With the income tax threshold frozen at £12,570 since 2021-22, anyone with a state pension next year of more than £242 a week will have some tax to pay.

Visgir1

So no change then. You have always paid tax if you "earn" above the tax threshold.

Yes, but you have traditionally had it deducted at source. This way there will be a bill sent to people retrospectively so pensioners will have to budget for a tax bill.

That is a big change.

NannyDaft

I love taking my Grandchildren out to Christmas things - I think it is a lovely idea ! But it can be very tiring have plenty of breaks and a sit down Yes I too would have called my DH a similar name ! Enjoy

I think you’ve taken a wrong turning, * NannyDaft*!

However, the frozen tax allowances are a big issue because more and more people, pensioners or not, will be sucked into paying tax. And more people will be sucked into paying the higher rate of tax when they really are not receiving very high incomes. It’s a massive tax grab by Jeremy Hunt

Ive pointed out in several threads that this is one of the reasons highly qualified people (like consultants for example) are working part time, or why older skilled people who are much needed (midwives come to mind) are reluctant to return to work or do more hours. They will be hammered by the unfairness of the system and who wants to work for the tax man?

There are legal ways to manipulate the system but I am not going to discuss them on a public forum.

It doesn’t make sense to tax those whose only income is the State Pension so let’s hope the threshold is raised to avoid that.

biglouis

*However, the frozen tax allowances are a big issue because more and more people, pensioners or not, will be sucked into paying tax. And more people will be sucked into paying the higher rate of tax when they really are not receiving very high incomes. It’s a massive tax grab by Jeremy Hunt*

Ive pointed out in several threads that this is one of the reasons highly qualified people (like consultants for example) are working part time, or why older skilled people who are much needed (midwives come to mind) are reluctant to return to work or do more hours. They will be hammered by the unfairness of the system and who wants to work for the tax man?

There are legal ways to manipulate the system but I am not going to discuss them on a public forum.

You keep saying this, but never answer when I ask how over-50s are 'hammered by the taxman'? They (we) pay the same as younger people. I do consultancy on a part-time basis, and pay tax on all of it because of my occupational pension, but would have to pay tax whether I had retired or not.

Are you suggesting that there should be a lower rate for older people? There would be riots if that happened

I didn't assume any such thing Blossoming. Try rereading what I actually wrote.

Are you suggesting that there should be a lower rate for older people

There used to be a higher tax allowance for those above pension age but it was taken away by Darling (may he rot in hell). It was initiated to thank older people for their many years of contribution to society. Also to take account of the fact that it is more difficult for older people (who may not be in good health) to improve their income by getting a job which suits them. Yes I believe that higher tax allowance should be restored for those who have a gross annual income of less than say £30,000

Instead we have a tranche of younger working age people sitting on their asses and being subbed out by universal credit (ie the taxpayer). Either because they choose to work only 16 hours a week or because they are in a job with s**t pay. Rather than bolstering these people up they should be made to take a second or third job or at least work full time hours.

Good grief your views are sometimes extreme biglouis. Suggesting that people who are on the minimum wage should have to work extra hours above full time to survive is beyond the pale. We need people in unskilled roles as much as we need those who are in skilled roles. They should be paid a living wage for their minimum wage job.

AGAA4

I have a private pension and a state pension. Tax is taken from my private pension. My state pension is included in this calculation as I thought that state pensions aren't taxed directly?

They are not AGAA4.

Until now the State Pension has always been below the personal allowance. Normally, as the pension goes up, so does the personal allowance. The tax thresholds and benifit increases have worked on a set of percentages that meant a basic pension plus, did not pay tax.

This is where the problem starts. The problem my OP covers is the fact that it appears the government will not warn individuals they have moved into this position.

As I said earlier, this is not quite as bad if you have any amount of your income coming from something that works with PAYE, such as a private pension benefits.

If you only get money from the state, but for instance, have SERPS, when we get to April and triple lock is applied to pensions this may take you over the frozen current tax threshold.

You will be expected to save that money and put in a tax return. Currently, you will not have been told that that is the case.

I have a friend who has an alcoholic S.
She is a lovely woman who works her socks off for her family including him.
He lives at home and is kept by them.
Yes, I know, we all know what she should be doing so no comments on that please, he is her S and she loves him dearly.
He gets jobs, catering ,bar work, as he is a charmer and very personable but of course they only last a few weeks when he can’t get up for the 2nd/ 3rd time in a week.
She told me last week that he is applying for Universal Credit this week citing he is unable to work because he is an alcoholic.
I await the result with interviews.

We need people in unskilled roles as much as we need those who are in skilled roles. They should be paid a living wage for their minimum wage job

That would be upto employers to offer better wages. Or people to get off their backsides and improve their qualifications and skills. It should not be the role of government to allow people to only work part time or to refuse overtime because it will adversely affect their benefit.

As the OP title says this only applies to those whose incomes go above £242 a week after the rise in April.

