Current Affairs EU In or Out

[Old Blue 2]

You receive it gross, but it counts towards your nil rate band. Like I said, Technically tax free.

edit. In the same way your income from a personal pension is nearly always taxed at source, ergo taxed income.

Yes it is received gross, but then it's taxed. They just take the money from elsewhere by way of the overall calculation.

Let me give you the example in simple, fantasy, figures.
Pre-RP
Receive = £10,000
Allowable income for tax purposes (say) = £5,000
Taxable = £5,000

With RP
Receive = £10,000
Receive RP = £5,000
Total new income = £15,000
Allowable income for tax purposes (say) = £5,000
Taxable = £10,000

Both at 20%

It's taxable, roydo, but not at the source of the RP. It's taxable at the source of the other income.

 

[roydo]

Yes it is received gross, but then it's taxed. They just take the money from elsewhere by way of the overall calculation.

Let me give you the example in simple, fantasy, figures.
Pre-RP
Receive = £10,000
Allowable income for tax purposes (say) = £5,000
Taxable = £5,000

With RP
Receive = £10,000
Receive RP = £5,000
Total new income = £15,000
Allowable income for tax purposes (say) = £5,000
Taxable = £10,000

Both at 20%

It's taxable, roydo, but not at the source of the RP. It's taxable at the source of the other income.

Which is exactly what I said.

 

[Old Blue 2]

It was one of 3 options to help funding the state pension. It is an option. I have bolded the bit you seem to have missed.

They are given as answers...

But anyway, I'm still waiting for Bruce to come back with the good reasons why '1' is a reasonable thing to do.

 

[roydo]

They are given as answers...

But anyway, I'm still waiting for Bruce to come back with the good reasons why '1' is a reasonable thing to do.

He never said it was a good idea, just that it was an option. It is, but a crap idea. Been done for years anyrate, (if you are retired, you wont notice), and has really reached its limit at the ballot box.

 

[Old Blue 2]

Which is exactly what I said.

No it isn't! You said it isn't taxed! OK, you say 'technically' it is tax free. It isn't. If you can't see that, then there is no further point. I know what I pay my tax on, and I pay my tax on my company pension AND my RP. If I didn't pay any tax on my RP, I would receive a certain amount more each month when I receive my company pension. It's as simple as that.

 

[Old Blue 2]

He never said it was a good idea, just that it was an option. It is, but a crap idea. Been done for years anyrate, (if you are retired, you wont notice), and has really reached its limit at the ballot box.

I will come back and give my answer if Bruce does not respond to that point.

 

[roydo]

No it isn't! You said it isn't taxed! OK, you say 'technically' it is tax free. It isn't. If you can't see that, then there is no further point. I know what I pay my tax on, and I pay my tax on my company pension AND my RP. If I didn't pay any tax on my RP, I would receive a certain amount more each month when I receive my company pension. It's as simple as that.

Never said it was tax free. Said it was untaxed income.

If your only income is a state pension, it will be paid gross, and if you stay under the nil rate band, or even a bit above it, you will not pay tax on it.

Pension income from a private pension is nearly always taxed at source, and you have to reclaim any over paid tax you may have paid. Ergo, taxed income.

 

[hullefc]

Will Theresa May explain what she real believes. May believes there will have to be a hard border on the island of Ireland but in public she is saying there does not have to be a hard border. What a sham prime minster she is. Oh no there wont. Oh yes there will and here was me think the pantomime season was finished.

Theresa May admitted there could be no open border in Ireland if Britain outside the EU, newly emerged video shows
The Prime Minister gave an interview before the referendum saying there would 'have to be' a border if Britain left the EU

• Joe Watts Political Editor
• @JoeWatts_

A video has emerged of Theresa May admitting there cannot be an open border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, if Britain leaves the EU.

The Prime Minister, who was Home Secretary at the time, said there would “have to be” some sort of border to recognise that tariffs may be charged on goods entering and leaving the UK and to account for different immigration rules.

It comes amid a major clash between EU negotiators and Ms May, who yesterday said Brussels’ plans for the Irish border are “unacceptable”.

• READ MORE

May’s Brexit plan makes trade barriers ‘inevitable’, says EU
In the video, recorded on June 21, 2016, two days before the referendum, Ms May said: “Just think about it.

