Scrap Income Tax Allowances?

[Hipper]

Another idea:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -48-a-week" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Add to the discussion we had earlier:

http://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboar ... sic+Income" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

One point not made is that continually increasing the standard allowance will not do any more for those who don't earn that much - £12,500 next tax year. The minimum wage is less then that. And of course it is true that higher earners also get this allowance.

I wonder also if this might have some effect on the black economy. If you want this proposed income you will have to be 'registered' with UK plc.

[dsr]

Minimum wage is £7.83 per hour, which is £16,286 p.a. over a 40 hour week.

The big problem with this proposal is that it discourages working. Poorer families where parents go out to work are no better off; poorer families where two adults are living off benefits are £5,000 better off. They could achieve the same effect by scrapping working family tax credits and increasing benefits, but put that way it would be a definite vote loser.

(I presume they would already have some mechanism in place to replace working family tax credits with a benefits increase. Otherwise working families would be significantly worse off.)

[Herts Clarets]

Minimum wage is £7.83 per hour, which is £16,286 p.a. over a 40 hour week.

The big problem with this proposal is that it discourages working. Poorer families where parents go out to work are no better off; poorer families where two adults are living off benefits are £5,000 better off. They could achieve the same effect by scrapping working family tax credits and increasing benefits, but put that way it would be a definite vote loser.

(I presume they would already have some mechanism in place to replace working family tax credits with a benefits increase. Otherwise working families would be significantly worse off.)

Working Tax Credits. One government office taking tax off an employed person, only for another government office to give them back some of their tax paid.

[dsr]

Working Tax Credits. One government office taking tax off an employed person, only for another government office to give them back some of their tax paid.

I'm not saying anything in favour of working tax credits, necessarily; but this system would involve the first government office taking extra money off them which would be given back by a third government office. What's the point?

[Woodleyclaret]

I spent 40yrs amassing a teacher pension only for the revenue to take£250 of the £700 I get in tax
To tax pensions is immoral and criminal
Anyone who manages to pay into a pension should get to keep it
The personal tax allowance is far too low
It becomes necessary for pensioners to have to work part time to survive.

[AndyClaret]

Income tax and NI need to be combined, Personal allowance needs to keep rising, nobody paying tax should be receiving it back in tax credits.

[dsr]

I spent 40yrs amassing a teacher pension only for the revenue to take£250 of the £700 I get in tax
To tax pensions is immoral and criminal
Anyone who manages to pay into a pension should get to keep it
The personal tax allowance is far too low
It becomes necessary for pensioners to have to work part time to survive.

Did you equally object when the contributions you made, and the contributions made for you by the taxpayer, were given 100% tax relief?

[Funkydrummer]

oops - wrong topic

[ElectroClaret]

Woodley, as dsr says, you'd have received tax relief on your pension contributions, so your pot will be a lot bigger because of that.

That's why pensions are taxed.

[tarkys_ears]

I know someone who doesn't get an income tax allowance and only works 4 days a week to avoid paying even more tax than is worth.

Is that progressive?

[TVC15]

I know someone who doesn't get an income tax allowance and only works 4 days a week to avoid paying even more tax than is worth.

Is that progressive?

No - just confusing

[mdd2]

And of course for some, some of that the tax relief will be at 40% if high earners and then at 20% tax when received if the pension is less than soon to be £50k/year. I think if one wants a tax free pension then contributions should be without tax relief.
The personal allowance starts to disappear once gross income is £100k. Mr Darling introduced that rule as an emergency post the crash and increased the top rate to 50% for income over £150k. The tax give aways that I think Labour bang on about was the reduction of the top rate to 45%.
In the next tax year we will reach the anomalous situation where the tax take on the £25k of income from £100-125 will be taxed at 60% ( you lose £1 of personal allowance for each £2 earned over £100k and drop to 40% for the next £25k and then 45% after that. So we have 20%, 40%, 60%, 40% and then 45% tax levels.
If this policy of scrapping personal allowance came to pass then those who currently have no personal allowance and earn from £100-125k/year will get the £48/week and as of now have no personal allowance and so will be better off.
Think the policy would need some tweaking but at initial read it is not a bad idea, although I would be giving it to working people up to a certain income only and not to all adults but certainly to students in full time education.The system would also address the anomaly above.
I expect a fare whack of that £48 will go back to the Treasury as VAT especially as the next ruse will be to put VAT on food!!!!!!!
In recent times changes to taxation and the taxation of "assumed" pension pots discourages work and these need to be addressed urgently. Not sure how many sections of society this affects but it does affect some in the public sector.

