Given the existence of reporting restriction on this case, would it not be so much better for anyone to wants to call themselves a journalist to shut the f*** up until the legal proceedings have concluded?
Perhaps I'm the only one, but I'd be surprised if Labour broke its promise on not raising NI, VAT or Income tax.
My guess is they will go for: 1) remove higher rate pension relief- back to 20% 2) increase capital gains tax 3) reintroduce pensions lifetime allowance
If they're feeling bold - I think they might try for scrapping inheritance tax and replacing it with a less generous lifetime gift allowance...
I expect pension tax relief to be equalised at 25% which helps the 'working class' if anyone knows what that means
Capital gains tax and lifetime allowances seem certain to be amended
On IT I expect the seven year gift allowance to go
If I were the government, any government, I'd stop buggering about with pensions limits and allowances almost each and every year.
This is a big reason why we have a savings crisis in retirement, with people not feeling confident to invest, so they undersave, and it fuels a big demand for the State's services in retirement instead like, err, the NHS, discounts, and triple-lock pensions.
It's remarkably short-sighted, but it's also remarkably easy to raid. Governments need to grow-up.
Almost a third of pensioners live in millionaire households. It is not that we are undersaving as a whole it is inequality across the field, and the pension rules are built to favour those capable of the millionaire retirement and against that of the just managing.
We should change that, because that is what will reduce/control future government spending on future retired.
And yes we should change the rules less frequently. But when a party returns to office after a 14 year absence it seems a sensible time to change.
If you change the rules, you'll find not so many pensioners do live in 'millionaire' households in future and become more reliant on the State.
Bear in mind almost all private sector employers only contribute 3-6% to their employees pension pots, which require significant contributions from the individual on top, whereas public sector employers pay 20-35% contributions with even some final salary schemes still open.
If anyone is living in clover, it's them.
It seems perverse to incentivise people on £50K+ at double those on standard rate. 40% incentive/pension credit for higher rate earners against 20% for standard rate. Make it the same at say 25%.
Er, no, you are incentivising them to defer current income for future income. The tax relief reflects the tax they pay.
Your ideas are shit. Same as Lefties all over.
It’s one of the tax changes the last government was actively looking at.
In the ultra-chic and tres parisienne “La manche” lounge and cocktail bar, where I am now hanging with the upper crust of Kosalin society, a gin and tonic is £2
"National pride has declined sharply over the last decade, possibly because Britain is redefining itself as it becomes more diverse, researchers say.
Fewer Britons feel pride in the country’s history, economic achievements and democratic processes compared with 2013, the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) report found. Results showed that 64 per cent of respondents were proud of Britain’s history, down from 86 per cent in 2013 when the survey was last conducted."
I'd say it's probably down to a greater awareness of the complexities of our colonial past. People now are less likely to be 'rah rah all great' about it. They'll be more nuanced.
That will be part of the answer anyway. Also a more diverse population. That must have an impact too.
People's view of the past are always coloured by the present. In confident ages people are more enamoured of the nation's past. For example that spate of films and TV series about the Raj in the 80s.
National 'confidence' is an interesting concept. We've just done Brexit for example. Was that a sign of confidence or of loss of confidence? You could argue it either way but my sense is it was very much the latter.
Voting for it was a sign of confidence amongst a few, and the poor handling of it since has been an undoubted factor undermining confidence.
Flatlander said: » show previous quotes Dynamic road pricing?
4pm outside a school? £10 / mile. M74 through the borders late at night? 0.01p / mile.
Would mean universal car tracking through. Do we really want that?
That would make a lot of teachers very unhappy…
A lot of parents too.
Its utterly insane how some people here seem to think education isn't valuable enough to have vehicles on the road for.
Education is important.
On the other hand, most of our students are capable of walking a hundred meters or so from the school rather than having to be picked up in the (clearly marked) staff car park with only one entrance.
It's weird how the rules on admissions still use the expectation that kids will walk 2 miles to school (3 if over 8 I think), when most parents would not dream of that. A lot apparently don't let kids walk to school until they are in secondary school.
I'd like to see some data on distance from school for pupils at primary and secondary level.
Primary should be walkable, wheelable, or cyclable for most - where the effort has been made 80-90% has been done without undue effort as a proportion.
I do know that I have nearly the largest state school in the country nearby, and 1/3 of the catchment on my side of the bypass cannot walk or cycle there over the pedestrian bridge because there is a 100m gap in a cycle route and the back entrance to the campus is not opened. That alone creates perhaps 600-1200 extra vehicle movements per day around a route of several miles.
In the Seattle area, there are a number of Russian Baptist churches. As I understand it, they were persecuted by the czars, by Stalin, and now by Putin. But they seem to be mostly left alone, here. (Though I wouldn't advise them to apply for a job with, for example, Google.)
Last Friday, I encountered several Jehovah Witness women offering pamphlets -- in Russian. The Witnesses are regulars just outside the local library, but this is the first time I have seen the Russian versions of their literature.
(I have known Witnesses all my life. To say the least, I don't share their theology, but the ones I have met have all been good people, willing to live in peace with others.)
I've no idea which religious followers are the most persecuted in the world, but it was a comment on rightwing US twitterers getting excited about all the churches in France getting burned down, when I suspect the same people haven't been that bothered attacks on black churches much closer to home.
Also your examples: Christianity is really not the only religion persecuted in China, so far as I know they aren't singled out though proselytising and "foreign influence" are hit hard.
I think the "which is the most persecuted" is perhaps a secondary question, except maybe in the examination of particular circumstances or places. The more important thing is always imo the existence of any persecution at all.
Governments like China (are) and Soviet (were) frightened because they saw religion as a competitor to their political state religion. At University one of my housemates went on a student exchange to Leningrad (mid-1980s) for 6 weeks iirc, and attended the main Baptist Church whilst he was there. At the time Bradford Uni was the only one in the country doing it, for 12 students each year.
Persecuted - certainly, but by that time "pressurised" may be a better word for teh general community. Things like poorer jobs, no access to Higher Education, the church being spied upon. That's a step down from concentration camps, show trials, internal exile, and being sent to mental hospitals which was earlier (Breznnev) but was still gong on in the early 1980s, and more vicious the further you go back.
There was also a difference between if you kept quiet to survive, or tried to publish / proselytise. And in some measure between groups - eg RCs always had more external support as an historic religion for centuries and the Vatican in the UN. Anglicans also did better because of imperial history, an example is that Anglicans tend to own buildings in various countries (eg Middle East) and often host umpteen other congregations who are not allowed to do so.
In China imo Muslims have it harder now, to the extent of internationally-recognised genocide. The Govt there tried to suborn the churches by setting up their own version called "Three-Selves Patriotic Movement".
It's fair to say that JWs were very targeted in Soviet times, as they were by Hitler. Part of that is because they were seen as American-derived, therefore traitors.
There's a whole mini-literature around things like Bible-smuggling.
For anyone interested my book recommendation would be "Grey is the Colour of Hope" by Irina Ratushinskaya, who was a Ukrainian poet sentenced to 5 years in a labour camp then 7 years in internal exile in Russia in 1983 for "anti-Soviet agitation". With pressure and attention, she was released after 3.5 years. She wrote religious poetry. It's one of the most affecting books I have ever read.
It's worth a note that persecution has always been as intense, or worse, in parts of the Islamic world.
I thought the issue with the Jehovah’s Witnesses, for the Nazis, was their pacifism. Which in Nazi ideology was a toxic attack on the State & the Race.
The Nazis believed that only the violently aggressive would survive. Therefore pacifism was suicide for all.
"National pride has declined sharply over the last decade, possibly because Britain is redefining itself as it becomes more diverse, researchers say.
Fewer Britons feel pride in the country’s history, economic achievements and democratic processes compared with 2013, the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) report found. Results showed that 64 per cent of respondents were proud of Britain’s history, down from 86 per cent in 2013 when the survey was last conducted."
I'd say it's probably down to a greater awareness of the complexities of our colonial past. People now are less likely to be 'rah rah all great' about it. They'll be more nuanced.
That will be part of the answer anyway. Also a more diverse population. That must have an impact too.
People's view of the past are always coloured by the present. In confident ages people are more enamoured of the nation's past. For example that spate of films and TV series about the Raj in the 80s.
National 'confidence' is an interesting concept. We've just done Brexit for example. Was that a sign of confidence or of loss of confidence? You could argue it either way but my sense is it was very much the latter.
Suspect that supporters the "out into the world" and "pull up the drawbridge" versions of Brexit would give very different responses. The difficulty of reconciling those two is one of the key reasons why we are where we are.
"National pride has declined sharply over the last decade, possibly because Britain is redefining itself as it becomes more diverse, researchers say.
Fewer Britons feel pride in the country’s history, economic achievements and democratic processes compared with 2013, the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) report found. Results showed that 64 per cent of respondents were proud of Britain’s history, down from 86 per cent in 2013 when the survey was last conducted."
I'd say it's probably down to a greater awareness of the complexities of our colonial past. People now are less likely to be 'rah rah all great' about it. They'll be more nuanced.
That will be part of the answer anyway. Also a more diverse population. That must have an impact too.
People's view of the past are always coloured by the present. In confident ages people are more enamoured of the nation's past. For example that spate of films and TV series about the Raj in the 80s.
National 'confidence' is an interesting concept. We've just done Brexit for example. Was that a sign of confidence or of loss of confidence? You could argue it either way but my sense is it was very much the latter.
Voting for it was a sign of confidence amongst a few, and the poor handling of it since has been an undoubted factor undermining confidence.
I’d be interested to see similar surveys in our peer countries. I expect this is 90% common among most developed country electorates thanks largely to social media. Rather than anything - Tory government, woke lefties, Brexit, whatever - that’s specifically British.
The French seem equally or more downbeat. So too the Americans despite their ongoing economic outperformance.
Perhaps I'm the only one, but I'd be surprised if Labour broke its promise on not raising NI, VAT or Income tax.
My guess is they will go for: 1) remove higher rate pension relief- back to 20% 2) increase capital gains tax 3) reintroduce pensions lifetime allowance
If they're feeling bold - I think they might try for scrapping inheritance tax and replacing it with a less generous lifetime gift allowance...
I expect pension tax relief to be equalised at 25% which helps the 'working class' if anyone knows what that means
Capital gains tax and lifetime allowances seem certain to be amended
On IT I expect the seven year gift allowance to go
If I were the government, any government, I'd stop buggering about with pensions limits and allowances almost each and every year.
This is a big reason why we have a savings crisis in retirement, with people not feeling confident to invest, so they undersave, and it fuels a big demand for the State's services in retirement instead like, err, the NHS, discounts, and triple-lock pensions.
It's remarkably short-sighted, but it's also remarkably easy to raid. Governments need to grow-up.
Almost a third of pensioners live in millionaire households. It is not that we are undersaving as a whole it is inequality across the field, and the pension rules are built to favour those capable of the millionaire retirement and against that of the just managing.
We should change that, because that is what will reduce/control future government spending on future retired.
And yes we should change the rules less frequently. But when a party returns to office after a 14 year absence it seems a sensible time to change.
If you change the rules, you'll find not so many pensioners do live in 'millionaire' households in future and become more reliant on the State.
Bear in mind almost all private sector employers only contribute 3-6% to their employees pension pots, which require significant contributions from the individual on top, whereas public sector employers pay 20-35% contributions with even some final salary schemes still open.
If anyone is living in clover, it's them.
It seems perverse to incentivise people on £50K+ at double those on standard rate. 40% incentive/pension credit for higher rate earners against 20% for standard rate. Make it the same at say 25%.
Match £££ fund pensions up to a (time depreciating) cap ... is my killer reform.
(Will be seeking out that Luntz on TRIP btw, thanks for the tip)
In the ultra-chic and tres parisienne “La manche” lounge and cocktail bar, where I am now hanging with the upper crust of Kosalin society, a gin and tonic is £2
Wow. Get pissed for a fiver. That's back to 1985.
£5.01 buys you three pints of Greene King IPA in my local Wetherspoons. Alternatively, half a litre of wine from a tap(!) for £5.90. Not ultra-chic though.
"National pride has declined sharply over the last decade, possibly because Britain is redefining itself as it becomes more diverse, researchers say.
Fewer Britons feel pride in the country’s history, economic achievements and democratic processes compared with 2013, the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) report found. Results showed that 64 per cent of respondents were proud of Britain’s history, down from 86 per cent in 2013 when the survey was last conducted."
I'd say it's probably down to a greater awareness of the complexities of our colonial past. People now are less likely to be 'rah rah all great' about it. They'll be more nuanced.
That will be part of the answer anyway. Also a more diverse population. That must have an impact too.
People's view of the past are always coloured by the present. In confident ages people are more enamoured of the nation's past. For example that spate of films and TV series about the Raj in the 80s.
National 'confidence' is an interesting concept. We've just done Brexit for example. Was that a sign of confidence or of loss of confidence? You could argue it either way but my sense is it was very much the latter.
Suspect that supporters the "out into the world" and "pull up the drawbridge" versions of Brexit would give very different responses. The difficulty of reconciling those two is one of the key reasons why we are where we are.
Your metaphors are not mutually exclusive. We can go out into the world without inviting the world in.
Flatlander said: » show previous quotes Dynamic road pricing?
4pm outside a school? £10 / mile. M74 through the borders late at night? 0.01p / mile.
Would mean universal car tracking through. Do we really want that?
That would make a lot of teachers very unhappy…
A lot of parents too.
Its utterly insane how some people here seem to think education isn't valuable enough to have vehicles on the road for.
Education is important.
On the other hand, most of our students are capable of walking a hundred meters or so from the school rather than having to be picked up in the (clearly marked) staff car park with only one entrance.
It's weird how the rules on admissions still use the expectation that kids will walk 2 miles to school (3 if over 8 I think), when most parents would not dream of that. A lot apparently don't let kids walk to school until they are in secondary school.
I'd like to see some data on distance from school for pupils at primary and secondary level.
Primary should be walkable, wheelable, or cyclable for most - where the effort has been made 80-90% has been done without undue effort as a proportion.
I do know that I have nearly the largest state school in the country nearby, and 1/3 of the catchment on my side of the bypass cannot walk or cycle there over the pedestrian bridge because there is a 100m gap in a cycle route and the back entrance to the campus is not opened. That alone creates perhaps 600-1200 extra vehicle movements per day around a route of several miles.
The biggest issue with primary schools, is the parents needing to fit dropping the kids off into their routine of getting themselves to work.
Secondary kids should be able to get themselves to school if it’s less than a mile away.
Yes there’s probably loads of badly-designed roads and bridges that need fixing as well.
In the Seattle area, there are a number of Russian Baptist churches. As I understand it, they were persecuted by the czars, by Stalin, and now by Putin. But they seem to be mostly left alone, here. (Though I wouldn't advise them to apply for a job with, for example, Google.)
Last Friday, I encountered several Jehovah Witness women offering pamphlets -- in Russian. The Witnesses are regulars just outside the local library, but this is the first time I have seen the Russian versions of their literature.
(I have known Witnesses all my life. To say the least, I don't share their theology, but the ones I have met have all been good people, willing to live in peace with others.)
I've no idea which religious followers are the most persecuted in the world, but it was a comment on rightwing US twitterers getting excited about all the churches in France getting burned down, when I suspect the same people haven't been that bothered attacks on black churches much closer to home.
Also your examples: Christianity is really not the only religion persecuted in China, so far as I know they aren't singled out though proselytising and "foreign influence" are hit hard.
I think the "which is the most persecuted" is perhaps a secondary question, except maybe in the examination of particular circumstances or places. The more important thing is always imo the existence of any persecution at all.
Governments like China (are) and Soviet (were) frightened because they saw religion as a competitor to their political state religion. At University one of my housemates went on a student exchange to Leningrad (mid-1980s) for 6 weeks iirc, and attended the main Baptist Church whilst he was there. At the time Bradford Uni was the only one in the country doing it, for 12 students each year.
Persecuted - certainly, but by that time "pressurised" may be a better word for teh general community. Things like poorer jobs, no access to Higher Education, the church being spied upon. That's a step down from concentration camps, show trials, internal exile, and being sent to mental hospitals which was earlier (Breznnev) but was still gong on in the early 1980s, and more vicious the further you go back.
There was also a difference between if you kept quiet to survive, or tried to publish / proselytise. And in some measure between groups - eg RCs always had more external support as an historic religion for centuries and the Vatican in the UN. Anglicans also did better because of imperial history, an example is that Anglicans tend to own buildings in various countries (eg Middle East) and often host umpteen other congregations who are not allowed to do so.
In China imo Muslims have it harder now, to the extent of internationally-recognised genocide. The Govt there tried to suborn the churches by setting up their own version called "Three-Selves Patriotic Movement".