“If we are out of the European Union with tariffs on exporting goods into the EU, there’d have to be something to recognise that, between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

“And if you pulled out of the EU and came out of free movement, then how could you have a situation where there was an open border with a country that was in the EU and has access to free movement.”

Yet since becoming Prime Minister, Ms May’s approach to Brexit has seen her insist the UK can leave the EU and its customs union while also keeping the border in Ireland all but open – something which is seen by many as critical to peace in the region.

EU officials have dismissed her approach, and said if the border remains open between Northern Ireland and the Republic, there must also be regulatory alignment between the two areas, and a customs border in the Irish Sea to catch goods moving to the unaligned UK, if Ms May takes the country out of the customs union.

Yesterday the Prime Minister said in the Commons that the EU’s proposals would undermine the integrity of the UK and could not be accepted by any British leader.

Labour MP Chuka Umunna, a supporter of the Open Britain group which dug out the film, said: “Before the referendum, before she became Prime Minister, and before she was dependent on the DUP to drive through her plans for a hard Brexit, Theresa May told the truth – if we leave the customs union and the single market there will be a hard border in Ireland.

“It is imperative that Ms May uses her ‘Road to Brexit’ speech tomorrow to be honest with the people of our country about what the consequences of her hard Brexit policy are.

“She needs to drop the dishonesty and face down the extreme Brexiteers in her party.”

A Downing Street spokesperson said the Government does understand the “complex challenges” that Brexit presents for the Northern Irish border, and is committed to finding a way forward with all parties.

He added: “We published a paper on this in the summer, and stand behind what we set out jointly with the EU in December. We look forward to discussing this further with the EU as part of negotiations on our future partnership.

“We’ve been absolutely clear there will be no hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, and Northern Ireland’s position within the common market of the UK will be protected.”

Ms May spent the morning meeting with her Cabinet and discussing the speech which she will deliver tomorrow afternoon".

 

[Bruce Wayne]

The people who advocate the above have got their brains in their backside.

Implement that, and what have you got? You answer this, Bruce, before I give my answer.

In reality, I would advocate a mixture of the three.

1) Raising retirement age makes sense as life expectancies have risen considerably over the last few decades, whilst retirement age has barely moved. This has obvious implications for funding the government as it increases the number of non-workers in relation to workers. It won't ever rise far enough for political reasons, but given the demographics of the nation, it's something I would do.

2) Fertility is a problem throughout most of the developed world, and whilst the UK isn't as bad in this regard as Japan, Italy et al, our birth rate is still below the replacement rate. More pro-fertility policies would seem to be sensible therefore.

3) I've advocated numerous times for open immigration policies. Society benefits enormously from diversity, whether from a cultural, intellectual or economic standpoint. As we're primarily talking economics here, the vast majority of migrants arrive as working age people and have a higher employment rate than the native population. They also statistically have fewer children and return to their homeland before they retire (the opposite of Brits retiring to Spain if you like). They're an economic boon.

Brexit will reduce #3 significantly, so that kinda leaves #1 or #2, but of course even if you implemented #2 today, it will take ~20 years before the children born today are economically active.

 

[Old Blue 2]

Never said it was tax free. Said it was untaxed income.

If your only income is a state pension, it will be paid gross, and if you stay under the nil rate band, or even a bit above it, you will not pay tax on it.

Pension income from a private pension is nearly always taxed at source, and you have to reclaim any over paid tax you may have paid. Ergo, taxed income.

Nah, this is what you said (post #24396): "...And technically, state pensions are tax free..."

In the words of that famous internet phrase: What has been seen, cannot be unseen.

And here, I end my discussion on the matter of RP being taxable.

 

[Old Blue 2]

In reality, I would advocate a mixture of the three.

1) Raising retirement age makes sense as life expectancies have risen considerably over the last few decades, whilst retirement age has barely moved. This has obvious implications for funding the government as it increases the number of non-workers in relation to workers. It won't ever rise far enough for political reasons, but given the demographics of the nation, it's something I would do.

Bruce, I will answer this one, since I queried it in the first place.

