Best Of

Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA

Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.

All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that

Yeah the income will but not the capital. It is easy to tie your capital up without generating £35k of income from it and live off the capital. Pension funds, ISA, capital growth shares, property, etc. Without going into detail I will be miles away from £35k income, but by anyone's measure I am very very well off. That will be true of many well off pensioners. It is how we prepared for retirement if we didn't have a DB pension.

Because of the benefit rules on capital even though I have a low income I lost the WFA as I should. Now, as for a lot of rich pensioners, who don't have DB pensions I will get it.

It is nonsense. I and others like me shouldn't get it. I will probably donate it.

Only if you sell the capital do you get any earnings from it, dividends from shares, rental income from property etc would still count for the £35k +

@hyufd you haven't a clue. I have over £5m invested nearly all of which is not revenue generating but capital generating or doing nothing. It is ISAs, property I don't rent out out but use and can borrow against, drawdown pensions I can control, etc. I will be long dead before I spend all of this. My sole income is my state pension and a few thousand in dividends and interest. I realise capital or savings to make up what I need to live which don't impact the £35k figure. I will be dead before it runs out. Consequently I now get the WFA which is nonsense.

Others who are a lot less well off than me but don't have DB pensions will be doing exactly the same. It is nonsense that I will get it. When tied into benefits I wouldn't.

Any cash drawn out from ISAs could arguably be income and I am sure you would need to check the fine print on that before claiming your WFA

ISAs are tax free. As is any money I borrow against my property, as is 25% of my pension, as is any shares I sell provided I keep below the CGT allowance, as is drawing on my savings. I don't claim the WFA I get it automatically for the very reason that I have a taxable income below £35k.

Yet I have a large amount of capital that is ignored for the purposes of WFA, which wasn't the case prior to the U turn. I will not be an exception here. There will be lots of us, in fact most people I know of my age.

You are defending the indefensible.

So? WFA is also tax free. As a self professed tax dodging LD (quelle surprise) you may have dodged your way back into keeping your WFA, the question is would all the income of HMRC admin trying to find your non taxable income to deprive you of your WFA end up costing more than any savings made?

Excuse me! Tax dodging? I think that deserves an apology. I have never tax dodged. I have bought shares. I have taken out ISAs. I have bought a home and a holiday home to enjoy. I have a DC drawdown pension. I didn't dodge my way into keeping my WFA. On the contrary,I don't want it. It is not my fault Reeves is giving to me. I will give it away. I didn't contrive to get it. This is the Govt fault not mine. So your accusations is very unfair.

Where is the tax dodging there? None whatsoever.

I think you need to apologise for that @HYUFD. I have never dodged a penny of tax in my entire life.

We are not going back to the old days @hyufd are we? We have got on in recent years despite our political differences, but that was uncalled for.

I was just pointing out that the new threshold for WFA doesn't take into account retirees who have saved for their retirement as opposed to the small number who are on large DB pensions. Remember most people are not on DB pensions and those that are mostly get a modest pension and rely on savings as well.

No I will not, it may be legal tax dodging but still a tax dodge nonetheless.

By your own admission you have bought ISAs, used 25% of your pension etc to avoid paying tax on it in retirement.

Hence making it much harder for HMRC to remove your WFA without employing extra administrators to trace all that tax free extra income you have.

I didn't necessarily say that was a negative but a factual tax dodge it is

None of that is tax avoidance let alone evasion. Nor is it a dodgy it's using the tax system as it is designed to encourage people to save for rainy days and pensions.

The 25% lump sum pension was a common way to pay off your mortgage, it's still a decent reason for saving money into a pension.

Likewise ISA's are designed to encourage people to save....

...and also have the side effect of enabling pensioners to tax dodge, legally.

If kjh wants to whinge about still getting his WFA he should not have invested in so many ways of avoiding tax on his retirement income

I didn't you idiot. I did nothing to avoid tax on retirement. I bought a house and a holiday home, I bought shares, I took out a pension through my life. None of this is doing anything to avoid tax. It is normal stuff. The only thing I have done to minimise tax is take out ISAs, which is hardly radical and something everyone does. I have paid oodles of tax and done nothing to avoid it including a huge amount of stamp duty.

This is bonkers stuff @hyufd. It is not my fault that the govt cocks up and gives me WFA which I don't deserve and which I will give away.

Tell me what should I have done differently?

You have just said yourself you did it so much of your income is non taxable and to minimise tax. No, most people don't as most people aren't as high earning and educated in ways to legally tax dodge in retirement as you were.

WFA has been removed for all taxable income over £35k, to remove it for legal tax dodgers like you would require HMRC to employ lots of extra administrators to trace all the extra tax minimised income you get and find enough to get you over the £35k threshold.

Which would end up costing the HMRC more than any savings made from finally removing your WFA in the end

Hang on - he hasn't

The single thing he has done is take his taxed earnings and saved them in an ISA...

To legally minimise tax in retirement

And you wouldn't

You are so tedious at times

But the stupid thing is I didn't. Not at all. I have done nothing to avoid tax in retirement.

I have done nothing to reduce my tax in retirement unless you count taking out a pension and investing in ISAs. You know what everyone does. In fact the Government makes you do the former now for goodness sake. It is compulsory.