It's fair to say that JWs were very targeted in Soviet times, as they were by Hitler. Part of that is because they were seen as American-derived, therefore traitors.
There's a whole mini-literature around things like Bible-smuggling.
For anyone interested my book recommendation would be "Grey is the Colour of Hope" by Irina Ratushinskaya, who was a Ukrainian poet sentenced to 5 years in a labour camp then 7 years in internal exile in Russia in 1983 for "anti-Soviet agitation". With pressure and attention, she was released after 3.5 years. She wrote religious poetry. It's one of the most affecting books I have ever read.
It's worth a note that persecution has always been as intense, or worse, in parts of the Islamic world.
I thought the issue with the Jehovah’s Witnesses, for the Nazis, was their pacifism. Which in Nazi ideology was a toxic attack on the State & the Race.
The Nazis believed that only the violently aggressive would survive. Therefore pacifism was suicide for all.
Yes, verv possible - I know little of the detail under Nazi Germany apart from JWs being Holocaust victims, and some statistics. I have not read accounts.
"National pride has declined sharply over the last decade, possibly because Britain is redefining itself as it becomes more diverse, researchers say.
Fewer Britons feel pride in the country’s history, economic achievements and democratic processes compared with 2013, the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) report found. Results showed that 64 per cent of respondents were proud of Britain’s history, down from 86 per cent in 2013 when the survey was last conducted."
I'd say it's probably down to a greater awareness of the complexities of our colonial past. People now are less likely to be 'rah rah all great' about it. They'll be more nuanced.
That will be part of the answer anyway. Also a more diverse population. That must have an impact too.
People's view of the past are always coloured by the present. In confident ages people are more enamoured of the nation's past. For example that spate of films and TV series about the Raj in the 80s.
National 'confidence' is an interesting concept. We've just done Brexit for example. Was that a sign of confidence or of loss of confidence? You could argue it either way but my sense is it was very much the latter.
As most people now think Brexit a mistake, I guess it was sign of (misplaced) confidence. As with most mistakes, people made assumptions they didn't verify and which didn't pan out.
Perhaps I'm the only one, but I'd be surprised if Labour broke its promise on not raising NI, VAT or Income tax.
My guess is they will go for: 1) remove higher rate pension relief- back to 20% 2) increase capital gains tax 3) reintroduce pensions lifetime allowance
If they're feeling bold - I think they might try for scrapping inheritance tax and replacing it with a less generous lifetime gift allowance...
I expect pension tax relief to be equalised at 25% which helps the 'working class' if anyone knows what that means
Capital gains tax and lifetime allowances seem certain to be amended
On IT I expect the seven year gift allowance to go
If I were the government, any government, I'd stop buggering about with pensions limits and allowances almost each and every year.
This is a big reason why we have a savings crisis in retirement, with people not feeling confident to invest, so they undersave, and it fuels a big demand for the State's services in retirement instead like, err, the NHS, discounts, and triple-lock pensions.
It's remarkably short-sighted, but it's also remarkably easy to raid. Governments need to grow-up.
Almost a third of pensioners live in millionaire households. It is not that we are undersaving as a whole it is inequality across the field, and the pension rules are built to favour those capable of the millionaire retirement and against that of the just managing.
We should change that, because that is what will reduce/control future government spending on future retired.
And yes we should change the rules less frequently. But when a party returns to office after a 14 year absence it seems a sensible time to change.
If you change the rules, you'll find not so many pensioners do live in 'millionaire' households in future and become more reliant on the State.
Bear in mind almost all private sector employers only contribute 3-6% to their employees pension pots, which require significant contributions from the individual on top, whereas public sector employers pay 20-35% contributions with even some final salary schemes still open.
If anyone is living in clover, it's them.
It seems perverse to incentivise people on £50K+ at double those on standard rate. 40% incentive/pension credit for higher rate earners against 20% for standard rate. Make it the same at say 25%.
Er, no, you are incentivising them to defer current income for future income. The tax relief reflects the tax they pay.
Your ideas are shit. Same as Lefties all over.
It’s one of the tax changes the last government was actively looking at.
Perhaps I'm the only one, but I'd be surprised if Labour broke its promise on not raising NI, VAT or Income tax.
My guess is they will go for: 1) remove higher rate pension relief- back to 20% 2) increase capital gains tax 3) reintroduce pensions lifetime allowance
If they're feeling bold - I think they might try for scrapping inheritance tax and replacing it with a less generous lifetime gift allowance...
I expect pension tax relief to be equalised at 25% which helps the 'working class' if anyone knows what that means
Capital gains tax and lifetime allowances seem certain to be amended
On IT I expect the seven year gift allowance to go
If I were the government, any government, I'd stop buggering about with pensions limits and allowances almost each and every year.
This is a big reason why we have a savings crisis in retirement, with people not feeling confident to invest, so they undersave, and it fuels a big demand for the State's services in retirement instead like, err, the NHS, discounts, and triple-lock pensions.
It's remarkably short-sighted, but it's also remarkably easy to raid. Governments need to grow-up.
Almost a third of pensioners live in millionaire households. It is not that we are undersaving as a whole it is inequality across the field, and the pension rules are built to favour those capable of the millionaire retirement and against that of the just managing.
We should change that, because that is what will reduce/control future government spending on future retired.
And yes we should change the rules less frequently. But when a party returns to office after a 14 year absence it seems a sensible time to change.
If you change the rules, you'll find not so many pensioners do live in 'millionaire' households in future and become more reliant on the State.
Bear in mind almost all private sector employers only contribute 3-6% to their employees pension pots, which require significant contributions from the individual on top, whereas public sector employers pay 20-35% contributions with even some final salary schemes still open.
If anyone is living in clover, it's them.
It seems perverse to incentivise people on £50K+ at double those on standard rate. 40% incentive/pension credit for higher rate earners against 20% for standard rate. Make it the same at say 25%.
Er, no, you are incentivising them to defer current income for future income. The tax relief reflects the tax they pay.
Your ideas are shit. Same as Lefties all over.
It’s one of the tax changes the last government was actively looking at.
Perhaps I'm the only one, but I'd be surprised if Labour broke its promise on not raising NI, VAT or Income tax.
My guess is they will go for: 1) remove higher rate pension relief- back to 20% 2) increase capital gains tax 3) reintroduce pensions lifetime allowance
If they're feeling bold - I think they might try for scrapping inheritance tax and replacing it with a less generous lifetime gift allowance...
I expect pension tax relief to be equalised at 25% which helps the 'working class' if anyone knows what that means
Capital gains tax and lifetime allowances seem certain to be amended
On IT I expect the seven year gift allowance to go
If I were the government, any government, I'd stop buggering about with pensions limits and allowances almost each and every year.
This is a big reason why we have a savings crisis in retirement, with people not feeling confident to invest, so they undersave, and it fuels a big demand for the State's services in retirement instead like, err, the NHS, discounts, and triple-lock pensions.
It's remarkably short-sighted, but it's also remarkably easy to raid. Governments need to grow-up.
Almost a third of pensioners live in millionaire households. It is not that we are undersaving as a whole it is inequality across the field, and the pension rules are built to favour those capable of the millionaire retirement and against that of the just managing.
We should change that, because that is what will reduce/control future government spending on future retired.
And yes we should change the rules less frequently. But when a party returns to office after a 14 year absence it seems a sensible time to change.
If you change the rules, you'll find not so many pensioners do live in 'millionaire' households in future and become more reliant on the State.
Bear in mind almost all private sector employers only contribute 3-6% to their employees pension pots, which require significant contributions from the individual on top, whereas public sector employers pay 20-35% contributions with even some final salary schemes still open.
If anyone is living in clover, it's them.
We should be looking to increase the number of pensioners retiring with 500k or so, and given budget constraints that means making it harder for the pensioners retiring with 1m plus as we just can't help everyone.
And budget constraints in future might change it again, right?
Like the State pension, you need to make it predictable and leave it. The lifetime cap and allowances, as they are, incentivise people to work, save and invest here that we need.
Remember, that's doctors and professionals that drive our economy - not rich twats like Musk and Mone.
The rules have been changed multiple times when your party was in power.
It is churlish to complain that a party that has been out of office for 14 years is now doing the same. If they tinker with it every year I will agree it is pointless. But they have been elected partly to provide greater wealth equality and that requires changes.
If you could pull your head out of your arse for just one second you'll see that my original post said, and I quote: "If I were the government, any government, I'd stop buggering about with pensions limits and allowances almost each and every year."
That includes yours.
What they think they've got a mandate for, and what they actually asked for a mandate on, are two very decidedly different things.
Their mandate certainly isn't the status quo. Voters of all parties, including your own, have had more than enough of it. So change it is, and it is their flavour of change, which of course you may not like, but thats how democracy goes.
In the ultra-chic and tres parisienne “La manche” lounge and cocktail bar, where I am now hanging with the upper crust of Kosalin society, a gin and tonic is £2
Wow. Get pissed for a fiver. That's back to 1985.
£5.01 buys you three pints of Greene King IPA in my local Wetherspoons. Alternatively, half a litre of wine from a tap(!) for £5.90. Not ultra-chic though.
Fashionable western style cocktail bar La Manche is on “IV Proletarian Brigade Street”, facing a square still showing world war 2 bomb damage, with a statue honouring Montenegrin heroes of the late 19th century, in a town which was founded by Ottoman Turks - of whom all traces have been removed
Perhaps I'm the only one, but I'd be surprised if Labour broke its promise on not raising NI, VAT or Income tax.
My guess is they will go for: 1) remove higher rate pension relief- back to 20% 2) increase capital gains tax 3) reintroduce pensions lifetime allowance
If they're feeling bold - I think they might try for scrapping inheritance tax and replacing it with a less generous lifetime gift allowance...
I expect pension tax relief to be equalised at 25% which helps the 'working class' if anyone knows what that means
Capital gains tax and lifetime allowances seem certain to be amended
On IT I expect the seven year gift allowance to go
If I were the government, any government, I'd stop buggering about with pensions limits and allowances almost each and every year.
This is a big reason why we have a savings crisis in retirement, with people not feeling confident to invest, so they undersave, and it fuels a big demand for the State's services in retirement instead like, err, the NHS, discounts, and triple-lock pensions.
It's remarkably short-sighted, but it's also remarkably easy to raid. Governments need to grow-up.
Almost a third of pensioners live in millionaire households. It is not that we are undersaving as a whole it is inequality across the field, and the pension rules are built to favour those capable of the millionaire retirement and against that of the just managing.
We should change that, because that is what will reduce/control future government spending on future retired.
And yes we should change the rules less frequently. But when a party returns to office after a 14 year absence it seems a sensible time to change.
If you change the rules, you'll find not so many pensioners do live in 'millionaire' households in future and become more reliant on the State.
Bear in mind almost all private sector employers only contribute 3-6% to their employees pension pots, which require significant contributions from the individual on top, whereas public sector employers pay 20-35% contributions with even some final salary schemes still open.
If anyone is living in clover, it's them.
It seems perverse to incentivise people on £50K+ at double those on standard rate. 40% incentive/pension credit for higher rate earners against 20% for standard rate. Make it the same at say 25%.
Er, no, you are incentivising them to defer current income for future income. The tax relief reflects the tax they pay.
Your ideas are shit. Same as Lefties all over.
It’s one of the tax changes the last government was actively looking at.
Perhaps I'm the only one, but I'd be surprised if Labour broke its promise on not raising NI, VAT or Income tax.
My guess is they will go for: 1) remove higher rate pension relief- back to 20% 2) increase capital gains tax 3) reintroduce pensions lifetime allowance
If they're feeling bold - I think they might try for scrapping inheritance tax and replacing it with a less generous lifetime gift allowance...
I expect pension tax relief to be equalised at 25% which helps the 'working class' if anyone knows what that means
Capital gains tax and lifetime allowances seem certain to be amended
On IT I expect the seven year gift allowance to go
If I were the government, any government, I'd stop buggering about with pensions limits and allowances almost each and every year.
This is a big reason why we have a savings crisis in retirement, with people not feeling confident to invest, so they undersave, and it fuels a big demand for the State's services in retirement instead like, err, the NHS, discounts, and triple-lock pensions.
It's remarkably short-sighted, but it's also remarkably easy to raid. Governments need to grow-up.
Almost a third of pensioners live in millionaire households. It is not that we are undersaving as a whole it is inequality across the field, and the pension rules are built to favour those capable of the millionaire retirement and against that of the just managing.
We should change that, because that is what will reduce/control future government spending on future retired.
And yes we should change the rules less frequently. But when a party returns to office after a 14 year absence it seems a sensible time to change.
If you change the rules, you'll find not so many pensioners do live in 'millionaire' households in future and become more reliant on the State.
Bear in mind almost all private sector employers only contribute 3-6% to their employees pension pots, which require significant contributions from the individual on top, whereas public sector employers pay 20-35% contributions with even some final salary schemes still open.
If anyone is living in clover, it's them.
It seems perverse to incentivise people on £50K+ at double those on standard rate. 40% incentive/pension credit for higher rate earners against 20% for standard rate. Make it the same at say 25%.
Er, no, you are incentivising them to defer current income for future income. The tax relief reflects the tax they pay.
Your ideas are shit. Same as Lefties all over.
It’s one of the tax changes the last government was actively looking at.
I knew it! Bloody Lefties.
Getting tax relief at 40% or 45% on the way in, but only paying 20% on most or all of it on the way out, seems like something ripe for the chop to me.
I see the PB Tories are back to publicly wallowing in their manifold stages of grief.
How one longs for the halcyon days of Guess Boris' Weight.
Looks more like PB’s right wingers are enjoying the chance to mock and deride this already-ludicrous and laughable government, which is now promising to nationalise concert ticketing because oasis are charging too much
"National pride has declined sharply over the last decade, possibly because Britain is redefining itself as it becomes more diverse, researchers say.
Fewer Britons feel pride in the country’s history, economic achievements and democratic processes compared with 2013, the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) report found. Results showed that 64 per cent of respondents were proud of Britain’s history, down from 86 per cent in 2013 when the survey was last conducted."
I'd say it's probably down to a greater awareness of the complexities of our colonial past. People now are less likely to be 'rah rah all great' about it. They'll be more nuanced.
That will be part of the answer anyway. Also a more diverse population. That must have an impact too.
People's view of the past are always coloured by the present. In confident ages people are more enamoured of the nation's past. For example that spate of films and TV series about the Raj in the 80s.
National 'confidence' is an interesting concept. We've just done Brexit for example. Was that a sign of confidence or of loss of confidence? You could argue it either way but my sense is it was very much the latter.
As most people now think Brexit a mistake, I guess it was sign of (misplaced) confidence. As with most mistakes, people made assumptions they didn't verify and which didn't pan out.
It doesn't follow in the way you think it does.
Let's say we Rejoined. There would be stuff we didn't like and didn't work out about that too, not least of which would be being having our domestic politics dominated by European integration debates and regulation initiatives.
You'd then have polling showing most people now think Rejoin a mistake.
I see the PB Tories are back to publicly wallowing in their manifold stages of grief.
How one longs for the halcyon days of Guess Boris' Weight.
Looks more like PB’s right wingers are enjoying the chance to mock and deride this already-ludicrous and laughable government, which is now promising to nationalise concert ticketing because oasis are charging too much
Which again is a fucking stupid idea.
It will lead to more rationing, fewer concerts, more empty seats, and worse quality stadia experiences.
Perhaps I'm the only one, but I'd be surprised if Labour broke its promise on not raising NI, VAT or Income tax.
My guess is they will go for: 1) remove higher rate pension relief- back to 20% 2) increase capital gains tax 3) reintroduce pensions lifetime allowance
If they're feeling bold - I think they might try for scrapping inheritance tax and replacing it with a less generous lifetime gift allowance...
I expect pension tax relief to be equalised at 25% which helps the 'working class' if anyone knows what that means
Capital gains tax and lifetime allowances seem certain to be amended
On IT I expect the seven year gift allowance to go
If I were the government, any government, I'd stop buggering about with pensions limits and allowances almost each and every year.
This is a big reason why we have a savings crisis in retirement, with people not feeling confident to invest, so they undersave, and it fuels a big demand for the State's services in retirement instead like, err, the NHS, discounts, and triple-lock pensions.
It's remarkably short-sighted, but it's also remarkably easy to raid. Governments need to grow-up.
Almost a third of pensioners live in millionaire households. It is not that we are undersaving as a whole it is inequality across the field, and the pension rules are built to favour those capable of the millionaire retirement and against that of the just managing.
We should change that, because that is what will reduce/control future government spending on future retired.
And yes we should change the rules less frequently. But when a party returns to office after a 14 year absence it seems a sensible time to change.
If you change the rules, you'll find not so many pensioners do live in 'millionaire' households in future and become more reliant on the State.