I do not agree with raising the retirement age for the following reason: What that does, when people are near or at retirement age (and then it is raised), is 'post block' employment opportunities for those coming into the employment field for the first time. That is, the school leavers and Graduates. That is NOT a good thing. One might perhaps also factor into that, that the youngster is far more likely to do a good/great job,than the person in their 60s or approaching 70. It is an inalienable fact of life that the body does not function as well when old as when young (yes, I know it's a statement of the bleedin' obvious), and that impacts the capability to carry out duties. Is a 70 year-old going to be able to be a fireman, a policeman, a docker, a building worker, as well as a decades younger person? IMO, no. And that probably goes for a whole range of other jobs also.

For what it's worth, the above is my serious, considered, reply to the idea of extending the retirement age. Some may disagree with the above, but it is my reasoning for holding the view that I do.

 

[roydo]

Nah, this is what you said (post #24396): "...And technically, state pensions are tax free..."

In the words of that famous internet phrase: What has been seen, cannot be unseen.

And here, I end my discussion on the matter of RP being taxable.

Mate, you are wrong. Technically they are tax free. They are paid without tax being deducted. As you admitted.

 

[roydo]

Bruce, I will answer this one, since I queried it in the first place.

I do not agree with raising the retirement age for the following reason: What that does, when people are near or at retirement age (and then it is raised), is 'post block' employment opportunities for those coming into the employment field for the first time. That is, the school leavers and Graduates. That is NOT a good thing. One might perhaps also factor into that, that the youngster is far more likely to do a good/great job,than the person in their 60s or approaching 70. It is an inalienable fact of life that the body does not function as well when old as when young (yes, I know it's a statement of the bleedin' obvious), and that impacts the capability to carry out duties. Is a 70 year-old going to be able to be a fireman, a policeman, a docker, a building worker, as well as a decades younger person? IMO, no. And that probably goes for a whole range of other jobs also.

For what it's worth, the above is my serious, considered, reply to the idea of extending the retirement age. Some may disagree with the above, but it is my reasoning for holding the view that I do.

Mate, you are right. Agree with that.

I personally think the high water mark on the retirement age has been met.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Bruce, I will answer this one, since I queried it in the first place.

I do not agree with raising the retirement age for the following reason: What that does, when people are near or at retirement age (and then it is raised), is 'post block' employment opportunities for those coming into the employment field for the first time. That is, the school leavers and Graduates. That is NOT a good thing. One might perhaps also factor into that, that the youngster is far more likely to do a good/great job,than the person in their 60s or approaching 70. It is an inalienable fact of life that the body does not function as well when old as when young (yes, I know it's a statement of the bleedin' obvious), and that impacts the capability to carry out duties. Is a 70 year-old going to be able to be a fireman, a policeman, a docker, a building worker, as well as a decades younger person? IMO, no. And that probably goes for a whole range of other jobs also.

For what it's worth, the above is my serious, considered, reply to the idea of extending the retirement age. Some may disagree with the above, but it is my reasoning for holding the view that I do.

How many fireman or policemen do you know that still work on the frontline as they age versus moving into managerial roles? If we're judging someone purely on apparent physical capabilities, are we also thus excluding women from those roles? I'm sure most would say no.

If we think about it, the state retirement age was introduced at a time when not only did considerably more people work in manual work than do today, but the life expectancy was 20 years less. So we're working in jobs that are physically much less demanding and living a whole lot longer. What's more, there is also a considerably volume of evidence showing the benefits of work to our physical and mental health, which are absolutely crucial as we age.

It's also pretty irresponsible to expect a smaller number of working age people to pay for ones retirement than you yourself did. The baby boomers have already enjoyed the fruits of cheap housing and free tuition fees, now they expect the young to also pay for their NHS care. It does smack of 'I'm alright Jack', and tbh, this inherent selfishness is why the retirement age won't ever go up significantly, as every party knows full well that the elderly vote heavily and routinely kick up a fuss about anything that impacts them, so even though nearly all evidence advocates raising it, it doesn't get raised.

Hence we're left with the other two, but you've also pretty much squashed the immigration option...

 

[Joey66]

Nah, this is what you said (post #24396): "...And technically, state pensions are tax free..."

In the words of that famous internet phrase: What has been seen, cannot be unseen.

And here, I end my discussion on the matter of RP being taxable.

His Google machine has gone haywire lol