[mdd2]

I know someone who doesn't get an income tax allowance and only works 4 days a week to avoid paying even more tax than is worth.

Is that progressive?

That is true. Of course there in no sympathy for high earners but the trap is earn £100 when you start losing your personal allowance then tax and NI on the £100 is £62, so only £38 in your pocket. Buy some article for £38 including VAT. Money to Government £62 + £6.33 =£68.33

[AndrewJB]

How do you not get an income tax allowance? Asking because I don't know.

[Caballo]

How do you not get an income tax allowance? Asking because I don't know.

If you earn enough the tax free allowance becomes taxable

[Tricky Trevor]

I spent 40yrs amassing a teacher pension only for the revenue to take£250 of the £700 I get in tax.

Sorry Woodley but those figures don’t tell the whole story. You get a tax allowance and basic income tax is at 20%. You either have another income source and you are having all the tax taken from your pension or you need some tax advice.

[TVC15]

Sorry Woodley but those figures don’t tell the whole story. You get a tax allowance and basic income tax is at 20%. You either have another income source and you are having all the tax taken from your pension or you need some tax advice.

Maybe they take additional tax from the pension to make up for the 40 years of having the 14 weeks holiday a year teachers get ?
I`ll just get my tin hat !

[AndrewJB]

If you earn enough the tax free allowance becomes taxable

So sort of like the the high top rates of tax during the 1970s - so those who paid it only paid it on their incomes of over a certain amount (rather than paying the high rate on everything)? Most people would be very happy to pay 90% tax - if it applied to income over £1 Million.

[mdd2]

So sort of like the the high top rates of tax during the 1970s - so those who paid it only paid it on their incomes of over a certain amount (rather than paying the high rate on everything)? Most people would be very happy to pay 90% tax - if it applied to income over £1 Million.

And when income tax was dropped to a top rate of 60% and then 40% the income tax coming into the Government went up as tax dodging reduced high earning ex-pats like Michael Cain came back to live in UK.

[dsr]

So sort of like the the high top rates of tax during the 1970s - so those who paid it only paid it on their incomes of over a certain amount (rather than paying the high rate on everything)? Most people would be very happy to pay 90% tax - if it applied to income over £1 Million.

No they wouldn't. People who earn £1m want to keep it, not waste it on tax - so they move either their income source abroad, or they move themselves abroad, and avoid the tax. Or else they don't bother making the money at all - why waste the effort turning your £1m business into a £10m business if you aren't going to get the benefit?

[AndrewJB]

And when income tax was dropped to a top rate of 60% and then 40% the income tax coming into the Government went up as tax dodging reduced high earning ex-pats like Michael Cain came back to live in UK.

It's interesting that on this thread you appear to be advocating that poorer people should be incentivised by getting less money, and rich people by getting to keep more of it. It's always the argument for every higher executive salaries and bonuses - that we have to pay for "top talent" or we lose it; while the same people demand wage restraint when it comes to ordinary people. It's a bit of a rigged system, and in the past forty years it's benefited only the top ten or so percent of the population, and even after our huge financial melt-down of ten years ago, things have not been properly reformed, and simply got worse. Austerity has seen public services slashed, and a lot of the savings pumped into tax breaks for the wealthy (corporation tax reduced hugely - for example).

It's more than about time that money was taken from the top, and redistributed down, and we have clever public servants, who if tasked with this job would come up with ingenious ways of doing it that wouldn't result in reduced income for the country (the "Laffer Curve" is easily beatable).

[Woodleyclaret]

Fao tvc15
The holidays are for all to see.Nothing stopped you becoming a teacher.
I just think taxing any pension recieved when tax was paid at source criminal.

[thatdberight]

I spent 40yrs amassing a teacher pension only for the revenue to take£250 of the £700 I get in tax
To tax pensions is immoral and criminal
Anyone who manages to pay into a pension should get to keep it
The personal tax allowance is far too low
It becomes necessary for pensioners to have to work part time to survive.

As a teacher, you didn't pay in a fifth of what it's costing the same people who paid you while you were working. I'd be interested to know what kind of teacher's pension, after 40 years, gives you £8.4k per annum. And you must have other income to be losing £250 out of £700.

Or maybe you generated a pension of £700 a week. That would need a pot of about £1.25m. You must have been going some to put that away. Or maybe it's everyone else paying for it.

[dsr]

Fao tvc15
The holidays are for all to see.Nothing stopped you becoming a teacher.
I just think taxing any pension recieved when tax was paid at source criminal.