Bear in mind almost all private sector employers only contribute 3-6% to their employees pension pots, which require significant contributions from the individual on top, whereas public sector employers pay 20-35% contributions with even some final salary schemes still open.
If anyone is living in clover, it's them.
It seems perverse to incentivise people on £50K+ at double those on standard rate. 40% incentive/pension credit for higher rate earners against 20% for standard rate. Make it the same at say 25%.
Er, no, you are incentivising them to defer current income for future income. The tax relief reflects the tax they pay.
Your ideas are shit. Same as Lefties all over.
It’s one of the tax changes the last government was actively looking at.
I knew it! Bloody Lefties.
Getting tax relief at 40% or 45% on the way in, but only paying 20% on most or all of it on the way out, seems like something ripe for the chop to me.
It is estimated to save £10b - half the black hole. I'm sure it will be in the Reeves' budget.
Perhaps I'm the only one, but I'd be surprised if Labour broke its promise on not raising NI, VAT or Income tax.
My guess is they will go for: 1) remove higher rate pension relief- back to 20% 2) increase capital gains tax 3) reintroduce pensions lifetime allowance
If they're feeling bold - I think they might try for scrapping inheritance tax and replacing it with a less generous lifetime gift allowance...
I expect pension tax relief to be equalised at 25% which helps the 'working class' if anyone knows what that means
Capital gains tax and lifetime allowances seem certain to be amended
On IT I expect the seven year gift allowance to go
If I were the government, any government, I'd stop buggering about with pensions limits and allowances almost each and every year.
This is a big reason why we have a savings crisis in retirement, with people not feeling confident to invest, so they undersave, and it fuels a big demand for the State's services in retirement instead like, err, the NHS, discounts, and triple-lock pensions.
It's remarkably short-sighted, but it's also remarkably easy to raid. Governments need to grow-up.
Almost a third of pensioners live in millionaire households. It is not that we are undersaving as a whole it is inequality across the field, and the pension rules are built to favour those capable of the millionaire retirement and against that of the just managing.
We should change that, because that is what will reduce/control future government spending on future retired.
And yes we should change the rules less frequently. But when a party returns to office after a 14 year absence it seems a sensible time to change.
If you change the rules, you'll find not so many pensioners do live in 'millionaire' households in future and become more reliant on the State.
Bear in mind almost all private sector employers only contribute 3-6% to their employees pension pots, which require significant contributions from the individual on top, whereas public sector employers pay 20-35% contributions with even some final salary schemes still open.
If anyone is living in clover, it's them.
It seems perverse to incentivise people on £50K+ at double those on standard rate. 40% incentive/pension credit for higher rate earners against 20% for standard rate. Make it the same at say 25%.
Er, no, you are incentivising them to defer current income for future income. The tax relief reflects the tax they pay.
Your ideas are shit. Same as Lefties all over.
It’s one of the tax changes the last government was actively looking at.
Perhaps I'm the only one, but I'd be surprised if Labour broke its promise on not raising NI, VAT or Income tax.
My guess is they will go for: 1) remove higher rate pension relief- back to 20% 2) increase capital gains tax 3) reintroduce pensions lifetime allowance
If they're feeling bold - I think they might try for scrapping inheritance tax and replacing it with a less generous lifetime gift allowance...
I expect pension tax relief to be equalised at 25% which helps the 'working class' if anyone knows what that means
Capital gains tax and lifetime allowances seem certain to be amended
On IT I expect the seven year gift allowance to go
If I were the government, any government, I'd stop buggering about with pensions limits and allowances almost each and every year.
This is a big reason why we have a savings crisis in retirement, with people not feeling confident to invest, so they undersave, and it fuels a big demand for the State's services in retirement instead like, err, the NHS, discounts, and triple-lock pensions.
It's remarkably short-sighted, but it's also remarkably easy to raid. Governments need to grow-up.
Almost a third of pensioners live in millionaire households. It is not that we are undersaving as a whole it is inequality across the field, and the pension rules are built to favour those capable of the millionaire retirement and against that of the just managing.
We should change that, because that is what will reduce/control future government spending on future retired.
And yes we should change the rules less frequently. But when a party returns to office after a 14 year absence it seems a sensible time to change.
If you change the rules, you'll find not so many pensioners do live in 'millionaire' households in future and become more reliant on the State.
Bear in mind almost all private sector employers only contribute 3-6% to their employees pension pots, which require significant contributions from the individual on top, whereas public sector employers pay 20-35% contributions with even some final salary schemes still open.
If anyone is living in clover, it's them.
It seems perverse to incentivise people on £50K+ at double those on standard rate. 40% incentive/pension credit for higher rate earners against 20% for standard rate. Make it the same at say 25%.
Er, no, you are incentivising them to defer current income for future income. The tax relief reflects the tax they pay.
Your ideas are shit. Same as Lefties all over.
It’s one of the tax changes the last government was actively looking at.
No it wasn't
They did look at it and the research showed it would result in a wave of early retirements among senior doctors in the NHS so they dumped it. Fundamentally the situation hasn't changed and any change to pension reliefs will have this result and the NHS will face an acute skills shortage while 6-7m people are waiting for operations/procedures.
Perhaps I'm the only one, but I'd be surprised if Labour broke its promise on not raising NI, VAT or Income tax.
My guess is they will go for: 1) remove higher rate pension relief- back to 20% 2) increase capital gains tax 3) reintroduce pensions lifetime allowance
If they're feeling bold - I think they might try for scrapping inheritance tax and replacing it with a less generous lifetime gift allowance...
I expect pension tax relief to be equalised at 25% which helps the 'working class' if anyone knows what that means
Capital gains tax and lifetime allowances seem certain to be amended
On IT I expect the seven year gift allowance to go
If I were the government, any government, I'd stop buggering about with pensions limits and allowances almost each and every year.
This is a big reason why we have a savings crisis in retirement, with people not feeling confident to invest, so they undersave, and it fuels a big demand for the State's services in retirement instead like, err, the NHS, discounts, and triple-lock pensions.
It's remarkably short-sighted, but it's also remarkably easy to raid. Governments need to grow-up.
Almost a third of pensioners live in millionaire households. It is not that we are undersaving as a whole it is inequality across the field, and the pension rules are built to favour those capable of the millionaire retirement and against that of the just managing.
We should change that, because that is what will reduce/control future government spending on future retired.
And yes we should change the rules less frequently. But when a party returns to office after a 14 year absence it seems a sensible time to change.
If you change the rules, you'll find not so many pensioners do live in 'millionaire' households in future and become more reliant on the State.
Bear in mind almost all private sector employers only contribute 3-6% to their employees pension pots, which require significant contributions from the individual on top, whereas public sector employers pay 20-35% contributions with even some final salary schemes still open.
If anyone is living in clover, it's them.
We should be looking to increase the number of pensioners retiring with 500k or so, and given budget constraints that means making it harder for the pensioners retiring with 1m plus as we just can't help everyone.
And budget constraints in future might change it again, right?
Like the State pension, you need to make it predictable and leave it. The lifetime cap and allowances, as they are, incentivise people to work, save and invest here that we need.
Remember, that's doctors and professionals that drive our economy - not rich twats like Musk and Mone.
The rules have been changed multiple times when your party was in power.
It is churlish to complain that a party that has been out of office for 14 years is now doing the same. If they tinker with it every year I will agree it is pointless. But they have been elected partly to provide greater wealth equality and that requires changes.
If you could pull your head out of your arse for just one second you'll see that my original post said, and I quote: "If I were the government, any government, I'd stop buggering about with pensions limits and allowances almost each and every year."
That includes yours.
What they think they've got a mandate for, and what they actually asked for a mandate on, are two very decidedly different things.
Their mandate certainly isn't the status quo. Voters of all parties, including your own, have had more than enough of it. So change it is, and it is their flavour of change, which of course you may not like, but thats how democracy goes.
Labour rode to office simply on a mandate to eject the incumbent administration.
They have no mandate for their own fantasy neo-Marxist tribute wanks, because they didn't tell anyone it before the election, even if their right-hand did occasionally brush the front of their trousers purely by "accident".
Flatlander said: » show previous quotes Dynamic road pricing?
4pm outside a school? £10 / mile. M74 through the borders late at night? 0.01p / mile.
Would mean universal car tracking through. Do we really want that?
That would make a lot of teachers very unhappy…
A lot of parents too.
Its utterly insane how some people here seem to think education isn't valuable enough to have vehicles on the road for.
Education is important.
On the other hand, most of our students are capable of walking a hundred meters or so from the school rather than having to be picked up in the (clearly marked) staff car park with only one entrance.
It's weird how the rules on admissions still use the expectation that kids will walk 2 miles to school (3 if over 8 I think), when most parents would not dream of that. A lot apparently don't let kids walk to school until they are in secondary school.
I'd like to see some data on distance from school for pupils at primary and secondary level.
Primary should be walkable, wheelable, or cyclable for most - where the effort has been made 80-90% has been done without undue effort as a proportion.
I do know that I have nearly the largest state school in the country nearby, and 1/3 of the catchment on my side of the bypass cannot walk or cycle there over the pedestrian bridge because there is a 100m gap in a cycle route and the back entrance to the campus is not opened. That alone creates perhaps 600-1200 extra vehicle movements per day around a route of several miles.
The biggest issue with primary schools, is the parents needing to fit dropping the kids off into their routine of getting themselves to work.
Secondary kids should be able to get themselves to school if it’s less than a mile away.
Yes there’s probably loads of badly-designed roads and bridges that need fixing as well.
Secondary commutes are surely a case of needing good public transport. My son has been getting the bus to school since year 7, and that’s about 5 miles away.
The Americans have dedicated school buses of course. Or at least I assume they still do.
Perhaps I'm the only one, but I'd be surprised if Labour broke its promise on not raising NI, VAT or Income tax.
My guess is they will go for: 1) remove higher rate pension relief- back to 20% 2) increase capital gains tax 3) reintroduce pensions lifetime allowance
If they're feeling bold - I think they might try for scrapping inheritance tax and replacing it with a less generous lifetime gift allowance...
I expect pension tax relief to be equalised at 25% which helps the 'working class' if anyone knows what that means
Capital gains tax and lifetime allowances seem certain to be amended
On IT I expect the seven year gift allowance to go
If I were the government, any government, I'd stop buggering about with pensions limits and allowances almost each and every year.
This is a big reason why we have a savings crisis in retirement, with people not feeling confident to invest, so they undersave, and it fuels a big demand for the State's services in retirement instead like, err, the NHS, discounts, and triple-lock pensions.
It's remarkably short-sighted, but it's also remarkably easy to raid. Governments need to grow-up.
Almost a third of pensioners live in millionaire households. It is not that we are undersaving as a whole it is inequality across the field, and the pension rules are built to favour those capable of the millionaire retirement and against that of the just managing.
We should change that, because that is what will reduce/control future government spending on future retired.
And yes we should change the rules less frequently. But when a party returns to office after a 14 year absence it seems a sensible time to change.
If you change the rules, you'll find not so many pensioners do live in 'millionaire' households in future and become more reliant on the State.
Bear in mind almost all private sector employers only contribute 3-6% to their employees pension pots, which require significant contributions from the individual on top, whereas public sector employers pay 20-35% contributions with even some final salary schemes still open.
If anyone is living in clover, it's them.
It seems perverse to incentivise people on £50K+ at double those on standard rate. 40% incentive/pension credit for higher rate earners against 20% for standard rate. Make it the same at say 25%.
Er, no, you are incentivising them to defer current income for future income. The tax relief reflects the tax they pay.
Your ideas are shit. Same as Lefties all over.
It’s one of the tax changes the last government was actively looking at.
No it wasn't
They did look at it and the research showed it would result in a wave of early retirements among senior doctors in the NHS so they dumped it. Fundamentally the situation hasn't changed and any change to pension reliefs will have this result and the NHS will face an acute skills shortage while 6-7m people are waiting for operations/procedures.
So:
Giving doctors a nice tax break to avoid a skills shortage = good
Giving doctors a pay rise to avoid a skills shortage = bad
Perhaps I'm the only one, but I'd be surprised if Labour broke its promise on not raising NI, VAT or Income tax.
My guess is they will go for: 1) remove higher rate pension relief- back to 20% 2) increase capital gains tax 3) reintroduce pensions lifetime allowance
If they're feeling bold - I think they might try for scrapping inheritance tax and replacing it with a less generous lifetime gift allowance...
I expect pension tax relief to be equalised at 25% which helps the 'working class' if anyone knows what that means
Capital gains tax and lifetime allowances seem certain to be amended
On IT I expect the seven year gift allowance to go
If I were the government, any government, I'd stop buggering about with pensions limits and allowances almost each and every year.
This is a big reason why we have a savings crisis in retirement, with people not feeling confident to invest, so they undersave, and it fuels a big demand for the State's services in retirement instead like, err, the NHS, discounts, and triple-lock pensions.
It's remarkably short-sighted, but it's also remarkably easy to raid. Governments need to grow-up.
Almost a third of pensioners live in millionaire households. It is not that we are undersaving as a whole it is inequality across the field, and the pension rules are built to favour those capable of the millionaire retirement and against that of the just managing.
We should change that, because that is what will reduce/control future government spending on future retired.
And yes we should change the rules less frequently. But when a party returns to office after a 14 year absence it seems a sensible time to change.
If you change the rules, you'll find not so many pensioners do live in 'millionaire' households in future and become more reliant on the State.
Bear in mind almost all private sector employers only contribute 3-6% to their employees pension pots, which require significant contributions from the individual on top, whereas public sector employers pay 20-35% contributions with even some final salary schemes still open.
If anyone is living in clover, it's them.
It seems perverse to incentivise people on £50K+ at double those on standard rate. 40% incentive/pension credit for higher rate earners against 20% for standard rate. Make it the same at say 25%.
Er, no, you are incentivising them to defer current income for future income. The tax relief reflects the tax they pay.
Your ideas are shit. Same as Lefties all over.
It’s one of the tax changes the last government was actively looking at.
I knew it! Bloody Lefties.
Except they weren't.
Yes they were
And they binned it because it would have been a disaster for the NHS (and probably other very senior roles across the country). Those skills would just be lost without anyone to replace them too which is why Labour pursuing this would be completely idiotic.
Given the existence of reporting restriction on this case, would it not be so much better for anyone to wants to call themselves a journalist to shut the f*** up until the legal proceedings have concluded?
I thought the legal proceedings had concluded. Yes, there's to be a public inquiry, that's merely to investigate systematic failings at the hospital? In law isn't Letby's guilt now set in stone?
I see the PB Tories are back to publicly wallowing in their manifold stages of grief.
How one longs for the halcyon days of Guess Boris' Weight.
Looks more like PB’s right wingers are enjoying the chance to mock and deride this already-ludicrous and laughable government, which is now promising to nationalise concert ticketing because oasis are charging too much
Which again is a fucking stupid idea.
It will lead to more rationing, fewer concerts, more empty seats, and worse quality stadia experiences.
Under the National Gig Service, Oasis will be free at the point of use with a waiting list prioritised by need.
I see the PB Tories are back to publicly wallowing in their manifold stages of grief.
How one longs for the halcyon days of Guess Boris' Weight.
This line is the biggest fail of all. The point about the stages of grief thing is, grief diminishes over time. July 2024 was predictable since 2021 at the latest. The Tories are over this. It's the left that's had a bare eight weeks to process the fact that their Glorious Revolution was only ever nailed to the perch, and that "Everybody suddenly burst out singing" turns out to be "A couple of guys sarcastically hummed a really downbeat Smiths song."
Thoughts and prayers. I'd like to say I expect things to improve but my lying circuits are out of commission.
Perhaps I'm the only one, but I'd be surprised if Labour broke its promise on not raising NI, VAT or Income tax.
My guess is they will go for: 1) remove higher rate pension relief- back to 20% 2) increase capital gains tax 3) reintroduce pensions lifetime allowance
If they're feeling bold - I think they might try for scrapping inheritance tax and replacing it with a less generous lifetime gift allowance...
I expect pension tax relief to be equalised at 25% which helps the 'working class' if anyone knows what that means
Capital gains tax and lifetime allowances seem certain to be amended
On IT I expect the seven year gift allowance to go
If I were the government, any government, I'd stop buggering about with pensions limits and allowances almost each and every year.
This is a big reason why we have a savings crisis in retirement, with people not feeling confident to invest, so they undersave, and it fuels a big demand for the State's services in retirement instead like, err, the NHS, discounts, and triple-lock pensions.
It's remarkably short-sighted, but it's also remarkably easy to raid. Governments need to grow-up.
Almost a third of pensioners live in millionaire households. It is not that we are undersaving as a whole it is inequality across the field, and the pension rules are built to favour those capable of the millionaire retirement and against that of the just managing.