£242 a week, after the rise ...

annsixty

I have a friend who has an alcoholic S.
She is a lovely woman who works her socks off for her family including him.
He lives at home and is kept by them.
Yes, I know, we all know what she should be doing so no comments on that please, he is her S and she loves him dearly.
He gets jobs, catering ,bar work, as he is a charmer and very personable but of course they only last a few weeks when he can’t get up for the 2nd/ 3rd time in a week.
She told me last week that he is applying for Universal Credit this week citing he is unable to work because he is an alcoholic.
I await the result with interviews.

You would hope they offer him treatment. However, with all the cuts to services ...

biglouis

*We need people in unskilled roles as much as we need those who are in skilled roles. They should be paid a living wage for their minimum wage job*

That would be upto employers to offer better wages. Or people to get off their backsides and improve their qualifications and skills. It should not be the role of government to allow people to only work part time or to refuse overtime because it will adversely affect their benefit.

People who work full time in a minimum wage role should be paid a living wage without working overtime or taking a second or third job. They should not have to rely on benefits, if they were paid a living wage they wouldn’t need them. It’s ridiculous to suggest that the only route is that everybody should gain more qualifications, because we need people do do the unskilled jobs as well.

biglouis

*We need people in unskilled roles as much as we need those who are in skilled roles. They should be paid a living wage for their minimum wage job*

That would be upto employers to offer better wages. Or people to get off their backsides and improve their qualifications and skills. It should not be the role of government to allow people to only work part time or to refuse overtime because it will adversely affect their benefit.

biglois I am really sorry that something has made you so bitter towards the rest of the world and given you such a jaundiced view. Get well soon

I did read what you actually wrote DaisyAnneReturns, that’s why I won’t bother to post anymore in this thread as you obviously find my input unwelcome.

As I see it the problem is that the tax threshold is frozen and previously state pension was below this. Now with pensions rising with inflation, pensions will be above the threshold.
It seems that it is just a way for the government to claw back pension increases, another way of taxing the poor, instead of the rich!
I can’t see the tax system at present coping with it. Pensioners will have to fill in tax returns. Good luck with that….

Casdon

biglouis

We need people in unskilled roles as much as we need those who are in skilled roles. They should be paid a living wage for their minimum wage job

That would be upto employers to offer better wages. Or people to get off their backsides and improve their qualifications and skills. It should not be the role of government to allow people to only work part time or to refuse overtime because it will adversely affect their benefit.

People who work full time in a minimum wage role should be paid a living wage without working overtime or taking a second or third job. They should not have to rely on benefits, if they were paid a living wage they wouldn’t need them. It’s ridiculous to suggest that the only route is that everybody should gain more qualifications, because we need people do do the unskilled jobs as well.

Agreed. Nobody should work a full week and not have enough to live a basic lifestyle. This is a first world country.

I am not in favour of making up part-time wages to full-time with tax credits, but that is an entirely separate issue, surely?

I don't see that not having a preferential tax rate is forcing older people to 'work for the taxman'. I don't really understand why that should be expected, other than possibly to allow them to work fewer hours as they slow down. That would make sense, particularly for people in manual jobs. All the same, it is illogical to say on the one hand that removing the perk is deterring people from working in older age and on the other that it was brought in because it is too difficult for older people to find work. It can't work both ways, can it?

AGAA4

I have a private pension and a state pension. Tax is taken from my private pension. My state pension is included in this calculation as I thought that state pensions aren't taxed directly?

In the coding notice your state pension will be first set off against your personal allowance. The left over balance will then be set off against your private pension.

Has anybody read my earlier post in which I wrote that for anyone who just receives the state pension their tax liability would be £2.80. Why keep on about pensioners not being told what tax they will have to pay. the chances are that HMRC won't bother to collect £2.80 because of the costs involved.

On another note, how many of you know about the Marriage allowance whereby anyone hose income is below the personal allowance can transfer the balance, up to £1260, to their spouse or civil partner if their income is above the PA.

You can go back 4 years if eligible. Here's a link:

www.tax.service.gov.uk/marriage-allowance-application/how-it-works

While I completely agree that it is utterly absurd that the state should give out a pension with one hand and tax it with the other when it is the pensioners only source of income, It is not a case of the state taking back the entire increase in tax.

Only the amount of extra above the personal allowance will be taxed at the current rate. As the current rate amounts to about one fifth of the total excess nobody is going to be losing the entire increase post April 2024. Have we all forgotten how taxation works...

I think it would be a stupid move, not only is it illogical, but it will probably cost IRC more to collect than it will gain in revenue..

BigLouis, I'm afraid I find your view of some of your fellow citizens quite abhorrent...

@Dinahmo 👍

Blossoming

I did read what you actually wrote DaisyAnneReturns, that’s why I won’t bother to post anymore in this thread as you obviously find my input unwelcome.

I'4m sorry you are taking that attitude Blossoming but if you are going to read into a post things thst aren't there, there is very little I ca5n do about it.

I am well aware that the amount of tax is currently small. But as soon as someone crosses the tax threshold every future increase loses 20% at the basic rate.

That is my objection - it means that the government can say it is awarding increases that seem reasonable, but the money in a pensioner’s pocket is in fact less than advertised.