If you have been paying pension contributions out of taxed income for 40 years and not getting any tax credit benefit, then I suspect you have a word with your financial advisor - and for that matter the people who took the money. Because it probably would be criminal.

But for everyone else in the country, pension contributions are made out of gross income before tax is deducted; or else the pension company adds back an amount equivalent to income tax. And if you get a state funded pension, you are not taxed on the state's contributions.

If you have spent the last 40+ years getting wound up about the "criminal" taxation of pension contributions paid out of taxed income, then you need to calm down. You have been getting wound up about something that isn't true.

[AndrewJB]

No they wouldn't. People who earn £1m want to keep it, not waste it on tax - so they move either their income source abroad, or they move themselves abroad, and avoid the tax. Or else they don't bother making the money at all - why waste the effort turning your £1m business into a £10m business if you aren't going to get the benefit?

Yes they would. Most people don't earn £1M a year, so would be happy for incomes over that amount to be taxed at 90% - even their own (because that would mean earning over £1M a year - which most people would be happy to earn). If you asked people; "would you pay 75% on your income over £500K?", they'd probably say "yes". This is because such an income is beyond the realm of possibility for most people - and paying that amount of tax on income over it would be seen as a price worth paying. Most people would probably agree to pay 60% on incomes over £100K, because again, that is well above average earnings. Most people get by on £30K - £40K a year, and pay about 25% of that in tax, national insurance, and pension. This is possibly a "London" estimate, so might be a little high. They live off the remainder, so when they see a tax take of 60% on earnings of £300K - what they actually see is a real income of many times their current income, and then perhaps the boosted public services that might arise out of the taxes they pay. And that's because most people aren't greedy pr1cks.

It's the very rich who are greedy pr1cks, and they own 87% of our newspaper readership. Threatening to leave the country unless they get a tax reduction? When they're already rich? And when other people live in financial difficulty? How patriotic is that? After the war it was said that "nobody should eat cake, until everyone has bread" - and that is as true today as it was when our grandparents, and great-grandparents came home from the war.

[Lowbankclaret]

As a teacher, you didn't pay in a fifth of what it's costing the same people who paid you while you were working. I'd be interested to know what kind of teacher's pension, after 40 years, gives you £8.4k per annum. And you must have other income to be losing £250 out of £700.

Or maybe you generated a pension of £700 a week. That would need a pot of about £1.25m. You must have been going some to put that away. Or maybe it's everyone else paying for it.

Teachers Pensions do not work like many other pensions.

A teacher would with full 40 year entitlement get 2/3rds of their final salary.

Not linked to any pot, it’s a government pension.

[TVC15]

Fao tvc15
The holidays are for all to see.Nothing stopped you becoming a teacher.
I just think taxing any pension recieved when tax was paid at source criminal.

I was joking !
But seriously it is a bit worrying that you taught children for so many years and you genuinely don’t understand how this works despite several people explaining this above.
You have already had the tax benefit on your pension.
You should count yourself very lucky to have a government pension as unlike a lot of private company scheme you have been protected with some extremely favourable terms that most people in the private sector lost many years ago.
And saying everyone knew the rules and could be a teacher does not apply to your pension protection as when people were putting money in their pensions in the private sector none (or very few) realised that the pension trustees could change the rules years down the line (or worse run off with the funds)

[Lowbankclaret]

When I did my Unite Union pension training.

The only one better in the UK was Ford, which if memory serves me right was about 73% on max entitlement.

[Clarets4me]

Yes they would. Most people don't earn £1M a year, so would be happy for incomes over that amount to be taxed at 90% - even their own (because that would mean earning over £1M a year - which most people would be happy to earn). If you asked people; "would you pay 75% on your income over £500K?", they'd probably say "yes". This is because such an income is beyond the realm of possibility for most people - and paying that amount of tax on income over it would be seen as a price worth paying. Most people would probably agree to pay 60% on incomes over £100K, because again, that is well above average earnings. Most people get by on £30K - £40K a year, and pay about 25% of that in tax, national insurance, and pension. This is possibly a "London" estimate, so might be a little high. They live off the remainder, so when they see a tax take of 60% on earnings of £300K - what they actually see is a real income of many times their current income, and then perhaps the boosted public services that might arise out of the taxes they pay. And that's because most people aren't greedy pr1cks.