We should change that, because that is what will reduce/control future government spending on future retired.
And yes we should change the rules less frequently. But when a party returns to office after a 14 year absence it seems a sensible time to change.
If you change the rules, you'll find not so many pensioners do live in 'millionaire' households in future and become more reliant on the State.
Bear in mind almost all private sector employers only contribute 3-6% to their employees pension pots, which require significant contributions from the individual on top, whereas public sector employers pay 20-35% contributions with even some final salary schemes still open.
If anyone is living in clover, it's them.
It seems perverse to incentivise people on £50K+ at double those on standard rate. 40% incentive/pension credit for higher rate earners against 20% for standard rate. Make it the same at say 25%.
Er, no, you are incentivising them to defer current income for future income. The tax relief reflects the tax they pay.
Your ideas are shit. Same as Lefties all over.
It’s one of the tax changes the last government was actively looking at.
No it wasn't
They did look at it and the research showed it would result in a wave of early retirements among senior doctors in the NHS so they dumped it. Fundamentally the situation hasn't changed and any change to pension reliefs will have this result and the NHS will face an acute skills shortage while 6-7m people are waiting for operations/procedures.
So:
Giving doctors a nice tax break to avoid a skills shortage = good
Giving doctors a pay rise to avoid a skills shortage = bad
Giving junior doctors a pay rise is stupid because their lifetime earnings are already very high and while they are juniors the state is still funding their education to the tune of tens of thousands per year. A better solution would have been student loan forgiveness but it's too late now.
Flatlander said: » show previous quotes Dynamic road pricing?
4pm outside a school? £10 / mile. M74 through the borders late at night? 0.01p / mile.
Would mean universal car tracking through. Do we really want that?
That would make a lot of teachers very unhappy…
A lot of parents too.
Its utterly insane how some people here seem to think education isn't valuable enough to have vehicles on the road for.
Education is important.
On the other hand, most of our students are capable of walking a hundred meters or so from the school rather than having to be picked up in the (clearly marked) staff car park with only one entrance.
It's weird how the rules on admissions still use the expectation that kids will walk 2 miles to school (3 if over 8 I think), when most parents would not dream of that. A lot apparently don't let kids walk to school until they are in secondary school.
I'd like to see some data on distance from school for pupils at primary and secondary level.
Primary should be walkable, wheelable, or cyclable for most - where the effort has been made 80-90% has been done without undue effort as a proportion.
I do know that I have nearly the largest state school in the country nearby, and 1/3 of the catchment on my side of the bypass cannot walk or cycle there over the pedestrian bridge because there is a 100m gap in a cycle route and the back entrance to the campus is not opened. That alone creates perhaps 600-1200 extra vehicle movements per day around a route of several miles.
The biggest issue with primary schools, is the parents needing to fit dropping the kids off into their routine of getting themselves to work.
Secondary kids should be able to get themselves to school if it’s less than a mile away.
Yes there’s probably loads of badly-designed roads and bridges that need fixing as well.
Secondary commutes are surely a case of needing good public transport. My son has been getting the bus to school since year 7, and that’s about 5 miles away.
The Americans have dedicated school buses of course. Or at least I assume they still do.
50% of my school got a bus, 40% walked or cycled, 10% got a lift in.* That 10% caused more chaos than the rest put together.
*From memory. They did an annual census when I was there.
Perhaps I'm the only one, but I'd be surprised if Labour broke its promise on not raising NI, VAT or Income tax.
My guess is they will go for: 1) remove higher rate pension relief- back to 20% 2) increase capital gains tax 3) reintroduce pensions lifetime allowance
If they're feeling bold - I think they might try for scrapping inheritance tax and replacing it with a less generous lifetime gift allowance...
I expect pension tax relief to be equalised at 25% which helps the 'working class' if anyone knows what that means
Capital gains tax and lifetime allowances seem certain to be amended
On IT I expect the seven year gift allowance to go
If I were the government, any government, I'd stop buggering about with pensions limits and allowances almost each and every year.
This is a big reason why we have a savings crisis in retirement, with people not feeling confident to invest, so they undersave, and it fuels a big demand for the State's services in retirement instead like, err, the NHS, discounts, and triple-lock pensions.
It's remarkably short-sighted, but it's also remarkably easy to raid. Governments need to grow-up.
Almost a third of pensioners live in millionaire households. It is not that we are undersaving as a whole it is inequality across the field, and the pension rules are built to favour those capable of the millionaire retirement and against that of the just managing.
We should change that, because that is what will reduce/control future government spending on future retired.
And yes we should change the rules less frequently. But when a party returns to office after a 14 year absence it seems a sensible time to change.
If you change the rules, you'll find not so many pensioners do live in 'millionaire' households in future and become more reliant on the State.
Bear in mind almost all private sector employers only contribute 3-6% to their employees pension pots, which require significant contributions from the individual on top, whereas public sector employers pay 20-35% contributions with even some final salary schemes still open.
If anyone is living in clover, it's them.
It seems perverse to incentivise people on £50K+ at double those on standard rate. 40% incentive/pension credit for higher rate earners against 20% for standard rate. Make it the same at say 25%.
Er, no, you are incentivising them to defer current income for future income. The tax relief reflects the tax they pay.
Your ideas are shit. Same as Lefties all over.
It’s one of the tax changes the last government was actively looking at.
I knew it! Bloody Lefties.
Except they weren't.
Yes they were
And they binned it because it would have been a disaster for the NHS (and probably other very senior roles across the country). Those skills would just be lost without anyone to replace them too which is why Labour pursuing this would be completely idiotic.
Those retiring early because their tax break on pension contributions was reduced from 40% to 20% would be on much lower pensions than if they continued working. I sense blackmail here. I'd call their bluff. It's the equivalent of a strike.
Truss's Mini Budget wasn't "governing from the left". Nor was the Rwanda scheme. Nor was cutting taxes when many public services were struggling. If the Conservative Party keeps misleading itself about why it lost, it will spend a long time in opposition
Gavin Barwell. Ugh. The less we hear from him the better.
He's a male Heidi Allen.
On immigration the tories governed left and spoke right- the rawanda scheme for example was never going to happen but they let in many more thousands of legal migrants than Labour.
On economics they taxed more than ever before- whilst cclaimimg to be a low taxed party. The two main reasons why people vote Tory they didn't deliver on.
Wait until you see what Labour have in store for October.
✅ 5p on fuel ✅ End of winter fuel allowance for 90% of pensioners ✅ VAT on private school fees ✅ Introduction of pay per mile VED
✅ Pensions down to basic relief only and lower lifetime cap ✅ CGT at higher level increased to 35p ✅ Additional rate up to 50p ✅ Inheritance tax married transfer removed
I have no idea what Rachel Reeves will do, but in her shoes with the commitments she has made I would look at:
1. Remove pensions from salary sacrifice and discount payments into pensions at around 30%. This is roughly neutral to the status quo for basic rate tax payers once you take NI into account and gives higher rate tax payers a substantial discount while still collecting useful revenue on the income funding those pension payments. It does however clobber employers contributing to pensions so they may need to be partially compensated for those.
4. The typical inheritance arrangement is husband/wife leaves their estate to each other then their children and grandchildren. Inheritance tax kicks in when the second spouse dies with an effective tax threshold of £1 million (2 spouse allowances of £325K plus £175K for property left to close family) I would remove the £175K part that was introduced by the previous government just a couple of years ago, resulting in a new typical threshold of £650K. I would also tighten up tax treatment of trusts that are used to avoid IHT - this is complicated and most normal people won't understand the differences.
I would abolish inheritance tax altogether - and then tax all inheritances as income instead.
If someone received a £600k house as an inheritance they should pay the same rate of tax on that as someone who receives £600k in wages from their employer.
Being paid for working should not be taxed more than any other reason you get paid, including inheriting money.
No, that is double taxation. Income tax will likely already have been paid on the wages used to get the deposit to buy the house and pay the mortgage off.
The number who earn £600k a year is also less than 0.5% of the population, the average London and Surrey house price however is now over £600k. So increasing the IHT rate to 45% and lowering the threshold to £125k from £325k (ie equivalent to the additional rate of income tax paid on incomes over £125k) with no allowances would be political suicide. The lower threshold would also bring most homes into IHT too as the average property is now worth £282,000 https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-house-price-index-for-january-2024
I see the PB Tories are back to publicly wallowing in their manifold stages of grief.
How one longs for the halcyon days of Guess Boris' Weight.
Looks more like PB’s right wingers are enjoying the chance to mock and deride this already-ludicrous and laughable government, which is now promising to nationalise concert ticketing because oasis are charging too much
Which again is a fucking stupid idea.
It will lead to more rationing, fewer concerts, more empty seats, and worse quality stadia experiences.
"National pride has declined sharply over the last decade, possibly because Britain is redefining itself as it becomes more diverse, researchers say.
Fewer Britons feel pride in the country’s history, economic achievements and democratic processes compared with 2013, the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) report found. Results showed that 64 per cent of respondents were proud of Britain’s history, down from 86 per cent in 2013 when the survey was last conducted."
I'd say it's probably down to a greater awareness of the complexities of our colonial past. People now are less likely to be 'rah rah all great' about it. They'll be more nuanced.
That will be part of the answer anyway. Also a more diverse population. That must have an impact too.
People's view of the past are always coloured by the present. In confident ages people are more enamoured of the nation's past. For example that spate of films and TV series about the Raj in the 80s.
National 'confidence' is an interesting concept. We've just done Brexit for example. Was that a sign of confidence or of loss of confidence? You could argue it either way but my sense is it was very much the latter.
As most people now think Brexit a mistake, I guess it was sign of (misplaced) confidence. As with most mistakes, people made assumptions they didn't verify and which didn't pan out.
It doesn't follow in the way you think it does.
Let's say we Rejoined. There would be stuff we didn't like and didn't work out about that too, not least of which would be being having our domestic politics dominated by European integration debates and regulation initiatives.
You'd then have polling showing most people now think Rejoin a mistake.
I suppose I was talking about the people who have changed their minds. Some people always thought Brexit was a mistake and others never have. But why did a bunch of people support it before and not support it now?
I see the PB Tories are back to publicly wallowing in their manifold stages of grief.
How one longs for the halcyon days of Guess Boris' Weight.
Looks more like PB’s right wingers are enjoying the chance to mock and deride this already-ludicrous and laughable government, which is now promising to nationalise concert ticketing because oasis are charging too much
The Oasis thing is a silly bit of populism; the kind we would deride the Tories for (though it's less malevolent than their stuff).
One thing I would try and change (but not via government) is the pricing of tickets that leads to half empty stadiums. We should encourage Dutch auctions or some similar mechanism to help pack them out.
Given the existence of reporting restriction on this case, would it not be so much better for anyone to wants to call themselves a journalist to shut the f*** up until the legal proceedings have concluded?
I thought the legal proceedings had concluded. Yes, there's to be a public inquiry, that's merely to investigate systematic failings at the hospital? In law isn't Letby's guilt now set in stone?
In the ultra-chic and tres parisienne “La manche” lounge and cocktail bar, where I am now hanging with the upper crust of Kosalin society, a gin and tonic is £2
Wow. Get pissed for a fiver. That's back to 1985.
£5.01 buys you three pints of Greene King IPA in my local Wetherspoons. Alternatively, half a litre of wine from a tap(!) for £5.90. Not ultra-chic though.
Yes those Spoons prices are amazing. They serve the impoverished alcoholic market very well.
I see the PB Tories are back to publicly wallowing in their manifold stages of grief.
How one longs for the halcyon days of Guess Boris' Weight.
Looks more like PB’s right wingers are enjoying the chance to mock and deride this already-ludicrous and laughable government, which is now promising to nationalise concert ticketing because oasis are charging too much
Which again is a fucking stupid idea.
It will lead to more rationing, fewer concerts, more empty seats, and worse quality stadia experiences.
More likely, more bands will not tour in the UK.
Each band can do so many performances per month before the wear and tear on them becomes a problem. So they will optimise where their performance are held for a mix of marketing and return. Mainly return.
For a mega band, the Circus Maximus in Rome is an awesome venue, incidentally. If your favourite band is playing there, go.
Given the existence of reporting restriction on this case, would it not be so much better for anyone to wants to call themselves a journalist to shut the f*** up until the legal proceedings have concluded?
I thought the legal proceedings had concluded. Yes, there's to be a public inquiry, that's merely to investigate systematic failings at the hospital? In law isn't Letby's guilt now set in stone?
@rcs1000 suggested yesterday that there is another trial still to come, on one of the cases for which the jury could not reach a verdict at an earlier trial.
I see the PB Tories are back to publicly wallowing in their manifold stages of grief.
How one longs for the halcyon days of Guess Boris' Weight.
Looks more like PB’s right wingers are enjoying the chance to mock and deride this already-ludicrous and laughable government, which is now promising to nationalise concert ticketing because oasis are charging too much
The Oasis thing is a silly bit of populism; the kind we would deride the Tories for (though it's less malevolent than their stuff).
One thing I would try and change (but not via government) is the pricing of tickets that leads to half empty stadiums. We should encourage Dutch auctions or some similar mechanism to help pack them out.
There was nothing malevolent about the Tories and they're far less of a threat than this government is.
I see the PB Tories are back to publicly wallowing in their manifold stages of grief.
How one longs for the halcyon days of Guess Boris' Weight.
Looks more like PB’s right wingers are enjoying the chance to mock and deride this already-ludicrous and laughable government, which is now promising to nationalise concert ticketing because oasis are charging too much
The Oasis thing is a silly bit of populism; the kind we would deride the Tories for (though it's less malevolent than their stuff).
One thing I would try and change (but not via government) is the pricing of tickets that leads to half empty stadiums. We should encourage Dutch auctions or some similar mechanism to help pack them out.
That's what Oasis did - early tickets at a lower price, last ones escalated steeply. It's the same algorithm the low cost airlines have been using for yonks.
I see the PB Tories are back to publicly wallowing in their manifold stages of grief.
How one longs for the halcyon days of Guess Boris' Weight.
This line is the biggest fail of all. The point about the stages of grief thing is, grief diminishes over time. July 2024 was predictable since 2021 at the latest. The Tories are over this. It's the left that's had a bare eight weeks to process the fact that their Glorious Revolution was only ever nailed to the perch, and that "Everybody suddenly burst out singing" turns out to be "A couple of guys sarcastically hummed a really downbeat Smiths song."
Thoughts and prayers. I'd like to say I expect things to improve but my lying circuits are out of commission.
Seriously?
The Conservatives are "over this" ? If you say so - I don't know if you are a Party member or just a supporter or just vehemently anti-Labour but apart from putting the boot into the Government since July 5th, I've no sense whatsoever of where the Conservatives are going after July.
The leadership campaigners have platitudes but that's about it.
Perhaps I'm the only one, but I'd be surprised if Labour broke its promise on not raising NI, VAT or Income tax.
My guess is they will go for: 1) remove higher rate pension relief- back to 20% 2) increase capital gains tax 3) reintroduce pensions lifetime allowance
If they're feeling bold - I think they might try for scrapping inheritance tax and replacing it with a less generous lifetime gift allowance...
I expect pension tax relief to be equalised at 25% which helps the 'working class' if anyone knows what that means
Capital gains tax and lifetime allowances seem certain to be amended
On IT I expect the seven year gift allowance to go
If I were the government, any government, I'd stop buggering about with pensions limits and allowances almost each and every year.
This is a big reason why we have a savings crisis in retirement, with people not feeling confident to invest, so they undersave, and it fuels a big demand for the State's services in retirement instead like, err, the NHS, discounts, and triple-lock pensions.
It's remarkably short-sighted, but it's also remarkably easy to raid. Governments need to grow-up.
Almost a third of pensioners live in millionaire households. It is not that we are undersaving as a whole it is inequality across the field, and the pension rules are built to favour those capable of the millionaire retirement and against that of the just managing.
We should change that, because that is what will reduce/control future government spending on future retired.
And yes we should change the rules less frequently. But when a party returns to office after a 14 year absence it seems a sensible time to change.
If you change the rules, you'll find not so many pensioners do live in 'millionaire' households in future and become more reliant on the State.
Bear in mind almost all private sector employers only contribute 3-6% to their employees pension pots, which require significant contributions from the individual on top, whereas public sector employers pay 20-35% contributions with even some final salary schemes still open.
If anyone is living in clover, it's them.
It seems perverse to incentivise people on £50K+ at double those on standard rate. 40% incentive/pension credit for higher rate earners against 20% for standard rate. Make it the same at say 25%.
Match £££ fund pensions up to a (time depreciating) cap ... is my killer reform.
