Geraldine and the Granny Tax

POGS

I agree that in this country we are better off than in many other countries but the reverse is true as well.

I think we can only deal with the situation where we live and then decide what is fair and what unfair. It is obviously completely unfair that the early 'baby boomer' women are treated so unfairly and not given the pension credits their younger sisters get and therefore do not get a full pension because they stayed home to bring up their children. This was not really a matter of choice as there were no facilities for child care in the way there are now and, even if there were, women were much more badly paid than men and would not have been able to afford it. In 1970 I took over a man's job after he was fired for inefficiency and I was paid only half of what he had been paid! I had to take holiday time for maternity appointments and there was no maternity pay ad my job was not held open for me. I did not manage 39 years NI because of child care and now all they need is 30 years NI and get credits for staying home for child care. At least that little extra tox allowance was a little help.

I made the same comments last week on the Granny Tax.

I am happy to pay the same level of tax as my hard working children!.

Why should I and my husband pay a different level of tax just because we are older? If you are too poor or too rich you are not affected. If you receive the enhanced level of tax now you are not affected as it is frozen and you continue to get a higher tax break upto £10,500. Within a relatively short period the personal tax allowance catches up and the playing field is leveled out. We receive benefits others do not get, such as free travel, prescriptions etc. If you are affected you are receiving State Pension and a very good Works/Other Pension which means you are reasonably comfortably situated and I have no doubt will probably not be paying a mortgage off. I know we all say "I worked hard all my life", we all did and our children are now, why are we so special.

To pensionista, may I tell you of my fathers situation. Two years ago at the age of 92 he was taken seriously ill and hospitalised. Fortunately he returned home with the wonderful help of the local council and Social Services. He has home assistance, his pension and finances were updated to cover the cost. He receives £300 winter fuel payment and £25 cold weather payments. He has free prescriptions, dental care, podiatry care and glasses. This help is available to all of us with less than £16,000 in savings. I bless the fact we live in this country and my father is not treated badly or forgotten by the system.

home

If a worker tells the boss another baby is expected congratulations will be offered - you will not be given an increase in wages/salary.

So why does the state not take the same attitude. 40 years ago we would have liked another child, but we could not afford it, as it would have impacted on the children we had. So we made sure there would be no more.

I will support anyone who, through no fault of their own, falls on hard times, but I am sick of keeping the feckless of this country.

The average salary in this country might be near £25,000 but if you work in retail you will be getting approximately £12,000 - £15,000 per annum (and working weekends and bank holidays)

jongis a jing who zings?

Pardon? Who's jong???

Haven't seen her round here.

jong

Anagram, I am sorry but I disagree. If a parent is a drug addict, for example, their child is removed from them for the child's own good. In the same way, if a parent is addicted to breeding children they cannot keep, that is also child abuse and the child could be taken away from them for its own good. There must be some sort of incentive to stop people who cannot afford children from continually breeding more. Last night on TV I saw young people whose parents had never worked being taught how to sit in an interview as part of a course trying to get them into work. Sensible people keep their families to a size they can cope with and afford, these should be encouraged. Those who have no intention of ever going to work should be discouraged from bringing children who will inevitably end up with the same attitude into the world or what will become of us? I know it does sound very right wing which I am not generally but surely it is common sense that we need a greater proportion of the population in gainful employment than expecting to be kept and if the large families fall into the second category the result is obvious.

sorry jeni

Not another headless chicken act!!!!

It's an advert. It pays for the site!

GERALDINE!
What is this new banner? Nintendo for GN?

Not a case of 'wanting someone else to keep them', more a case of cost effectiveness of paying into a retirement fund with money that has been taxed for it to give a small return which is taxed again.

I agree wholeheartedly about the benefits system, Alison, but the problem is that if there are children in the family the state is bound to support them, so benefits couldn't be reduced that much.

Sorry everyone that I only heard part of the news about the defeat yesterday, shame!

I am beginning to understand why the younger generation don't bother to save or join a pension scheme, as those who do seem to be penalised just like Mollie.

Did anyone see the progamme last night about employers who can't get people to work for them? Basic salary of £18k (outside London) and people prefer to be on benefit! The whole benefit system needs to be changed. In The Netherlands your unemployment pay is 70% of last salary but is time limited and after that the benefits are very, very small. Perhaps we could learn from them.

Oh dear, gone off the subject again, sorry all.