It's the very rich who are greedy pr1cks, and they own 87% of our newspaper readership. Threatening to leave the country unless they get a tax reduction? When they're already rich? And when other people live in financial difficulty? How patriotic is that? After the war it was said that "nobody should eat cake, until everyone has bread" - and that is as true today as it was when our grandparents, and great-grandparents came home from the war.

The richest 1% is now paying 27% of all Income Tax received, up from around 11.5% in the late 1970's, the top 10% of earners pay 60% of all Income Tax ..these figures come from HMRC ( 2018 ) ...

[CombatClaret]

The richest 1% is now paying 27% of all Income Tax received, up from around 11.5% in the late 1970's, the top 10% of earners pay 60% of all Income Tax ..these figures come from HMRC ( 2018 ) ...

That change just shows the increase in wealth in equality. The amount the top 1% pays in tax has mainly increased because they are far richer compared to the other 99% since the 70s.

Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... point-2030" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Shocking when you think about it.

[tarkys_ears]

That change just shows the increase in wealth in equality. The amount the top 1% pays in tax has mainly increased because they are far richer compared to the other 99% since the 70s.

Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... point-2030" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Shocking when you think about it.

I wouldn't read the guardian about anything, let alone anything to do with finance or property.

I suggest you shouldn't either.

[mdd2]

[quote="AndrewJB"]It's interesting that on this thread you appear to be advocating that poorer people should be incentivised by getting less money, and rich people by getting to keep more of it.

Think you are misquoting me there or not understanding my thread.
I am too busy earning money for myself and those who take more from the pot than put in to continue.

[CombatClaret]

I wouldn't read the guardian about anything, let alone anything to do with finance or property.
I suggest you shouldn't either.

Even when simply reporting statistics and analysis from a UK Government source?

[Clarets4me]

That change just shows the increase in wealth in equality. The amount the top 1% pays in tax has mainly increased because they are far richer compared to the other 99% since the 70s.

Everyone is richer across all income levels since the 1970's .... everytime the people as a whole get wealthier, the " poverty " industry reset the rules...

1970 - 65% of Households had no phone-line ...
1972 - 1.6m Colour TV's in use, now it's 26m ...
1970 - Only 30% of Households had central heating, now it's 95% ..
1970 - 48% of people had no regular access to a car ...
1970 - Life expectancy at birth was 68.7 years for a male, now it's 80.9 years ...

There are some who'd rather the poor were poorer, as long as the rich were not richer. Do you really want to go back to the 98% Tax on " un-earned " income ( ie: share dividends, bank interest etc ) that Labour introduced in the late 1970's ??

[thatdberight]

Teachers Pensions do not work like many other pensions.

A teacher would with full 40 year entitlement get 2/3rds of their final salary.

Not linked to any pot, it’s a government pension.

I understand that. That was the point I was making. The equivalent of £1.25M (+ in all likelihood) as a goodbye to Mr. Chips. The veneration of "public servants" in this country never ceases to astound me.

[Paul Waine]

So sort of like the the high top rates of tax during the 1970s - so those who paid it only paid it on their incomes of over a certain amount (rather than paying the high rate on everything)? Most people would be very happy to pay 90% tax - if it applied to income over £1 Million.

Hi Andrew, the top rate of income tax in 1970s (Harold Wilson/Jim Callaghan) was 83% on "earned income" + 15% "unearned income" surcharge. So, 98% income tax - and most of those paying that rate were "not happy" - so, they moved abroad. As mentioned, Michael Caine was one of them. UK Government's tax receipts as a result were not very much.

[Paul Waine]

Yes they would. Most people don't earn £1M a year, so would be happy for incomes over that amount to be taxed at 90% - even their own (because that would mean earning over £1M a year - which most people would be happy to earn). If you asked people; "would you pay 75% on your income over £500K?", they'd probably say "yes". This is because such an income is beyond the realm of possibility for most people - and paying that amount of tax on income over it would be seen as a price worth paying. Most people would probably agree to pay 60% on incomes over £100K, because again, that is well above average earnings. Most people get by on £30K - £40K a year, and pay about 25% of that in tax, national insurance, and pension. This is possibly a "London" estimate, so might be a little high. They live off the remainder, so when they see a tax take of 60% on earnings of £300K - what they actually see is a real income of many times their current income, and then perhaps the boosted public services that might arise out of the taxes they pay. And that's because most people aren't greedy pr1cks.

It's the very rich who are greedy pr1cks, and they own 87% of our newspaper readership. Threatening to leave the country unless they get a tax reduction? When they're already rich? And when other people live in financial difficulty? How patriotic is that? After the war it was said that "nobody should eat cake, until everyone has bread" - and that is as true today as it was when our grandparents, and great-grandparents came home from the war.