(Will be seeking out that Luntz on TRIP btw, thanks for the tip)
Regarding the public sector employer contribution, most public sector schemes are unfunded so that 20-35% contribution hypothetically allocated to an individual employee is to pay current pensions, not the individual's future pension. As is their personal contribution, any increases will be to pay for current pensions. Even funded public sector pensions it's likely increases are to cover current and near-future pensions. https://ifs.org.uk/articles/reduced-discount-rate-public-sector-pensions-will-add-billions-employer-costs
I see the PB Tories are back to publicly wallowing in their manifold stages of grief.
How one longs for the halcyon days of Guess Boris' Weight.
Looks more like PB’s right wingers are enjoying the chance to mock and deride this already-ludicrous and laughable government, which is now promising to nationalise concert ticketing because oasis are charging too much
Labour aren't doing so awfully as suggested.
Unfortunately though this is the good bit of the Labour government we're seeing.
They have nothing by way of substitute fielders.
(I can't even see their new intake providing anything like a helping hand - their backgrounds seem to mostly be rather uninspiring council type positions.)
"National pride has declined sharply over the last decade, possibly because Britain is redefining itself as it becomes more diverse, researchers say.
Fewer Britons feel pride in the country’s history, economic achievements and democratic processes compared with 2013, the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) report found. Results showed that 64 per cent of respondents were proud of Britain’s history, down from 86 per cent in 2013 when the survey was last conducted."
I'd say it's probably down to a greater awareness of the complexities of our colonial past. People now are less likely to be 'rah rah all great' about it. They'll be more nuanced.
That will be part of the answer anyway. Also a more diverse population. That must have an impact too.
People's view of the past are always coloured by the present. In confident ages people are more enamoured of the nation's past. For example that spate of films and TV series about the Raj in the 80s.
National 'confidence' is an interesting concept. We've just done Brexit for example. Was that a sign of confidence or of loss of confidence? You could argue it either way but my sense is it was very much the latter.
As most people now think Brexit a mistake, I guess it was sign of (misplaced) confidence. As with most mistakes, people made assumptions they didn't verify and which didn't pan out.
It doesn't follow in the way you think it does.
Let's say we Rejoined. There would be stuff we didn't like and didn't work out about that too, not least of which would be being having our domestic politics dominated by European integration debates and regulation initiatives.
You'd then have polling showing most people now think Rejoin a mistake.
I suppose I was talking about the people who have changed their minds. Some people always thought Brexit was a mistake and others never have. But why did a bunch of people support it before and not support it now?
If you voted Brexit to bring down immigration and control the borders, as millions did, you are allowed to be severely dismayed that instead the rancid Tories TRIPLED immigration and showed themselves incapable of protecting our most important border of all: the Channel
I see the PB Tories are back to publicly wallowing in their manifold stages of grief.
How one longs for the halcyon days of Guess Boris' Weight.
Looks more like PB’s right wingers are enjoying the chance to mock and deride this already-ludicrous and laughable government, which is now promising to nationalise concert ticketing because oasis are charging too much
The Oasis thing is a silly bit of populism; the kind we would deride the Tories for (though it's less malevolent than their stuff).
One thing I would try and change (but not via government) is the pricing of tickets that leads to half empty stadiums. We should encourage Dutch auctions or some similar mechanism to help pack them out.
I would let the market rip.
Aside from stopping touts buying up tickets for resale, or insider trading, if people want to buy at face value by queuing for ages and then resell on viagogo to a willing buyer at a mark-up, let them.
Sometimes they'll need to do it at a loss. Like how Lords couldn't fill itself on Sunday because they overcooked the price.
I see the PB Tories are back to publicly wallowing in their manifold stages of grief.
How one longs for the halcyon days of Guess Boris' Weight.
Looks more like PB’s right wingers are enjoying the chance to mock and deride this already-ludicrous and laughable government, which is now promising to nationalise concert ticketing because oasis are charging too much
Which again is a fucking stupid idea.
It will lead to more rationing, fewer concerts, more empty seats, and worse quality stadia experiences.
Under the National Gig Service, Oasis will be free at the point of use with a waiting list prioritised by need.
Is there a market where I can bet on a second set of gig dates for Oasis being announced.
It would be... unusual to leave so much evident money on the table.
"National pride has declined sharply over the last decade, possibly because Britain is redefining itself as it becomes more diverse, researchers say.
Fewer Britons feel pride in the country’s history, economic achievements and democratic processes compared with 2013, the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) report found. Results showed that 64 per cent of respondents were proud of Britain’s history, down from 86 per cent in 2013 when the survey was last conducted."
I'd say it's probably down to a greater awareness of the complexities of our colonial past. People now are less likely to be 'rah rah all great' about it. They'll be more nuanced.
That will be part of the answer anyway. Also a more diverse population. That must have an impact too.
People's view of the past are always coloured by the present. In confident ages people are more enamoured of the nation's past. For example that spate of films and TV series about the Raj in the 80s.
National 'confidence' is an interesting concept. We've just done Brexit for example. Was that a sign of confidence or of loss of confidence? You could argue it either way but my sense is it was very much the latter.
As most people now think Brexit a mistake, I guess it was sign of (misplaced) confidence. As with most mistakes, people made assumptions they didn't verify and which didn't pan out.
It doesn't follow in the way you think it does.
Let's say we Rejoined. There would be stuff we didn't like and didn't work out about that too, not least of which would be being having our domestic politics dominated by European integration debates and regulation initiatives.
You'd then have polling showing most people now think Rejoin a mistake.
I suppose I was talking about the people who have changed their minds. Some people always thought Brexit was a mistake and others never have. But why did a bunch of people support it before and not support it now?
Same reason people support any government or policy and decide later they don't.
I see the PB Tories are back to publicly wallowing in their manifold stages of grief.
How one longs for the halcyon days of Guess Boris' Weight.
Looks more like PB’s right wingers are enjoying the chance to mock and deride this already-ludicrous and laughable government, which is now promising to nationalise concert ticketing because oasis are charging too much
The Oasis thing is a silly bit of populism; the kind we would deride the Tories for (though it's less malevolent than their stuff).
One thing I would try and change (but not via government) is the pricing of tickets that leads to half empty stadiums. We should encourage Dutch auctions or some similar mechanism to help pack them out.
That's what Oasis did - early tickets at a lower price, last ones escalated steeply. It's the same algorithm the low cost airlines have been using for yonks.
I meant the other way round - set a high price and slowly drop it until the stadium is filled. This for less popular bands/teams.
I have no issue at all with the cost of the Oasis tickets, in the same way I am not fussed by footballers earnings millions.
I see the PB Tories are back to publicly wallowing in their manifold stages of grief.
How one longs for the halcyon days of Guess Boris' Weight.
Looks more like PB’s right wingers are enjoying the chance to mock and deride this already-ludicrous and laughable government, which is now promising to nationalise concert ticketing because oasis are charging too much
Which again is a fucking stupid idea.
It will lead to more rationing, fewer concerts, more empty seats, and worse quality stadia experiences.
Under the National Gig Service, Oasis will be free at the point of use with a waiting list prioritised by need.
All my people right here, right now, to get a ticket for a ticket within 18 months prioritised by musical need, D'You Know What I Mean?
I see the PB Tories are back to publicly wallowing in their manifold stages of grief.
How one longs for the halcyon days of Guess Boris' Weight.
Looks more like PB’s right wingers are enjoying the chance to mock and deride this already-ludicrous and laughable government, which is now promising to nationalise concert ticketing because oasis are charging too much
Which again is a fucking stupid idea.
It will lead to more rationing, fewer concerts, more empty seats, and worse quality stadia experiences.
Under the National Gig Service, Oasis will be free at the point of use with a waiting list prioritised by need.
Is there a market where I can bet on a second set of gig dates for Oasis being announced.
It would be... unusual to leave so much evident money on the table.
Yes, in a perfect market the band would just keep adding dates until people stopped buying tickets.
With a nice bonus that, on the margins at the end of the run, the touts would all lose their arses buying up tickets no-one wants.
I see the PB Tories are back to publicly wallowing in their manifold stages of grief.
How one longs for the halcyon days of Guess Boris' Weight.
Looks more like PB’s right wingers are enjoying the chance to mock and deride this already-ludicrous and laughable government, which is now promising to nationalise concert ticketing because oasis are charging too much
The Oasis thing is a silly bit of populism; the kind we would deride the Tories for (though it's less malevolent than their stuff).
One thing I would try and change (but not via government) is the pricing of tickets that leads to half empty stadiums. We should encourage Dutch auctions or some similar mechanism to help pack them out.
I would let the market rip.
Aside from stopping touts buying up tickets for resale, or insider trading, if people want to buy at face value by queuing for ages and then resell on viagogo to a willing buyer at a mark-up, let them.
Sometimes they'll need to do it at a loss. Like how Lords couldn't fill itself on Sunday because they overcooked the price.
That's what I mean - Lords should have just slowly dropped the price until the stadium was filled. Their marginal cost must be close to zero.
Perhaps I'm the only one, but I'd be surprised if Labour broke its promise on not raising NI, VAT or Income tax.
My guess is they will go for: 1) remove higher rate pension relief- back to 20% 2) increase capital gains tax 3) reintroduce pensions lifetime allowance
If they're feeling bold - I think they might try for scrapping inheritance tax and replacing it with a less generous lifetime gift allowance...
I expect pension tax relief to be equalised at 25% which helps the 'working class' if anyone knows what that means
Capital gains tax and lifetime allowances seem certain to be amended
On IT I expect the seven year gift allowance to go
If I were the government, any government, I'd stop buggering about with pensions limits and allowances almost each and every year.
This is a big reason why we have a savings crisis in retirement, with people not feeling confident to invest, so they undersave, and it fuels a big demand for the State's services in retirement instead like, err, the NHS, discounts, and triple-lock pensions.
It's remarkably short-sighted, but it's also remarkably easy to raid. Governments need to grow-up.
Almost a third of pensioners live in millionaire households. It is not that we are undersaving as a whole it is inequality across the field, and the pension rules are built to favour those capable of the millionaire retirement and against that of the just managing.
We should change that, because that is what will reduce/control future government spending on future retired.
And yes we should change the rules less frequently. But when a party returns to office after a 14 year absence it seems a sensible time to change.
If you change the rules, you'll find not so many pensioners do live in 'millionaire' households in future and become more reliant on the State.
Bear in mind almost all private sector employers only contribute 3-6% to their employees pension pots, which require significant contributions from the individual on top, whereas public sector employers pay 20-35% contributions with even some final salary schemes still open.
If anyone is living in clover, it's them.
It seems perverse to incentivise people on £50K+ at double those on standard rate. 40% incentive/pension credit for higher rate earners against 20% for standard rate. Make it the same at say 25%.
Er, no, you are incentivising them to defer current income for future income. The tax relief reflects the tax they pay.
Your ideas are shit. Same as Lefties all over.
It’s one of the tax changes the last government was actively looking at.
"National pride has declined sharply over the last decade, possibly because Britain is redefining itself as it becomes more diverse, researchers say.
Fewer Britons feel pride in the country’s history, economic achievements and democratic processes compared with 2013, the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) report found. Results showed that 64 per cent of respondents were proud of Britain’s history, down from 86 per cent in 2013 when the survey was last conducted."
I'd say it's probably down to a greater awareness of the complexities of our colonial past. People now are less likely to be 'rah rah all great' about it. They'll be more nuanced.
That will be part of the answer anyway. Also a more diverse population. That must have an impact too.
People's view of the past are always coloured by the present. In confident ages people are more enamoured of the nation's past. For example that spate of films and TV series about the Raj in the 80s.
National 'confidence' is an interesting concept. We've just done Brexit for example. Was that a sign of confidence or of loss of confidence? You could argue it either way but my sense is it was very much the latter.
Yes I think it's a nebulous concept but nations and ages do seem to have moods of confidence and fear. The mid Victorian period was a confident age whereas the late Victorian period was less so. With regard to Brexit, my personal opinion is that many people voted for it out of fear about the way they perceived the country to be changing.
Flatlander said: » show previous quotes Dynamic road pricing?
4pm outside a school? £10 / mile. M74 through the borders late at night? 0.01p / mile.
Would mean universal car tracking through. Do we really want that?
That would make a lot of teachers very unhappy…
Universal car tracking is coming, UK is behind the trend, a friend was in the Philippines to quote for an ANPR road pricing system. The challenge in the UK will be number plate obscuring / cloning and vandalism of cameras which seem to be regarded as acceptable criminality. The same friend said that they get far more grief about traffic cameras in social situations than they did when they worked on weapons targeting systems.
Flatlander said: » show previous quotes Dynamic road pricing?
4pm outside a school? £10 / mile. M74 through the borders late at night? 0.01p / mile.
Would mean universal car tracking through. Do we really want that?
That would make a lot of teachers very unhappy…
A lot of parents too.
Its utterly insane how some people here seem to think education isn't valuable enough to have vehicles on the road for.
Education is important.
On the other hand, most of our students are capable of walking a hundred meters or so from the school rather than having to be picked up in the (clearly marked) staff car park with only one entrance.
It's weird how the rules on admissions still use the expectation that kids will walk 2 miles to school (3 if over 8 I think), when most parents would not dream of that. A lot apparently don't let kids walk to school until they are in secondary school.
I'd like to see some data on distance from school for pupils at primary and secondary level.
Primary should be walkable, wheelable, or cyclable for most - where the effort has been made 80-90% has been done without undue effort as a proportion.
I do know that I have nearly the largest state school in the country nearby, and 1/3 of the catchment on my side of the bypass cannot walk or cycle there over the pedestrian bridge because there is a 100m gap in a cycle route and the back entrance to the campus is not opened. That alone creates perhaps 600-1200 extra vehicle movements per day around a route of several miles.
The biggest issue with primary schools, is the parents needing to fit dropping the kids off into their routine of getting themselves to work.
Secondary kids should be able to get themselves to school if it’s less than a mile away.
Yes there’s probably loads of badly-designed roads and bridges that need fixing as well.
Secondary commutes are surely a case of needing good public transport. My son has been getting the bus to school since year 7, and that’s about 5 miles away.
The Americans have dedicated school buses of course. Or at least I assume they still do.
American society is overwhelmingly designed to make walking impossible or dangerous.
Even their academic research is conditioned by "how can pedestrians prevent other people killing them by what they do" rather than "how can we make our streets safe environments".
Given the existence of reporting restriction on this case, would it not be so much better for anyone to wants to call themselves a journalist to shut the f*** up until the legal proceedings have concluded?
Not quite - most cases have been completed and there is only 1 retrial left..
Flatlander said: » show previous quotes Dynamic road pricing?
4pm outside a school? £10 / mile. M74 through the borders late at night? 0.01p / mile.
Would mean universal car tracking through. Do we really want that?
That would make a lot of teachers very unhappy…
A lot of parents too.
Its utterly insane how some people here seem to think education isn't valuable enough to have vehicles on the road for.
Education is important.
On the other hand, most of our students are capable of walking a hundred meters or so from the school rather than having to be picked up in the (clearly marked) staff car park with only one entrance.
It's weird how the rules on admissions still use the expectation that kids will walk 2 miles to school (3 if over 8 I think), when most parents would not dream of that. A lot apparently don't let kids walk to school until they are in secondary school.
I'd like to see some data on distance from school for pupils at primary and secondary level.
Primary should be walkable, wheelable, or cyclable for most - where the effort has been made 80-90% has been done without undue effort as a proportion.
I do know that I have nearly the largest state school in the country nearby, and 1/3 of the catchment on my side of the bypass cannot walk or cycle there over the pedestrian bridge because there is a 100m gap in a cycle route and the back entrance to the campus is not opened. That alone creates perhaps 600-1200 extra vehicle movements per day around a route of several miles.
The biggest issue with primary schools, is the parents needing to fit dropping the kids off into their routine of getting themselves to work.
Secondary kids should be able to get themselves to school if it’s less than a mile away.
Yes there’s probably loads of badly-designed roads and bridges that need fixing as well.
Secondary commutes are surely a case of needing good public transport. My son has been getting the bus to school since year 7, and that’s about 5 miles away.
The Americans have dedicated school buses of course. Or at least I assume they still do.
Yes, for the larger catchment areas a good bus service helps considerably.
There are of course a million yellow buses in the US, although the reasons for their introduction don’t really apply elsewhere.
Perhaps I'm the only one, but I'd be surprised if Labour broke its promise on not raising NI, VAT or Income tax.
My guess is they will go for: 1) remove higher rate pension relief- back to 20% 2) increase capital gains tax 3) reintroduce pensions lifetime allowance
If they're feeling bold - I think they might try for scrapping inheritance tax and replacing it with a less generous lifetime gift allowance...
I expect pension tax relief to be equalised at 25% which helps the 'working class' if anyone knows what that means
Capital gains tax and lifetime allowances seem certain to be amended
On IT I expect the seven year gift allowance to go
If I were the government, any government, I'd stop buggering about with pensions limits and allowances almost each and every year.
