc, so in reality I never even noticed the income change at all.

There's no reason I should have free prescriptions, get a free bus pass in a few months time, get the winter fuel allowance etc, as I'm better off now that I was for around half my working life. I'd far rather my government "free gifts", partly paid for by the taxes of those on a lower income, were used to help those who really need them.
VP959 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 19th May 2017, 18:45   #9429 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 59
Posts: 1,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
Spot on. If we want a fairer society (isn't that a Labour mainstream policy?) then it seems perfectly reasonable that the state should support those in need, not those who patently are not in need.

After all, the average income in the UK is around £26.6k, so anyone earning, or in receipt of a pension, that is more than that is, by definition, on an above average income.

What's so special about pensioners (and I am one) that those on an above average income should receive a host of free handouts, funded by those who may well be earning less?

It's patently unfair to give away tax payers money to those who don't really need it. And, just in case some think that all pensioners need more money than everyone else, I can confirm some words of wisdom from my late father in law (a retired BA senior captain as it happens). When I was offered early retirement (part of the first wave of government cost cutting, following the financial crisis) I was a bit concerned at my salary halving. He told me not to worry, as for some reason your outgoings fall a fair bit after you retire (he was in his late 70's when he said this).

He was absolutely right. My salary halved, but my income only dropped by around 30% or so, because of the change in income tax and national insurance. That income drop was largely compensated for by what had been work-related costs that I no longer incurred, like commuting, work clothes (I've never worn a tie since retiring!), wear and tear on the car, etc, etc, so in reality I never even noticed the income change at all.

There's no reason I should have free prescriptions, get a free bus pass in a few months time, get the winter fuel allowance etc, as I'm better off now that I was for around half my working life. I'd far rather my government "free gifts", partly paid for by the taxes of those on a lower income, were used to help those who really need them.
Pretty much all you say resonates and for the life of me I cannot understand why the Left are so discombobulated about the 'better off' in society taking a hit in the manner Mrs May is proposing.
Seldomfitforpurpose is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 19th May 2017, 20:25   #9430 (permalink)
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Brighton
Age: 63
Posts: 8,277
Dear god, this is in the Grauniad, KnCs bible....

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...supreme-leader

I thought they ought to start handing out the poison pills to the majority of the back benchers to put them out of their misery - but it seems the shadow front bench need them as well...
ORAC is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 19th May 2017, 20:34   #9431 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Darkest Surrey
Posts: 4,757
Remind me what they were saying about World economy in Q1 2008.......
racedo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th May 2017, 20:42   #9432 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Darkest Surrey
Posts: 4,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by charliegolf View Post
At the first signs of care needs (unlikely we'll both have the onset of serious needs at the same time), sell our house, rent a place near my daughter and give her the proceeds of the sale along with anything over £100k we have left. The kids can back channel cash for the rent. Doable?

CG

Nope

As in Bankruptcy ANY and ALL transactions that are conducted in a way to disenfranchise creditors or future care costs can get unwound. Anything gifted or sold to a family member is guaranteed to be at risk.

A friend in property who came close to going under said his method was to become a member of a casino after selling assets he had equity in, spending lots of time at the Casino with meals, some gambling but forever moaning about the bad luck as always losing. Questions about assets was that decided to try and win back enough cash to take care of liabilities but just couldn't get out of a losing streak. Casino's do not I believe record how much you spend on the premises.
racedo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th May 2017, 21:14   #9433 (permalink)

I'd rather be floating

 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England
Posts: 3,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by VP959 View Post
What's so special about pensioners (and I am one) that those on an above average income should receive a host of free handouts, funded by those who may well be earning less?

It's patently unfair to give away tax payers money to those who don't really need it.
There are a number of arguments here, several of them reasonable and pulling in different directions (quite apart from the cynical answer to "what's so special about pensioners", 'cos we all know it's "they vote").


(1) There's the claim that universal benefits are actually cheaper for the taxpayer than means tested benefits, and are better targeted. This works as follows:


- the better targeting comes because everyone who needs it gets it, not just those who are capable of jumping through what are sometimes quite horrendous hoops necessary to claim it


- you get it back from those who don't need it via the tax system, which is there anyway and lots cheaper to administer than a separate means testing system.


(2) Contrarywise, there's the argument that pensioners shouldn't get any of these benefits at al! - why is it up to the state to say that pensioners getting bus rides, prescriptions and TV is "good" and worth subsidising, where as pensioners getting nights in the pub and foreign holidays isn't. Why not, FFS, junk all the benefits, and just pay out a decent basic pension instead. This has the advantage of losing the bureaucratic cost of administering all these other systems, and you get something priceless for free: you get to treat pensioners as grown-ups who can be trusted to make their own decisions.
Gertrude the Wombat is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 19th May 2017, 21:28   #9434 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Darkest Surrey
Posts: 4,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groundbased View Post
What is your solution for reforming the pension system for those not in the Public Sector since most have little or no provision?
The workplace pensions introduced by Labour in 2008 is a start as forces both employee and employer to do something.