Hi Andrew, so, all Premier League footballers earning more than £20,000 per week (= £1,000,000 per annum) would be happy to pay tax at 90% on all income above that level?

I'm sure you are correct about people not being bothered what the tax rates are on income "beyond the realm of possibility" for themselves. That's Corbyn's election promise "no increase in income tax" unless you earn more than, was it £85,000 per year?

And, in another post you reference incentivising "low earners" by reducing their benefits and incentivisng high earners by giving them more. Of course, it's not like that,is it. If I earn £X and you say, if you earn £X + £1 then I'll take most of the extra earnings from you, where is the incentive? Imagine if the person earning £X can make more money by taking on some staff - along with taking some more business risk. Let's say this person can expand their firm from employing 10 people to employing 100 people (maybe we are speaking of Jim Rathcliffe) - and as a result he will double his own personal income, so £X can become £2X. Do you think we would want him to do it? Do you think he would do it if the Gov't was to say we want 90% of any extra you make? And, how about the 90 people who had a chance of a job if the Gov't left the tax rates at the original level?

[bfcmik]

All income is taxable. My annual NHS pension (equivalent scheme to teachers) payment is added to my annual state pension entitlement. The basic tax allowance is deducted from that total by the Inland Revenue people who then determine how much tax I would need to pay on my total income. That is then expressed as a negative tax code and sent to NHS Pensions Service so they can take a monthly amount from my NHS pension before it is transferred into my bank. It isn't pleasant seeing the tax deduction but better than not getting enough to have to pay tax!

[Paul Waine]

That change just shows the increase in wealth in equality. The amount the top 1% pays in tax has mainly increased because they are far richer compared to the other 99% since the 70s.

Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... point-2030" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Shocking when you think about it.

It's the richest 1% in the world that are being referenced - just in case anyone thought that the UK could fix this.

I'm not sure why anyone would think it shocking or for that matter think about it at all.

No one heard of Bill Gates (microsoft founder), Warren Buffet, Zuckerburg, that Tesla guy, Amazon and so on and so on. Then there are all the Premier League billionaire owners - and the Russian oligarchs, the middle east oil wealthy, and more and more and more. But, please don't ask me to name all 80,000,000 of them = 1% of 8 billion (assuming the world's population will continue increase from today).

[Rowls]

Taxing low earners some more?

Then giving them a little bit of their money back, through some government-run scheme?

What an awful, awful idea this is.

[bluelabrador16]

"Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030"

Paul Waine

"..I'm not sure why anyone would think it shocking or for that matter think about it at all...."

Hi Paul, do you think it is time to rein in Neoliberalism and try to give rise to a more progressive capitalism?

"Contemporary welfare states now exist within a world in which austerity as a broad set of ideas, encompasses the liberal (in a Hayekian sense) desire to shrink the (social welfare) state, deregulate labour and promote private markets as the driver of growth. This has forced a reconfiguration of the fortunes of the wealthy, the interests of capital, the position of middle-income and poorer citizens, and the state itself. And the biggest losers have been the poorest citizens.."

475 Billion for the City/Financial Intersts ........followed by Austerity! Talk about taking the p...!

[nil_desperandum]

I spent 40yrs amassing a teacher pension only for the revenue to take£250 of the £700 I get in tax

I genuinely don't understand this, and I know quite a bit about the TPS.
£700 / month? = No tax to pay as it's below the threshold, but seems unlikely if you had 40 years service.
£700 / week = an unlikely pension of £36,400 / year, but anyway, - taxable income would be £24400 pa (i.e.£4880 payable ) so that's about £94 / week tax.
(I think my maths are correct - it's late!)

[AndrewJB]

I wouldn't read the guardian about anything, let alone anything to do with finance or property.

I suggest you shouldn't either.

What source(s) of news do you recommend?

[TVC15]

I genuinely don't understand this, and I know quite a bit about the TPS.
£700 / month? = No tax to pay as it's below the threshold, but seems unlikely if you had 40 years service.
£700 / week = an unlikely pension of £36,400 / year, but anyway, - taxable income would be £24400 pa (i.e.£4880 payable ) so that's about £94 / week tax.
(I think my maths are correct - it's late!)

Might be £700 a day ?!!!