This is a big reason why we have a savings crisis in retirement, with people not feeling confident to invest, so they undersave, and it fuels a big demand for the State's services in retirement instead like, err, the NHS, discounts, and triple-lock pensions.
It's remarkably short-sighted, but it's also remarkably easy to raid. Governments need to grow-up.
Almost a third of pensioners live in millionaire households. It is not that we are undersaving as a whole it is inequality across the field, and the pension rules are built to favour those capable of the millionaire retirement and against that of the just managing.
We should change that, because that is what will reduce/control future government spending on future retired.
And yes we should change the rules less frequently. But when a party returns to office after a 14 year absence it seems a sensible time to change.
If you change the rules, you'll find not so many pensioners do live in 'millionaire' households in future and become more reliant on the State.
Bear in mind almost all private sector employers only contribute 3-6% to their employees pension pots, which require significant contributions from the individual on top, whereas public sector employers pay 20-35% contributions with even some final salary schemes still open.
If anyone is living in clover, it's them.
It seems perverse to incentivise people on £50K+ at double those on standard rate. 40% incentive/pension credit for higher rate earners against 20% for standard rate. Make it the same at say 25%.
Er, no, you are incentivising them to defer current income for future income. The tax relief reflects the tax they pay.
Your ideas are shit. Same as Lefties all over.
But the higher earner will save tax at 40, 45 or 60% on their earnings and only pay tax at 20% when they draw it and then only on 75% of it so an effective rate of 15%, assuming they never enter the 40% band, which they never should if they have any sense regarding managing their pension. A person on the basic rate band gets none of these tax breaks other than the tax being limited to 75% of the pension.
Flatlander said: » show previous quotes Dynamic road pricing?
4pm outside a school? £10 / mile. M74 through the borders late at night? 0.01p / mile.
Would mean universal car tracking through. Do we really want that?
That would make a lot of teachers very unhappy…
Universal car tracking is coming, UK is behind the trend, a friend was in the Philippines to quote for an ANPR road pricing system. The challenge in the UK will be number plate obscuring / cloning and vandalism of cameras which seem to be regarded as acceptable criminality. The same friend said that they get far more grief about traffic cameras in social situations than they did when they worked on weapons targeting systems.
I think that fits with what I said the other day ... it will be a few years before we are ready.
In the ultra-chic and tres parisienne “La manche” lounge and cocktail bar, where I am now hanging with the upper crust of Kosalin society, a gin and tonic is £2
Wow. Get pissed for a fiver. That's back to 1985.
£5.01 buys you three pints of Greene King IPA in my local Wetherspoons. Alternatively, half a litre of wine from a tap(!) for £5.90. Not ultra-chic though.
Yes those Spoons prices are amazing. They serve the impoverished alcoholic market very well.
I recall, fondly, the Sense Hotel Bar in Sofia. Where you could drink top notch cocktails with the Vice President of the country. For 4 quid a pop - top notch at that.
"National pride has declined sharply over the last decade, possibly because Britain is redefining itself as it becomes more diverse, researchers say.
Fewer Britons feel pride in the country’s history, economic achievements and democratic processes compared with 2013, the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) report found. Results showed that 64 per cent of respondents were proud of Britain’s history, down from 86 per cent in 2013 when the survey was last conducted."
I'd say it's probably down to a greater awareness of the complexities of our colonial past. People now are less likely to be 'rah rah all great' about it. They'll be more nuanced.
That will be part of the answer anyway. Also a more diverse population. That must have an impact too.
People's view of the past are always coloured by the present. In confident ages people are more enamoured of the nation's past. For example that spate of films and TV series about the Raj in the 80s.
National 'confidence' is an interesting concept. We've just done Brexit for example. Was that a sign of confidence or of loss of confidence? You could argue it either way but my sense is it was very much the latter.
As most people now think Brexit a mistake, I guess it was sign of (misplaced) confidence. As with most mistakes, people made assumptions they didn't verify and which didn't pan out.
It doesn't follow in the way you think it does.
Let's say we Rejoined. There would be stuff we didn't like and didn't work out about that too, not least of which would be being having our domestic politics dominated by European integration debates and regulation initiatives.
You'd then have polling showing most people now think Rejoin a mistake.
I suppose I was talking about the people who have changed their minds. Some people always thought Brexit was a mistake and others never have. But why did a bunch of people support it before and not support it now?
If you voted Brexit to bring down immigration and control the borders, as millions did, you are allowed to be severely dismayed that instead the rancid Tories TRIPLED immigration and showed themselves incapable of protecting our most important border of all: the Channel
These people are angry and I do not blame them
That might be a misplaced assumption I was talking about. I don't think the previous government increased immigration just to be contrary.
Flatlander said: » show previous quotes Dynamic road pricing?
4pm outside a school? £10 / mile. M74 through the borders late at night? 0.01p / mile.
Would mean universal car tracking through. Do we really want that?
That would make a lot of teachers very unhappy…
Universal car tracking is coming, UK is behind the trend, a friend was in the Philippines to quote for an ANPR road pricing system. The challenge in the UK will be number plate obscuring / cloning and vandalism of cameras which seem to be regarded as acceptable criminality. The same friend said that they get far more grief about traffic cameras in social situations than they did when they worked on weapons targeting systems.
I see the PB Tories are back to publicly wallowing in their manifold stages of grief.
How one longs for the halcyon days of Guess Boris' Weight.
Looks more like PB’s right wingers are enjoying the chance to mock and deride this already-ludicrous and laughable government, which is now promising to nationalise concert ticketing because oasis are charging too much
That's fine. Go for it. I probably would in your shoes. It will help the time pass. However as a lifelong Labour person, 2 months after a landslide win resulting in a Tory government being replaced by a Labour one for only the 2nd time in my long long adult lifetime, you can probably imagine how much I and ilk care about all the whinging from the right. It just makes things better tbh. Slightly shameful admission but there you go.
Flatlander said: » show previous quotes Dynamic road pricing?
4pm outside a school? £10 / mile. M74 through the borders late at night? 0.01p / mile.
Would mean universal car tracking through. Do we really want that?
That would make a lot of teachers very unhappy…
Universal car tracking is coming, UK is behind the trend, a friend was in the Philippines to quote for an ANPR road pricing system. The challenge in the UK will be number plate obscuring / cloning and vandalism of cameras which seem to be regarded as acceptable criminality. The same friend said that they get far more grief about traffic cameras in social situations than they did when they worked on weapons targeting systems.
I think that fits with what I said the other day ... it will be a few years before we are ready.
More secure number plates coming first?
You’d have to move to a stamped system of number plates, if you’re going to use ANPR for a national system of toll gates.
An RFID-based system would be easier to implement, but you’re still going to be using ANPR for enforcement.
In the ultra-chic and tres parisienne “La manche” lounge and cocktail bar, where I am now hanging with the upper crust of Kosalin society, a gin and tonic is £2
Wow. Get pissed for a fiver. That's back to 1985.
£5.01 buys you three pints of Greene King IPA in my local Wetherspoons. Alternatively, half a litre of wine from a tap(!) for £5.90. Not ultra-chic though.
Yes those Spoons prices are amazing. They serve the impoverished alcoholic market very well.
I recall, fondly, the Sense Hotel Bar in Sofia. Where you could drink top notch cocktails with the Vice President of the country. For 4 quid a pop - top notch at that.
In answer to @rcs1000 from the last thread (Sorry I don't know how to continue an old thread on a new discussion). I would love to know as I see a number of you do it.
"If you remove the personal allowance - even if gradually between £100k and £150k - then you create the situation that your £150,001 pound is worth more than your £100,000 one."
No, not necessarily and I thought my description covered that, but maybe it wasn't clear. You remove the allowance very gradually. I would start earlier, say at £75,000, and remove it so slowly that the marginal rate increase is quite small (not the whooping 20% currently). Once you get to the elimination point you introduce a new tax band at the current effective rate or of course if you are so inclined to a higher rate.
So your effective tax rates are say:
0, 20, 40, 45 (effective while eliminating PA), 45
instead of
0, 20, 40, 60 (effective while you eliminate PA), 45
It really isn't complicated either which some are critical of. After all it is what we do currently, but just smooths it.
That is functionally identical, but more complex, than simply lowering the 45% threshold.
Why not simply lower the threshold, given you get identical results more simply?
I see the PB Tories are back to publicly wallowing in their manifold stages of grief.
How one longs for the halcyon days of Guess Boris' Weight.
Looks more like PB’s right wingers are enjoying the chance to mock and deride this already-ludicrous and laughable government, which is now promising to nationalise concert ticketing because oasis are charging too much
The Oasis thing is a silly bit of populism; the kind we would deride the Tories for (though it's less malevolent than their stuff).
One thing I would try and change (but not via government) is the pricing of tickets that leads to half empty stadiums. We should encourage Dutch auctions or some similar mechanism to help pack them out.
I would let the market rip.
Aside from stopping touts buying up tickets for resale, or insider trading, if people want to buy at face value by queuing for ages and then resell on viagogo to a willing buyer at a mark-up, let them.
Sometimes they'll need to do it at a loss. Like how Lords couldn't fill itself on Sunday because they overcooked the price.
That's what I mean - Lords should have just slowly dropped the price until the stadium was filled. Their marginal cost must be close to zero.
Letting the market rip is what has been happening for gigs and uncontrolled-ticketing for sporting events. A friend used to work for Ticketmaster, Ticketmaster's commercial bid for an event would include "secondary ticket sales", so a % of tickets would only ever be for sale through their tout sites. That's why there were so many half-full sold out gigs, TM would rather sell fewer tickets at an inflated price to maximise revenue then try to sell the unsold tickets to touts outside the gigs on the day.
The Premier League is surprised and disappointed by the independent Appeal Board’s decision to uphold an appeal lodged by Leicester City FC regarding the League’s jurisdiction over the club’s alleged breach of its Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSRs) when the club was a member of the Premier League.
I see the PB Tories are back to publicly wallowing in their manifold stages of grief.
How one longs for the halcyon days of Guess Boris' Weight.
Looks more like PB’s right wingers are enjoying the chance to mock and deride this already-ludicrous and laughable government, which is now promising to nationalise concert ticketing because oasis are charging too much
The Oasis thing is a silly bit of populism; the kind we would deride the Tories for (though it's less malevolent than their stuff).
One thing I would try and change (but not via government) is the pricing of tickets that leads to half empty stadiums. We should encourage Dutch auctions or some similar mechanism to help pack them out.
That's what Oasis did - early tickets at a lower price, last ones escalated steeply. It's the same algorithm the low cost airlines have been using for yonks.
Same algo, but working in a different corner of the graph. With a different effect.
With rail and flight tickets, seats fill up gradually enough that the price doesn't change much or at all while you go through the process. If the Oasis model wasn't a deliberate attempt to lure people in with lower prices which simply weren't going to exist when they got to the front of the queue hours later, it was certainly a very remunerative side effect.
(And not too difficult to put a "most tickets under £X" statement earlier in the booking. It's the sense of bait and switch that is annoying people.)
Flatlander said: » show previous quotes Dynamic road pricing?
4pm outside a school? £10 / mile. M74 through the borders late at night? 0.01p / mile.
Would mean universal car tracking through. Do we really want that?
That would make a lot of teachers very unhappy…
A lot of parents too.
Its utterly insane how some people here seem to think education isn't valuable enough to have vehicles on the road for.
Education is important.
On the other hand, most of our students are capable of walking a hundred meters or so from the school rather than having to be picked up in the (clearly marked) staff car park with only one entrance.
It's weird how the rules on admissions still use the expectation that kids will walk 2 miles to school (3 if over 8 I think), when most parents would not dream of that. A lot apparently don't let kids walk to school until they are in secondary school.
I'd like to see some data on distance from school for pupils at primary and secondary level.
Primary should be walkable, wheelable, or cyclable for most - where the effort has been made 80-90% has been done without undue effort as a proportion.
I do know that I have nearly the largest state school in the country nearby, and 1/3 of the catchment on my side of the bypass cannot walk or cycle there over the pedestrian bridge because there is a 100m gap in a cycle route and the back entrance to the campus is not opened. That alone creates perhaps 600-1200 extra vehicle movements per day around a route of several miles.
The biggest issue with primary schools, is the parents needing to fit dropping the kids off into their routine of getting themselves to work.
Secondary kids should be able to get themselves to school if it’s less than a mile away.
Yes there’s probably loads of badly-designed roads and bridges that need fixing as well.
Secondary commutes are surely a case of needing good public transport. My son has been getting the bus to school since year 7, and that’s about 5 miles away.
The Americans have dedicated school buses of course. Or at least I assume they still do.
Yes, for the larger catchment areas a good bus service helps considerably.
There are of course a million yellow buses in the US, although the reasons for their introduction don’t really apply elsewhere.
There is a curious belief in the UK that dedicated school buses would cause the universe to impose or something.
1) They would be US yellow school buses and wouldn't fit the roads. Errrr.... there are tons of bus designs in the UK. Ranging from converted Sprinter vans up. All setup with the requirements for carrying kids safely.
2) Errrr..... panic!
In Par, in Cornwall, apparently so many parents were using the local cab company to drop kids at school (clogged roads made the drop off and doing to work very difficult) that one taxi driving company was running out of drivers. So he bought a suitably specc'd van sized minibus and offered a discount. He has three now, I believe.
Perhaps I'm the only one, but I'd be surprised if Labour broke its promise on not raising NI, VAT or Income tax.
My guess is they will go for: 1) remove higher rate pension relief- back to 20% 2) increase capital gains tax 3) reintroduce pensions lifetime allowance
If they're feeling bold - I think they might try for scrapping inheritance tax and replacing it with a less generous lifetime gift allowance...
I expect pension tax relief to be equalised at 25% which helps the 'working class' if anyone knows what that means
Capital gains tax and lifetime allowances seem certain to be amended
On IT I expect the seven year gift allowance to go
If I were the government, any government, I'd stop buggering about with pensions limits and allowances almost each and every year.
This is a big reason why we have a savings crisis in retirement, with people not feeling confident to invest, so they undersave, and it fuels a big demand for the State's services in retirement instead like, err, the NHS, discounts, and triple-lock pensions.
It's remarkably short-sighted, but it's also remarkably easy to raid. Governments need to grow-up.
Almost a third of pensioners live in millionaire households. It is not that we are undersaving as a whole it is inequality across the field, and the pension rules are built to favour those capable of the millionaire retirement and against that of the just managing.
We should change that, because that is what will reduce/control future government spending on future retired.
And yes we should change the rules less frequently. But when a party returns to office after a 14 year absence it seems a sensible time to change.
If you change the rules, you'll find not so many pensioners do live in 'millionaire' households in future and become more reliant on the State.
Bear in mind almost all private sector employers only contribute 3-6% to their employees pension pots, which require significant contributions from the individual on top, whereas public sector employers pay 20-35% contributions with even some final salary schemes still open.
If anyone is living in clover, it's them.
It seems perverse to incentivise people on £50K+ at double those on standard rate. 40% incentive/pension credit for higher rate earners against 20% for standard rate. Make it the same at say 25%.
Er, no, you are incentivising them to defer current income for future income. The tax relief reflects the tax they pay.
Your ideas are shit. Same as Lefties all over.
But the higher earner will save tax at 40, 45 or 60% on their earnings and only pay tax at 20% when they draw it and then only on 75% of it so an effective rate of 15%, assuming they never enter the 40% band, which they never should if they have any sense regarding managing their pension. A person on the basic rate band gets none of these tax breaks other than the tax being limited to 75% of the pension.
That is clearly mindbogglingly unfair.
Not really. If they draw their pension at the higher rate they will pay the higher rate. If they never draw a higher rate their pot will eventually expire or retire.
If you try double-taxing people they'll simply stop saving into pensions or stop working causing us far bigger problems.
I see the PB Tories are back to publicly wallowing in their manifold stages of grief.
How one longs for the halcyon days of Guess Boris' Weight.
Looks more like PB’s right wingers are enjoying the chance to mock and deride this already-ludicrous and laughable government, which is now promising to nationalise concert ticketing because oasis are charging too much
That's fine. Go for it. I probably would in your shoes. It will help the time pass. However as a lifelong Labour person, 2 months after a landslide win resulting in a Tory government being replaced by a Labour one for only the 2nd time in my long long adult lifetime, you can probably imagine how much I and ilk care about all the whinging from the right. It just makes things better tbh. Slightly shameful admission but there you go.
I've decided: you're basically just a common partisan dogmatist - just a more pompous and slightly more literate one - with some remarkable insecurities about your origins and your life story.
Perhaps I'm the only one, but I'd be surprised if Labour broke its promise on not raising NI, VAT or Income tax.