In reality most people will be lucky after 40 years if its worth £100k.

However with people living longer it is a timebomb waiting to happen as Govt hasn't the resources to afford it.

Figure in 10 years Govt may offer a buy out to those with Private Pensions over 50 years of age.

Waive your right to receive the State Pension and Govt will enhance your private pension pot by (Life Expectancy - Age receive Pension) X Yrly Pension grossed up by expected inflationary increases discounted by Marginal tax rate
or
maybe (Age receive pension - Years left to retiremen) x same calc.

Edit............... Potentially give this as an increased personal allowance would reduce tax take but could be split over number of years working to retirement - 4 years.

Quote:
It would have been better to have left your funds in and waited given that the FTSE 100 was around 4000 before the 2008 crash and is now at nearly 7500.
I did mention that it was 1987 Crash, went back in and money has gone up a bit since then.

Oh I have invested elsewhere, some horrible losses due to mixing risk but way more gains than losses due to going for Capital growth. Get investment value out soon as practical and then let value above investment find its own level and try and sell below peak so some profit for someone else.

Side investment is using existing BTL's for pension but will probably flip into Ltd Company with each family member as shareholder.

Bad thing about being a minority shareholder in a Private Ltd company is that your shareholding is worth jackshit.
Especially if other shareholders have pre emption rights on purchase of anothers shareholders holding, in event of sale and they hold 50.0001% of shares ..................... also a very good thing as it has little value in open market .

Last edited by racedo; 19th May 2017 at 21:55.
racedo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th May 2017, 21:53   #9435 (permalink)

I'd rather be floating

 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England
Posts: 3,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by racedo View Post
In reality most people will be lucky after 40 years if its worth £100k
So, my sums go as follows:

If you're living on around £100k pa and you want to keep your standard of living and do so long term, which means not spending all the income from your investments, but keeping a fair chunk of it to keep the capital intact, then in normal times, with interest rates around 10%, you need a pension pot of around £2m (half the income to maintain the capital against inflation, the other half for your pension).

I don't have £2m. And if I did, with interest rates twenty times lower, at 0.5%, one would actually need £40m.

So I don't expect ever to be able to afford to retire.
Gertrude the Wombat is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 20th May 2017, 01:10   #9436 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: On the beach with a cerveza.
Posts: 1,056
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gertrude the Wombat View Post

I don't have £2m. And if I did, with interest rates twenty times lower, at 0.5%, one would actually need £40m.
Surely if you have £2m floating around you wouldn't put it in the bank earning 0.5%?
Jet II is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 20th May 2017, 06:13   #9437 (permalink)
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Brighton
Age: 63
Posts: 8,277
Lord Ashcroft starting weekly estimates of election result.

Lord Ashcroft: My election model?s probabilities currently suggest a potential Conservative majority of 162 | Conservative Home

Last week, I launched the Ashcroft Model – a project bringing together large-scale surveys and detailed census data to help understand what could be happening at constituency level in the general election: which party is likely to be ahead in each seat, and the potential implications for overall seat numbers in the House of Commons. I explained how it works here. Today, as will be the case every week until the election, I am updating the model’s estimates based on a further 2,000-sample survey, conducted over the past week but before the party manifesto launches.......

According to the model’s updated figures this week, during which Labour’s position has solidified, the combined probabilities currently give the Tories a total of 406 seats, or a potential majority of 162. However – and crucially – the model’s estimates include 95 seats which are only “leaning” to a party, or are “too close to call”.

Probabilities not predictions – and why Labour turnout is key

As I explained when launching the Ashcroft Model last week, we are dealing here with probabilities, not predictions. The model uses the survey and census data to calculate the probability that certain types of people will behave in certain ways, and extrapolates this information to individual constituencies according to the profile of their population. Inevitably, this means we are applying a national model to local areas with their own circumstances, so we should be prepared for some anomalies.

But while the chance of pointing to the right winner in all 632 of the seats covered by the model is remote, it does show the probability of ending up with different overall election outcomes. If turnout were to match the 2015 election, the Ashcroft Model suggests a 13.7 per cent chance of a Conservative majority between 160 and 179, a 35 per cent chance of a Conservative majority between 180 and 199, a 25.9 per cent chance of a Conservative majority between 200 and 219, and a 12.2 per cent chance of a Conservative majority between 220 and 239.