[AndrewJB]

Hi Andrew, the top rate of income tax in 1970s (Harold Wilson/Jim Callaghan) was 83% on "earned income" + 15% "unearned income" surcharge. So, 98% income tax - and most of those paying that rate were "not happy" - so, they moved abroad. As mentioned, Michael Caine was one of them. UK Government's tax receipts as a result were not very much.

Those top rates of tax were applied against very high incomes - even today few people earn £20K or more in interest or dividends. The equivalent to today would be about £100K.

You talk about people not being happy having to pay high rates of tax (rather than feeling fortunate enough to earn so much in the first place). What about the many more people not happy because they're forced to choose between heating their homes and feeding their children? And those disabled people who aren't happy because services they rely on to live a reasonable life have been cut? School heads who aren't happy because funding has been cut? When we weigh up the equivalent "not happy" I'm afraid those people not happy about paying more in tax, when they already earn vastly more than average are the ones who get the least of my sympathy.

When it comes to extremely wealthy people - such as your footballer example, how is it going to materially affect their lives if they're forced to pay more tax? Will they go hungry, without clothing, or without shelter? No. Their desire to keep more of what they earn - and especially when they live within a society that has the aforementioned problems - can only be ascribed to greed. When you get to the realm of billionaires, then we have a level of wealth that is even more pointless. Someone like Abramovich (six or seven billion?), can spend a million pounds a year for five or six thousand years without earning a penny. If I had a million pounds, I could give myself an income of fifty thousand a year for twenty years - which would be like having a before tax income of eighty or so thousand a year. Most people would consider that a good gig. Given Abramovich's wealth it would take me a hundred thousand years to get through it. This is beyond the normal parameters of the ethics of property rights. I can understand someone motivated by greed and entitlement not wanting to pay more in tax if they owned this much, but the weight of moral evidence is against them.

The fact that this class of wealthy people has had successive governments running the economy to benefit them rather than everyone else adds a practical argument to the already overwhelming ethical one, as to why we as a society should not tolerate hugely wealthy people. We need a wealth ceiling. Where that ceiling fits is open to question, but there should be one.

[Cryssys]

I genuinely don't understand this, and I know quite a bit about the TPS.
£700 / month? = No tax to pay as it's below the threshold, but seems unlikely if you had 40 years service.
£700 / week = an unlikely pension of £36,400 / year, but anyway, - taxable income would be £24400 pa (i.e.£4880 payable ) so that's about £94 / week tax.
(I think my maths are correct - it's late!)

As mentioned above, after 40 years you would be eligible for a full pension equal to two thirds (66.6%) of your final salary. If you retire on a salary of £54,600, which is quite possible for a senior teacher/deputy head/head, then his pension would be £36,400 per year, which works out at exactly £700 per week!

Income from State pension could explain the tax he is paying?

[nil_desperandum]

As mentioned above, after 40 years you would be eligible for a full pension equal to two thirds (66.6%) of your final salary. If you retire on a salary of £54,600, which is quite possible for a senior teacher/deputy head/head, then his pension would be £36,400 per year, which works out at exactly £700 per week!
?

Are you sure that you're using the correct formula for someone who went into the profession over 40 years ago?
For someone in this category, so far as I know, final (average) salary is divided by 80 and multiplied by years service, so effectively someone with 40 years service would get 50% not 66.6% as you state.
So based on your example £54,600 (divided by 80) x 40 = £27,300. (i.e. simply divide by 2).

[gtclaret]

Stupid idea, a person who earns just £30000a year, hardly a fortune will be £10/week worse off. Furthermore it would be open to fraud and abuse, how do we treat newly arrived migrants who are not working, do we just give them the cash? Totally crazy

[Lowbankclaret]

Are you sure that you're using the correct formula for someone who went into the profession over 40 years ago?
For someone in this category, so far as I know, final (average) salary is divided by 80 and multiplied by years service, so effectively someone with 40 years service would get 50% not 66.6% as you state.
So based on your example £54,600 (divided by 80) x 40 = £27,300. (i.e. simply divide by 2).

You are incorrect, a final salary pension is just that, 66.6% of your final salary. Some final schemes do average the last couple of years.
You are talking about an average earnings salary pension scheme, that’s not what a teachers scheme is.

[nil_desperandum]

You are incorrect, a final salary pension is just that, 66.6% of your final salary. Some final schemes do average the last couple of years.
You are talking about an average earnings salary pension scheme, that’s not what a teachers scheme is.

Again, I'll ask. Have you checked this?
You might actually go Teacher Pension Website and use the calculator. (Which I did - just to be absolutely sure).
(Based on someone with 40 years service)