My guess is they will go for: 1) remove higher rate pension relief- back to 20% 2) increase capital gains tax 3) reintroduce pensions lifetime allowance
If they're feeling bold - I think they might try for scrapping inheritance tax and replacing it with a less generous lifetime gift allowance...
I expect pension tax relief to be equalised at 25% which helps the 'working class' if anyone knows what that means
Capital gains tax and lifetime allowances seem certain to be amended
On IT I expect the seven year gift allowance to go
If I were the government, any government, I'd stop buggering about with pensions limits and allowances almost each and every year.
This is a big reason why we have a savings crisis in retirement, with people not feeling confident to invest, so they undersave, and it fuels a big demand for the State's services in retirement instead like, err, the NHS, discounts, and triple-lock pensions.
It's remarkably short-sighted, but it's also remarkably easy to raid. Governments need to grow-up.
Almost a third of pensioners live in millionaire households. It is not that we are undersaving as a whole it is inequality across the field, and the pension rules are built to favour those capable of the millionaire retirement and against that of the just managing.
We should change that, because that is what will reduce/control future government spending on future retired.
And yes we should change the rules less frequently. But when a party returns to office after a 14 year absence it seems a sensible time to change.
If you change the rules, you'll find not so many pensioners do live in 'millionaire' households in future and become more reliant on the State.
Bear in mind almost all private sector employers only contribute 3-6% to their employees pension pots, which require significant contributions from the individual on top, whereas public sector employers pay 20-35% contributions with even some final salary schemes still open.
If anyone is living in clover, it's them.
It seems perverse to incentivise people on £50K+ at double those on standard rate. 40% incentive/pension credit for higher rate earners against 20% for standard rate. Make it the same at say 25%.
Er, no, you are incentivising them to defer current income for future income. The tax relief reflects the tax they pay.
Your ideas are shit. Same as Lefties all over.
But the higher earner will save tax at 40, 45 or 60% on their earnings and only pay tax at 20% when they draw it and then only on 75% of it so an effective rate of 15%, assuming they never enter the 40% band, which they never should if they have any sense regarding managing their pension. A person on the basic rate band gets none of these tax breaks other than the tax being limited to 75% of the pension.
That is clearly mindbogglingly unfair.
Not really. If they draw their pension at the higher rate they will pay the higher rate. If they never draw a higher rate their pot will eventually expire or retire.
If you try double-taxing people they'll simply stop saving into pensions or stop working causing us far bigger problems.
Are you in favour of giving standard rate tax payers a 40% tax credit on their pension contributions to ensure they don't stop saving into pensions or stop working altogether?
Or is it just the wealthy who deserve big tax breaks to keep them saving and working?
PS You're losing this argument. I'd move onto something else.
I haven't done one of these for a bit, but they haven't gone away. A five-ply chicane is a *lot*. This was met by a mum taking her two small kids on a cycling trip. Apparently anyone in Locks Heath, Fareham who uses a mobility aid can go and f*ck themselves.
I'd say that this cost several thousand to put in, that could have been spent on something of benefit.
I see the PB Tories are back to publicly wallowing in their manifold stages of grief.
How one longs for the halcyon days of Guess Boris' Weight.
Looks more like PB’s right wingers are enjoying the chance to mock and deride this already-ludicrous and laughable government, which is now promising to nationalise concert ticketing because oasis are charging too much
The Oasis thing is a silly bit of populism; the kind we would deride the Tories for (though it's less malevolent than their stuff).
One thing I would try and change (but not via government) is the pricing of tickets that leads to half empty stadiums. We should encourage Dutch auctions or some similar mechanism to help pack them out.
I would let the market rip.
Aside from stopping touts buying up tickets for resale, or insider trading, if people want to buy at face value by queuing for ages and then resell on viagogo to a willing buyer at a mark-up, let them.
Sometimes they'll need to do it at a loss. Like how Lords couldn't fill itself on Sunday because they overcooked the price.
That's what I mean - Lords should have just slowly dropped the price until the stadium was filled. Their marginal cost must be close to zero.
They're reviewing that for next time, or so they say.
"National pride has declined sharply over the last decade, possibly because Britain is redefining itself as it becomes more diverse, researchers say.
Fewer Britons feel pride in the country’s history, economic achievements and democratic processes compared with 2013, the National Centre for Social Research (NatCen) report found. Results showed that 64 per cent of respondents were proud of Britain’s history, down from 86 per cent in 2013 when the survey was last conducted."
I'd say it's probably down to a greater awareness of the complexities of our colonial past. People now are less likely to be 'rah rah all great' about it. They'll be more nuanced.
That will be part of the answer anyway. Also a more diverse population. That must have an impact too.
People's view of the past are always coloured by the present. In confident ages people are more enamoured of the nation's past. For example that spate of films and TV series about the Raj in the 80s.
National 'confidence' is an interesting concept. We've just done Brexit for example. Was that a sign of confidence or of loss of confidence? You could argue it either way but my sense is it was very much the latter.
As most people now think Brexit a mistake, I guess it was sign of (misplaced) confidence. As with most mistakes, people made assumptions they didn't verify and which didn't pan out.
It doesn't follow in the way you think it does.
Let's say we Rejoined. There would be stuff we didn't like and didn't work out about that too, not least of which would be being having our domestic politics dominated by European integration debates and regulation initiatives.
You'd then have polling showing most people now think Rejoin a mistake.
I suppose I was talking about the people who have changed their minds. Some people always thought Brexit was a mistake and others never have. But why did a bunch of people support it before and not support it now?
If you voted Brexit to bring down immigration and control the borders, as millions did, you are allowed to be severely dismayed that instead the rancid Tories TRIPLED immigration and showed themselves incapable of protecting our most important border of all: the Channel
These people are angry and I do not blame them
Thing is, Vote Leave didn't promise to cut immigration, and neither did Boris. But because it was Boris, nobody really believed him.
I see the PB Tories are back to publicly wallowing in their manifold stages of grief.
How one longs for the halcyon days of Guess Boris' Weight.
Looks more like PB’s right wingers are enjoying the chance to mock and deride this already-ludicrous and laughable government, which is now promising to nationalise concert ticketing because oasis are charging too much
That's fine. Go for it. I probably would in your shoes. It will help the time pass. However as a lifelong Labour person, 2 months after a landslide win resulting in a Tory government being replaced by a Labour one for only the 2nd time in my long long adult lifetime, you can probably imagine how much I and ilk care about all the whinging from the right. It just makes things better tbh. Slightly shameful admission but there you go.
I've decided: you're basically just a common partisan dogmatist - just a more pompous and slightly more literate one - with some remarkable insecurities about your origins and your life story.
I see the PB Tories are back to publicly wallowing in their manifold stages of grief.
How one longs for the halcyon days of Guess Boris' Weight.
Looks more like PB’s right wingers are enjoying the chance to mock and deride this already-ludicrous and laughable government, which is now promising to nationalise concert ticketing because oasis are charging too much
That's fine. Go for it. I probably would in your shoes. It will help the time pass. However as a lifelong Labour person, 2 months after a landslide win resulting in a Tory government being replaced by a Labour one for only the 2nd time in my long long adult lifetime, you can probably imagine how much I and ilk care about all the whinging from the right. It just makes things better tbh. Slightly shameful admission but there you go.
It's Liz I feel sorry for. I had hoped that she would be remembered for the Truss Principle which states that it takes way less than 50 days to fail as a PM. Clearly Lessons Have Not Been Learned.
In the ultra-chic and tres parisienne “La manche” lounge and cocktail bar, where I am now hanging with the upper crust of Kosalin society, a gin and tonic is £2
Wow. Get pissed for a fiver. That's back to 1985.
£5.01 buys you three pints of Greene King IPA in my local Wetherspoons. Alternatively, half a litre of wine from a tap(!) for £5.90. Not ultra-chic though.
Yes those Spoons prices are amazing. They serve the impoverished alcoholic market very well.
I recall, fondly, the Sense Hotel Bar in Sofia. Where you could drink top notch cocktails with the Vice President of the country. For 4 quid a pop - top notch at that.
Perhaps I'm the only one, but I'd be surprised if Labour broke its promise on not raising NI, VAT or Income tax.
My guess is they will go for: 1) remove higher rate pension relief- back to 20% 2) increase capital gains tax 3) reintroduce pensions lifetime allowance
If they're feeling bold - I think they might try for scrapping inheritance tax and replacing it with a less generous lifetime gift allowance...
I expect pension tax relief to be equalised at 25% which helps the 'working class' if anyone knows what that means
Capital gains tax and lifetime allowances seem certain to be amended
On IT I expect the seven year gift allowance to go
If I were the government, any government, I'd stop buggering about with pensions limits and allowances almost each and every year.
This is a big reason why we have a savings crisis in retirement, with people not feeling confident to invest, so they undersave, and it fuels a big demand for the State's services in retirement instead like, err, the NHS, discounts, and triple-lock pensions.
It's remarkably short-sighted, but it's also remarkably easy to raid. Governments need to grow-up.
Almost a third of pensioners live in millionaire households. It is not that we are undersaving as a whole it is inequality across the field, and the pension rules are built to favour those capable of the millionaire retirement and against that of the just managing.
We should change that, because that is what will reduce/control future government spending on future retired.
And yes we should change the rules less frequently. But when a party returns to office after a 14 year absence it seems a sensible time to change.
If you change the rules, you'll find not so many pensioners do live in 'millionaire' households in future and become more reliant on the State.
Bear in mind almost all private sector employers only contribute 3-6% to their employees pension pots, which require significant contributions from the individual on top, whereas public sector employers pay 20-35% contributions with even some final salary schemes still open.
If anyone is living in clover, it's them.
It seems perverse to incentivise people on £50K+ at double those on standard rate. 40% incentive/pension credit for higher rate earners against 20% for standard rate. Make it the same at say 25%.
Er, no, you are incentivising them to defer current income for future income. The tax relief reflects the tax they pay.
Your ideas are shit. Same as Lefties all over.
But the higher earner will save tax at 40, 45 or 60% on their earnings and only pay tax at 20% when they draw it and then only on 75% of it so an effective rate of 15%, assuming they never enter the 40% band, which they never should if they have any sense regarding managing their pension. A person on the basic rate band gets none of these tax breaks other than the tax being limited to 75% of the pension.
That is clearly mindbogglingly unfair.
Not really. If they draw their pension at the higher rate they will pay the higher rate. If they never draw a higher rate their pot will eventually expire or retire.
If you try double-taxing people they'll simply stop saving into pensions or stop working causing us far bigger problems.
Are you in favour of giving standard rate tax payers a 40% tax credit on their pension contributions to ensure they don't stop saving into pensions or stop working altogether?
Or is it just the wealthy who deserve big tax breaks to keep them saving and working?
PS You're losing this argument. I'd move onto something else.
No I'm not. The point of pension tax relief is to incentivise earners to defer current taxable income into future taxable income by creating a pensions pot they can draw down so they can provide for themselves in old age without being a burden on the State. That's in all our interests as taxpayers, because the alternative isn't that they happily pay more tax it's that they stop working, work less or move which would reduce our tax take and growth, and store up bigger demographic challenges for us in future.
We already subject pensions to a lifetime limit, which is calculated to not be absurdly generous, and that keeps people working hard and not quitting. And it's just starting to work in getting people ready for retirement.
Your ideas are bad ideas, and that's why they need to be called out. Particularly because you and your ilk don't seem intellectually able enough to spot it.
Perhaps I'm the only one, but I'd be surprised if Labour broke its promise on not raising NI, VAT or Income tax.
My guess is they will go for: 1) remove higher rate pension relief- back to 20% 2) increase capital gains tax 3) reintroduce pensions lifetime allowance
If they're feeling bold - I think they might try for scrapping inheritance tax and replacing it with a less generous lifetime gift allowance...
I expect pension tax relief to be equalised at 25% which helps the 'working class' if anyone knows what that means
Capital gains tax and lifetime allowances seem certain to be amended
On IT I expect the seven year gift allowance to go
If I were the government, any government, I'd stop buggering about with pensions limits and allowances almost each and every year.
This is a big reason why we have a savings crisis in retirement, with people not feeling confident to invest, so they undersave, and it fuels a big demand for the State's services in retirement instead like, err, the NHS, discounts, and triple-lock pensions.
It's remarkably short-sighted, but it's also remarkably easy to raid. Governments need to grow-up.
Almost a third of pensioners live in millionaire households. It is not that we are undersaving as a whole it is inequality across the field, and the pension rules are built to favour those capable of the millionaire retirement and against that of the just managing.
We should change that, because that is what will reduce/control future government spending on future retired.
And yes we should change the rules less frequently. But when a party returns to office after a 14 year absence it seems a sensible time to change.
If you change the rules, you'll find not so many pensioners do live in 'millionaire' households in future and become more reliant on the State.
Bear in mind almost all private sector employers only contribute 3-6% to their employees pension pots, which require significant contributions from the individual on top, whereas public sector employers pay 20-35% contributions with even some final salary schemes still open.
If anyone is living in clover, it's them.
It seems perverse to incentivise people on £50K+ at double those on standard rate. 40% incentive/pension credit for higher rate earners against 20% for standard rate. Make it the same at say 25%.
Er, no, you are incentivising them to defer current income for future income. The tax relief reflects the tax they pay.
Your ideas are shit. Same as Lefties all over.
But the higher earner will save tax at 40, 45 or 60% on their earnings and only pay tax at 20% when they draw it and then only on 75% of it so an effective rate of 15%, assuming they never enter the 40% band, which they never should if they have any sense regarding managing their pension. A person on the basic rate band gets none of these tax breaks other than the tax being limited to 75% of the pension.
That is clearly mindbogglingly unfair.
Not really. If they draw their pension at the higher rate they will pay the higher rate. If they never draw a higher rate their pot will eventually expire or retire.
If you try double-taxing people they'll simply stop saving into pensions or stop working causing us far bigger problems.
Are you in favour of giving standard rate tax payers a 40% tax credit on their pension contributions to ensure they don't stop saving into pensions or stop working altogether?
Or is it just the wealthy who deserve big tax breaks to keep them saving and working?
PS You're losing this argument. I'd move onto something else.
No I'm not. The point of pension tax relief is to incentivise earners to defer current taxable income into future taxable income by creating a pensions pot they can draw down so they can provide for themselves in old age without being a burden on the State. That's in all our interests as taxpayers, because the alternative isn't that they happily pay more tax it's that they stop working, work less or move which would reduce our tax take and growth, and store up bigger demographic challenges for us in future.
We already subject pensions to a lifetime limit, which is calculated to not be absurdly generous, and that keeps people working hard and not quitting. And it's just starting to work in getting people ready for retirement.
Your ideas are bad ideas, and that's why they need to be called out. Particularly because you and your ilk don't seem intellectually able enough to spot it.
In the ultra-chic and tres parisienne “La manche” lounge and cocktail bar, where I am now hanging with the upper crust of Kosalin society, a gin and tonic is £2
Wow. Get pissed for a fiver. That's back to 1985.
£5.01 buys you three pints of Greene King IPA in my local Wetherspoons. Alternatively, half a litre of wine from a tap(!) for £5.90. Not ultra-chic though.
Yes those Spoons prices are amazing. They serve the impoverished alcoholic market very well.
I recall, fondly, the Sense Hotel Bar in Sofia. Where you could drink top notch cocktails with the Vice President of the country. For 4 quid a pop - top notch at that.
Checks.... now about 8 quid...
Case of get senseless at Sense.
We were more sober than a judge. Literally, on one occasion.
Perhaps I'm the only one, but I'd be surprised if Labour broke its promise on not raising NI, VAT or Income tax.
My guess is they will go for: 1) remove higher rate pension relief- back to 20% 2) increase capital gains tax 3) reintroduce pensions lifetime allowance
If they're feeling bold - I think they might try for scrapping inheritance tax and replacing it with a less generous lifetime gift allowance...
I expect pension tax relief to be equalised at 25% which helps the 'working class' if anyone knows what that means
Capital gains tax and lifetime allowances seem certain to be amended
On IT I expect the seven year gift allowance to go
If I were the government, any government, I'd stop buggering about with pensions limits and allowances almost each and every year.
This is a big reason why we have a savings crisis in retirement, with people not feeling confident to invest, so they undersave, and it fuels a big demand for the State's services in retirement instead like, err, the NHS, discounts, and triple-lock pensions.
It's remarkably short-sighted, but it's also remarkably easy to raid. Governments need to grow-up.
Almost a third of pensioners live in millionaire households. It is not that we are undersaving as a whole it is inequality across the field, and the pension rules are built to favour those capable of the millionaire retirement and against that of the just managing.
We should change that, because that is what will reduce/control future government spending on future retired.
And yes we should change the rules less frequently. But when a party returns to office after a 14 year absence it seems a sensible time to change.