Oh dear, oh dear the S word. You are probably right. I think it's about £16,000 for Council Tax or it could be £8,000 or £24,000 so many different ones for different benefits I do know what you are saying but everyone is in the same situation; I think working families are losing about £1,400 on average by comparison to the average pensioner losing about £300. I do understand what you say about not being able to increase your income - I know, I have to work even though I have retired and I will not be able to do it for ever. Don't get me wrong - I do think they needed to get rid of this rather incongruous tax but I wish they could have helped more with an increase in the pension - but there is no money. The best thing would be to lift more and more people out of tax completely. I think you stop receiving working tax credit when you earn about £16,000 so perhaps, after we get personal tax allowance up to £10,000 we should aim for that figure. I agree with getting rid of the "add-on non-means tested freebies". They should be added to the basic pension and taxed off the other end of the incomes of those who are getting enough to warrant it. To be honest, I feel we have to allow our governments to look to the longer term. That may mean the odd anomaly hurting in the short term but hopefully we would see better things in the future.

thanks for pointing out what I MAY get but two things stand in the way

I have savings as the s word is still very much part of my life-style. My son laughs at me for saving for my old age but I do need a rainy day fund if the car needs money spending or the roof starts to leak. I understand the point of view that says - why should over 65s get a tax break - BUT we have NO way to increase our income and are getting next to nothing on our savings and eating into your capital is not a good idea.
someone younger on a low income could get working tax credits, and generous CTC as well as CB if they have just one child.
Actually I would prefer it if they removed all the add-on non-means tested freebies that over 60s get as it is just grist to the mill of the 'hate the baby boomers' brigade (who seem to assume we are all rich with final salary pensions and hopping off on cruises every year - I wish)

Alison I do think that, in addition to the single persons allowance Mollie may well be entitled to a small amount of Council Tax Benefit. Even if it is only £20 a month it would be worth getting it.

Oh! That puts rather a different light on Alison's statement, doesn't it?

Just to be clear - it is Labour's amendment to the Granny Tax that has been defeated!

Alison Grace is my gorgeous little granddaughter (who lives in Australia with my son, beautiful DIL and my grandson).

I wasn't thinking of parents having one child each but having them for equal time and also being equally able legally to make decisions concerning the needs of the children. This is very difficult at the moment and part of the reason for that is that the benefits system only want one parent to have parenting rights as it simplifies things for them. I will not go further down that road as it is another, very different topic.

Just heard on the radio that the 'Granny Tax' proposal has been defeated in the Commons!

logging off not for the night

Grace, the average salary is somewhere near £25k so I don't think many people are having to manage on £12k. Perhaps those who are will be in receipt of tax credits? Mollie will pay 75% of her council tax as she lives alone, not because of her age or low income.

I am sure Mollie that it is not easy for you to not get some anticipated tax relief. It is not being taken away completely, however, it is being frozen so you will get some benefit from it for some time. Why, I wonder, is it easier for someone younger to manage on the same amount and paying more tax than it is for you? I wish we could all have enough to live on, run a car and have holidays but that ain't going to happen. You must be quite young retired (although obviously over 65) or you should be getting a little help with your council tax shouldn't you. (As always the "I could be wrong" statement goes with that comment).

Grace On the whole I like what you are saying but do think that the parent who is responsible for the children should get the allowance. It is usually one or the other, not often one child each.

The current proposal means that any middle class couple who are not married will not be forced to lose their child benefit as it will be impossible to prove they are living together or even who is the child's father unless an army of snoopers is employed!

I've written to my MP expressing my feelings but she has not even acknowledged receipt. I won't vote for them any more but don't think I can vote for any of the others either. I want the right to abstain!

I think that the payments for the new pension will be £140/150 or whatever per person and not as now a single persons pension or a lower pension claimed on your partners contributions but I could easily be wrong about that.

I agree with your thoughts on child allowance under the current system. As you say they could continue to pay for children who are already here but not pay for any subsequent children. There are problems even with this when a couple split up and then a partner remarries and the second partner does not have children. If you moved to a system where benefits where paid to individuals rather than couples you could perhaps allow people to claim for one child per person. That would then mean if a couple split up (and had two children) each one would get child allowance for one child which could pave the way to an expectation of shared parenting which the conservatives said they would bring forward but are backing off at the moment. Umm ... I'm liking this more and more.