It is worth noting here that while the 2015 turnout model uses data from the marked electoral register which shows who actually voted, the 2016 model relies on people’s own recalled turnout, and the 2017 model on their current stated intention to turn up and vote. As the chart above shows, Labour do better in the latter two scenarios than if turnout matches 2015: when figures are based on information about who has probably turned out to vote, Labour do less well than they do when we rely on people’s own reported behaviour or intentions.

Turnout among Labour supporters, then, holds the key to the result. Will Labour’s deep red manifesto motivate jaded supporters? Will Labour voters be spurred to turn out and keep Theresa May’s majority in proportion? Or will they be too demoralised by the state of their party and its prospects to make it to the polling station? (And by the same token, how many Tories will assume the election is comfortably in the bag, and put their feet up?) All these sentiments have been expressed in our recent focus groups, which I am also reporting each week – we will see which tendency wins out.....
ORAC is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 20th May 2017, 08:19   #9438 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Hampshire physically; Perthshire and Pembrokeshire mentally.
Posts: 1,332
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gertrude the Wombat View Post
So, my sums go as follows:

If you're living on around £100k pa and you want to keep your standard of living and do so long term, which means not spending all the income from your investments, but keeping a fair chunk of it to keep the capital intact, then in normal times, with interest rates around 10%, you need a pension pot of around £2m (half the income to maintain the capital against inflation, the other half for your pension).

I don't have £2m. And if I did, with interest rates twenty times lower, at 0.5%, one would actually need £40m.

So I don't expect ever to be able to afford to retire.
That's a bleak outlook and one I can't agree with. First let me say that unless one has made many millions in business there is no prospect of maintaining the same income in retirement as one had in work. The truly rich have no need of pensions, it's just the rest of us who do.

I don't think interest rates of 10% can be considered "normal". If they get that high there is serious inflation loose and borrowing rates would be crippling. Think 12-15% mortgages and higher rates on personal loans and other finance deals. That would be financial armageddon for millions.

You need to be in world-wide equities, corporate bonds and some hedge funds. The old model of switching everything to government bonds and bank deposits for retirement is broken for the foreseeable future. There isn't a high enough yield. A certain level of risk has to be accepted.

It also has to be accepted that "decumulation" will probably occur. At the moment natural yield (dividends and interest) is about 2.5%. So if that is taken along with another 2.5% from the capital then an income of 5% is realised. So a fund of £1m will support a £50k annual income for at least 20 years and probably a good deal longer when capital gain in the investments is added. If 4% is taken (£40k) which is the current "norm" the fund should still grow.

My IFA is very good with graphs and predictions which take historical data and smooth out the peaks and troughs. The graphs show that with 4% income taken the fund should still be twice its current value in 20 years if I make no changes to the strategy and risk level (I'm not high risk - not now).

I'm still working so not yet fully relying on pensions but drawdown is going well for me.
Wingswinger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th May 2017, 08:21   #9439 (permalink)

I'd rather be floating

 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England
Posts: 3,177
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jet II View Post
Surely if you have £2m floating around you wouldn't put it in the bank earning 0.5%?
I could put it in the stock market. Oh wait, that's at a record high, so the likelihood is that it'll go down in the short period before my official retirement age.


Or I could put it in property (and indeed have done so with some of the rather less than £2m that I do have). Lots more hassle, with regulations changing every five minutes, and that earns all of a whopping ... 4%. Which is, I admit, actually positive, net of inflation (at 2.7% or something this week? - but we haven't had the full effects of #brexit yet), but the remaining 1.3% is nowhere remotely enough to live on.
Gertrude the Wombat is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 20th May 2017, 09:03   #9440 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: In the circuit
Posts: 176
But your £100k pension example is not really typical is it.

If we took current earnings of £45K at say age 50, that might represent a larger element of the population. However there are a number of factors at play. Let's say that you have a mortgage which you are paying off on a repayment basis and you expect to finish that at age 65, and some modest unsecured debts which you will also pay off by retirement age. In that scenario an income of half what you currently have in real terms plus a modest state pension should be more than adequate, and to achieve that a pension pot of around £300K will probably be enough to provide a reasonable income in retirement using a combination of annnuity and drawdown. If reasonable contributions are started early enough that £300K pot should be achievable.

The big problem is the alternative scenario where this individual has an interest only mortgage which will leave them with the capital to repay at 65, rolling over debt on credit cards and other loans (PCP schemes etc) until retirement. In this scenario the ability to contribute to a pension is limited and income in retirement will be a problem.

The choices we make during our working lives have a big impact on how our retirement goes. People can do as they wish, but I find the outlook of some who seem to expect income in retirement to magically happen, who expect their house to be their pension or to expect the state to provide some super pension depressing.

Investing in a market based pension is a bit of a lottery, but then so is everything in life. There is no guarantee that property values or any other kind of asset based investment is always going to go up in value.
Groundbased is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 14:55.


© 1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1