If you change the rules, you'll find not so many pensioners do live in 'millionaire' households in future and become more reliant on the State.
Bear in mind almost all private sector employers only contribute 3-6% to their employees pension pots, which require significant contributions from the individual on top, whereas public sector employers pay 20-35% contributions with even some final salary schemes still open.
If anyone is living in clover, it's them.
It seems perverse to incentivise people on £50K+ at double those on standard rate. 40% incentive/pension credit for higher rate earners against 20% for standard rate. Make it the same at say 25%.
Er, no, you are incentivising them to defer current income for future income. The tax relief reflects the tax they pay.
Your ideas are shit. Same as Lefties all over.
But the higher earner will save tax at 40, 45 or 60% on their earnings and only pay tax at 20% when they draw it and then only on 75% of it so an effective rate of 15%, assuming they never enter the 40% band, which they never should if they have any sense regarding managing their pension. A person on the basic rate band gets none of these tax breaks other than the tax being limited to 75% of the pension.
That is clearly mindbogglingly unfair.
Not really. If they draw their pension at the higher rate they will pay the higher rate. If they never draw a higher rate their pot will eventually expire or retire.
If you try double-taxing people they'll simply stop saving into pensions or stop working causing us far bigger problems.
This is daft. You are giving wealthy people huge tax breaks (which I have benefitted from) that you are not giving to poorer people. Wealthy people will still save for their pensions because they still get the tax breaks for contributing and then the 25% when taking it so they will be daft not to.
Why the hell should they get huge extra breaks that basic rate tax payers don't get. And few higher rate tax payers will be when they retire. They can take £62.5k before entering the higher rate with their 25% tax free element. And most higher earners likely me can manipulate when they take pension funds out to minimise tax.
I see the PB Tories are back to publicly wallowing in their manifold stages of grief.
How one longs for the halcyon days of Guess Boris' Weight.
Looks more like PB’s right wingers are enjoying the chance to mock and deride this already-ludicrous and laughable government, which is now promising to nationalise concert ticketing because oasis are charging too much
The Oasis thing is a silly bit of populism; the kind we would deride the Tories for (though it's less malevolent than their stuff).
One thing I would try and change (but not via government) is the pricing of tickets that leads to half empty stadiums. We should encourage Dutch auctions or some similar mechanism to help pack them out.
I would let the market rip.
Aside from stopping touts buying up tickets for resale, or insider trading, if people want to buy at face value by queuing for ages and then resell on viagogo to a willing buyer at a mark-up, let them.
Sometimes they'll need to do it at a loss. Like how Lords couldn't fill itself on Sunday because they overcooked the price.
That's what I mean - Lords should have just slowly dropped the price until the stadium was filled. Their marginal cost must be close to zero.
They're reviewing that for next time, or so they say.
I support dynamic pricing.
It's market forces in action and it works both ways. I paid a fiver to a tout (waste of money) seeing the Rolling Stones at Wembley in ?1990 because everyone wanted to watch Germany beat us at penalties that day
There was a woman on radio 4 saying her family just had to see Oasis because they haven't done so since 2008 (when they were a bit shit) and someone else was obviously to blame for her clicking the £350 a head to stand in the latrines button.
This is not Hampden and Ship Money. Not even Tolpuddle Martyrs. But brave, brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Keir to the rescue.
Flatlander said: » show previous quotes Dynamic road pricing?
4pm outside a school? £10 / mile. M74 through the borders late at night? 0.01p / mile.
Would mean universal car tracking through. Do we really want that?
That would make a lot of teachers very unhappy…
Universal car tracking is coming, UK is behind the trend, a friend was in the Philippines to quote for an ANPR road pricing system. The challenge in the UK will be number plate obscuring / cloning and vandalism of cameras which seem to be regarded as acceptable criminality. The same friend said that they get far more grief about traffic cameras in social situations than they did when they worked on weapons targeting systems.
I think that fits with what I said the other day ... it will be a few years before we are ready.
More secure number plates coming first?
You’d have to move to a stamped system of number plates, if you’re going to use ANPR for a national system of toll gates.
An RFID-based system would be easier to implement, but you’re still going to be using ANPR for enforcement.
I have a little tag in the car that pings when I go through a French toll gate. Something similar built into cars in South Africa for tolls too. Works nicely.
In answer to @rcs1000 from the last thread (Sorry I don't know how to continue an old thread on a new discussion). I would love to know as I see a number of you do it.
"If you remove the personal allowance - even if gradually between £100k and £150k - then you create the situation that your £150,001 pound is worth more than your £100,000 one."
No, not necessarily and I thought my description covered that, but maybe it wasn't clear. You remove the allowance very gradually. I would start earlier, say at £75,000, and remove it so slowly that the marginal rate increase is quite small (not the whooping 20% currently). Once you get to the elimination point you introduce a new tax band at the current effective rate or of course if you are so inclined to a higher rate.
So your effective tax rates are say:
0, 20, 40, 45 (effective while eliminating PA), 45
instead of
0, 20, 40, 60 (effective while you eliminate PA), 45
It really isn't complicated either which some are critical of. After all it is what we do currently, but just smooths it.
Why withdraw the personal allowance at all, rather than just increase the headline rate at that point? What am I missing? Or is it simple to avoid increasing the headline rate at that point?
On quoting from previous thread, simply:
On previous thread, hit quote as normal
Add your comments
Copy the whole text box
Go to new thread and paste as a 'new' comment (add FTP: before the paste if you like)
(You can also swap 2-4 around, doing 1, 3, 4, 2, depending at which point you prefer to add your typing)
PA is really there for the benefit of the lower paid, however it has greater benefit the higher your marginal tax rate is which is perverse. Each time you increase the PA (which you should do each time because of inflation) you benefit the well off more than the poorest which is the opposite of your objective. You could I guess mess with the thresholds or rates each time, but that is more messy than just getting rid of it for those that don't need it.
Sorry, but if your marginal rate is at 45% because of the removal of the tax free allowance, then it is absolutely identical to simply lowering the point at which the higher rate is charged.
The effect is identical. It's just more complicated.
Perhaps I'm the only one, but I'd be surprised if Labour broke its promise on not raising NI, VAT or Income tax.
My guess is they will go for: 1) remove higher rate pension relief- back to 20% 2) increase capital gains tax 3) reintroduce pensions lifetime allowance
If they're feeling bold - I think they might try for scrapping inheritance tax and replacing it with a less generous lifetime gift allowance...
I expect pension tax relief to be equalised at 25% which helps the 'working class' if anyone knows what that means
Capital gains tax and lifetime allowances seem certain to be amended
On IT I expect the seven year gift allowance to go
If I were the government, any government, I'd stop buggering about with pensions limits and allowances almost each and every year.
This is a big reason why we have a savings crisis in retirement, with people not feeling confident to invest, so they undersave, and it fuels a big demand for the State's services in retirement instead like, err, the NHS, discounts, and triple-lock pensions.
It's remarkably short-sighted, but it's also remarkably easy to raid. Governments need to grow-up.
Almost a third of pensioners live in millionaire households. It is not that we are undersaving as a whole it is inequality across the field, and the pension rules are built to favour those capable of the millionaire retirement and against that of the just managing.
We should change that, because that is what will reduce/control future government spending on future retired.
And yes we should change the rules less frequently. But when a party returns to office after a 14 year absence it seems a sensible time to change.
If you change the rules, you'll find not so many pensioners do live in 'millionaire' households in future and become more reliant on the State.
Bear in mind almost all private sector employers only contribute 3-6% to their employees pension pots, which require significant contributions from the individual on top, whereas public sector employers pay 20-35% contributions with even some final salary schemes still open.
If anyone is living in clover, it's them.
It seems perverse to incentivise people on £50K+ at double those on standard rate. 40% incentive/pension credit for higher rate earners against 20% for standard rate. Make it the same at say 25%.
Er, no, you are incentivising them to defer current income for future income. The tax relief reflects the tax they pay.
Your ideas are shit. Same as Lefties all over.
But the higher earner will save tax at 40, 45 or 60% on their earnings and only pay tax at 20% when they draw it and then only on 75% of it so an effective rate of 15%, assuming they never enter the 40% band, which they never should if they have any sense regarding managing their pension. A person on the basic rate band gets none of these tax breaks other than the tax being limited to 75% of the pension.
That is clearly mindbogglingly unfair.
Not really. If they draw their pension at the higher rate they will pay the higher rate. If they never draw a higher rate their pot will eventually expire or retire.
If you try double-taxing people they'll simply stop saving into pensions or stop working causing us far bigger problems.
Are you in favour of giving standard rate tax payers a 40% tax credit on their pension contributions to ensure they don't stop saving into pensions or stop working altogether?
Or is it just the wealthy who deserve big tax breaks to keep them saving and working?
PS You're losing this argument. I'd move onto something else.
No I'm not. The point of pension tax relief is to incentivise earners to defer current taxable income into future taxable income by creating a pensions pot they can draw down so they can provide for themselves in old age without being a burden on the State. That's in all our interests as taxpayers, because the alternative isn't that they happily pay more tax it's that they stop working, work less or move which would reduce our tax take and growth, and store up bigger demographic challenges for us in future.
We already subject pensions to a lifetime limit, which is calculated to not be absurdly generous, and that keeps people working hard and not quitting. And it's just starting to work in getting people ready for retirement.
Your ideas are bad ideas, and that's why they need to be called out. Particularly because you and your ilk don't seem intellectually able enough to spot it.
How about we reduce taxes on those working for a living all the time so they don't stop working, work less or move? Why should only those who are saving for a pension avoid that, shouldn't those saving for a deposit or paying a mortgage or any other cost in life be able to do that if that's their choice?
Comments
Primary should be walkable, wheelable, or cyclable for most - where the effort has been made 80-90% has been done without undue effort as a proportion.
I do know that I have nearly the largest state school in the country nearby, and 1/3 of the catchment on my side of the bypass cannot walk or cycle there over the pedestrian bridge because there is a 100m gap in a cycle route and the back entrance to the campus is not opened. That alone creates perhaps 600-1200 extra vehicle movements per day around a route of several miles.
The Nazis believed that only the violently aggressive would survive. Therefore pacifism was suicide for all.
The French seem equally or more downbeat. So too the Americans despite their ongoing economic outperformance.
(Will be seeking out that Luntz on TRIP btw, thanks for the tip)
Secondary kids should be able to get themselves to school if it’s less than a mile away.
Yes there’s probably loads of badly-designed roads and bridges that need fixing as well.
How one longs for the halcyon days of Guess Boris' Weight.
Let's say we Rejoined. There would be stuff we didn't like and didn't work out about that too, not least of which would be being having our domestic politics dominated by European integration debates and regulation initiatives.
You'd then have polling showing most people now think Rejoin a mistake.
It will lead to more rationing, fewer concerts, more empty seats, and worse quality stadia experiences.
They have no mandate for their own fantasy neo-Marxist tribute wanks, because they didn't tell anyone it before the election, even if their right-hand did occasionally brush the front of their trousers purely by "accident".
The Americans have dedicated school buses of course. Or at least I assume they still do.
Giving doctors a nice tax break to avoid a skills shortage = good
Giving doctors a pay rise to avoid a skills shortage = bad
Thoughts and prayers. I'd like to say I expect things to improve but my lying circuits are out of commission.
*From memory. They did an annual census when I was there.
I sense blackmail here. I'd call their bluff. It's the equivalent of a strike.
The number who earn £600k a year is also less than 0.5% of the population, the average London and Surrey house price however is now over £600k. So increasing the IHT rate to 45% and lowering the threshold to £125k from £325k (ie equivalent to the additional rate of income tax paid on incomes over £125k) with no allowances would be political suicide. The lower threshold would also bring most homes into IHT too as the average property is now worth £282,000
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-house-price-index-for-january-2024
One thing I would try and change (but not via government) is the pricing of tickets that leads to half empty stadiums. We should encourage Dutch auctions or some similar mechanism to help pack them out.
Each band can do so many performances per month before the wear and tear on them becomes a problem. So they will optimise where their performance are held for a mix of marketing and return. Mainly return.
For a mega band, the Circus Maximus in Rome is an awesome venue, incidentally. If your favourite band is playing there, go.
The Conservatives are "over this" ? If you say so - I don't know if you are a Party member or just a supporter or just vehemently anti-Labour but apart from putting the boot into the Government since July 5th, I've no sense whatsoever of where the Conservatives are going after July.
The leadership campaigners have platitudes but that's about it.
https://ifs.org.uk/articles/reduced-discount-rate-public-sector-pensions-will-add-billions-employer-costs
Unfortunately though this is the good bit of the Labour government we're seeing.
They have nothing by way of substitute fielders.
(I can't even see their new intake providing anything like a helping hand - their backgrounds seem to mostly be rather uninspiring council type positions.)
These people are angry and I do not blame them
Aside from stopping touts buying up tickets for resale, or insider trading, if people want to buy at face value by queuing for ages and then resell on viagogo to a willing buyer at a mark-up, let them.
Sometimes they'll need to do it at a loss. Like how Lords couldn't fill itself on Sunday because they overcooked the price.
It would be... unusual to leave so much evident money on the table.
I have no issue at all with the cost of the Oasis tickets, in the same way I am not fussed by footballers earnings millions.
With a nice bonus that, on the margins at the end of the run, the touts would all lose their arses buying up tickets no-one wants.
The same friend said that they get far more grief about traffic cameras in social situations than they did when they worked on weapons targeting systems.
Even their academic research is conditioned by "how can pedestrians prevent other people killing them by what they do" rather than "how can we make our streets safe environments".
There are of course a million yellow buses in the US, although the reasons for their introduction don’t really apply elsewhere.
That is clearly mindbogglingly unfair.
More secure number plates coming first?
Checks.... now about 8 quid...
An RFID-based system would be easier to implement, but you’re still going to be using ANPR for enforcement.
Or have I got the wrong set of cue cards?
That’s sandpit happy hour! 🍸
Why not simply lower the threshold, given you get identical results more simply?
https://www.premierleague.com/news/4106719
The Premier League is surprised and disappointed by the independent Appeal Board’s decision to uphold an appeal lodged by Leicester City FC regarding the League’s jurisdiction over the club’s alleged breach of its Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSRs) when the club was a member of the Premier League.
With rail and flight tickets, seats fill up gradually enough that the price doesn't change much or at all while you go through the process. If the Oasis model wasn't a deliberate attempt to lure people in with lower prices which simply weren't going to exist when they got to the front of the queue hours later, it was certainly a very remunerative side effect.
(And not too difficult to put a "most tickets under £X" statement earlier in the booking. It's the sense of bait and switch that is annoying people.)
1) They would be US yellow school buses and wouldn't fit the roads. Errrr.... there are tons of bus designs in the UK. Ranging from converted Sprinter vans up. All setup with the requirements for carrying kids safely.
2) Errrr..... panic!
In Par, in Cornwall, apparently so many parents were using the local cab company to drop kids at school (clogged roads made the drop off and doing to work very difficult) that one taxi driving company was running out of drivers. So he bought a suitably specc'd van sized minibus and offered a discount. He has three now, I believe.
If you try double-taxing people they'll simply stop saving into pensions or stop working causing us far bigger problems.
Ironically enough, that explains both.
Or is it just the wealthy who deserve big tax breaks to keep them saving and working?
PS You're losing this argument. I'd move onto something else.
I haven't done one of these for a bit, but they haven't gone away. A five-ply chicane is a *lot*. This was met by a mum taking her two small kids on a cycling trip. Apparently anyone in Locks Heath, Fareham who uses a mobility aid can go and f*ck themselves.
I'd say that this cost several thousand to put in, that could have been spent on something of benefit.
Twitter thread with other unnecessary hazards.
https://x.com/TheSlimeRain/status/1831032179448783244
I support dynamic pricing.
We already subject pensions to a lifetime limit, which is calculated to not be absurdly generous, and that keeps people working hard and not quitting. And it's just starting to work in getting people ready for retirement.
Your ideas are bad ideas, and that's why they need to be called out. Particularly because you and your ilk don't seem intellectually able enough to spot it.
But thank you for "slightly more literate".
Forgetting my manners 🙂
Why the hell should they get huge extra breaks that basic rate tax payers don't get. And few higher rate tax payers will be when they retire. They can take £62.5k before entering the higher rate with their 25% tax free element. And most higher earners likely me can manipulate when they take pension funds out to minimise tax.
There was a woman on radio 4 saying her family just had to see Oasis because they haven't done so since 2008 (when they were a bit shit) and someone else was obviously to blame for her clicking the £350 a head to stand in the latrines button.
This is not Hampden and Ship Money. Not even Tolpuddle Martyrs. But brave, brave, brave, brave, brave Sir Keir to the rescue.
The effect is identical. It's just more complicated.