It is not my fault that the Govt is so stupid it gives me the WFA when it really shouldn't and as a consequence @hyufd accuses me of being a tax avoider when I have done nothing to avoid tax and will voluntarily give it away. I mean what more can I do to make @hyufd happy.

And he seems to think that if only HMRC had the resources they would find a pot of money to tax of mine. Sadly my affairs are not that complicated. They know it all.

I may be missing something here but I’m really struggling to see, in this spat, what you’ve done that is in any way wrong or any different to what millions of us do 🤷‍♂️

Nope you have got it all right. Mad isn't it.

I simply made the point that with the U turn on WFA I will now get the WFA even though I am well off and that I shouldn't and that I will give it away.

Some may think that virtuous of me.

Not @HYUFD. It has somehow evolved (god knows how) into me being a tax avoider. How is beyond me.

Rest assured I very much doubt anyone else on here agrees with HYUFD on this. Or even understands what he is trying to claim.

“Man who raped child and attempted to rape woman in west London park is jailed for life”

https://x.com/standardnews/status/1941165936356049280?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

“Navroop Singh, 24”

Terrible, but I sense a subtext.
Spit it out, man.

Oh sorry, you want a context? Uhm, ok. Shall we look and see what country now has the highest incidence of rape in the world? Here you go



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics

Those statistics are of reported rapes. Given how few rapes are reported it's actually encouraging to see Britain at the top, as it suggests that women are more likely to report rapes here than elsewhere, and that's surely the first step to tackling the problem and reducing incidence.

Sweet Jesus Christ I’m going to preserve this reply in amber, like a Mesozoic freak mosquito, so it can be admired in future centuries in its pristine weirdness

This opener is especially brilliant

“Those statistics are of reported rapes. Given how few rapes are reported it's actually encouraging to see Britain at the top”

You really should read the text of your own sources.

" Each entry is based on that country's definition of rape, which varies widely throughout the world. It does not specify whether recorded means reported, brought to trial, or convicted. It does not include cases of rape which go unreported or unrecorded"

So as an example - a study conducted by France’s National Observatory on Crime and Criminal Justice concluded that 9 out of 10 rapes in Paris go unreported - so are not included in your statistics.

“Those statistics are of reported rapes. Given how few rapes are reported it's actually encouraging to see Britain at the top [of the World Rape Chart]”

Are you encouraged, Richard?

I am more disturbed by the fact you seem to be reveling in rape statistics and are reduced to using partial and dubious data sets (which you also misinterpret) as a means of proving some rather obscure point.

I am not encouraged by any rape. But if they are happening I would much rather see every one of them reported than 9 out of 10 ignored and the whole system that allows violnce against women perpetuated.

You are doing nothing to make the world a better place by weaponising the statistics of violence against women for your own ends.

Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA

Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.

All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that

Yeah the income will but not the capital. It is easy to tie your capital up without generating £35k of income from it and live off the capital. Pension funds, ISA, capital growth shares, property, etc. Without going into detail I will be miles away from £35k income, but by anyone's measure I am very very well off. That will be true of many well off pensioners. It is how we prepared for retirement if we didn't have a DB pension.

Because of the benefit rules on capital even though I have a low income I lost the WFA as I should. Now, as for a lot of rich pensioners, who don't have DB pensions I will get it.

It is nonsense. I and others like me shouldn't get it. I will probably donate it.

Only if you sell the capital do you get any earnings from it, dividends from shares, rental income from property etc would still count for the £35k +

@hyufd you haven't a clue. I have over £5m invested nearly all of which is not revenue generating but capital generating or doing nothing. It is ISAs, property I don't rent out out but use and can borrow against, drawdown pensions I can control, etc. I will be long dead before I spend all of this. My sole income is my state pension and a few thousand in dividends and interest. I realise capital or savings to make up what I need to live which don't impact the £35k figure. I will be dead before it runs out. Consequently I now get the WFA which is nonsense.

Others who are a lot less well off than me but don't have DB pensions will be doing exactly the same. It is nonsense that I will get it. When tied into benefits I wouldn't.

While the header is undeniably bad for Starmer, this polling out today is more positive:

https://bsky.app/profile/yougov.co.uk/post/3lt5ldggzy22h

Not much love for the alternative either.

Given how shit the last Tory government was that's absolutely damning for Labour. To be rated the same as the Tories who were 14 years in and completely exhausted after just a year must be some kind of record.

I also think there's a lot of Tory voters who have realised how big of a mistake it was to stay home and sit on their hands. They could have got 50-80 extra seats and pushed Labour into a much smaller majority if they'd not been so selfish. It is going to be up to Kemi to try and harness that regret and turn it into votes for them. This poll should give them a target now. Find out who that 33% is made up of and ruthlessly target them with policies and ads.

Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA

Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.

All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that

Where is the government brave enough to say that those with an income in excess of £35k don't actually get the OAP, or at least a diminished share of it? We are so deeply in debt and we are borrowing outrageous sums. Radical approaches need to be taken or we risk catastrophe.

Given they will have paid in via NI and state pension eligibility is based on that that won't happen, WFA never depended on NI contributions.

Though the triple lock could be ended for higher earning pensioners

Not enough. Not nearly enough. We need to find £75bn of savings. We need to find £75bn of cuts and yet we need to increase defence spending. It is a hellish situation and I have some sympathy for Reeves and even Starmer although they were quite content to tell lies to win the election. We need to stop pretending.