Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Liz Truss would be proud – politicalbetting.com

14567810»

Comments

  • MattWMattW Posts: 23,411

    MattW said:

    MattW said:

    Ratters said:

    This is a pretty big story from the world of finance.

    Car dealerships in chaos as shock ruling leaves market at risk of collapse

    Lenders pause vehicle loans as forecourts face dramatic rethink of sales practices


    Britain’s biggest banks and lenders are scrambling to avoid a collapse in the car sales market after a shock court judgement prompted chaos at forecourts across the country.

    A ruling from the Court of Appeal on commissions paid to car salesmen has forced several lenders to pause loans, and dealerships to urgently revise their sales practices to avoid a paralysis in the market.

    Lloyds Bank, one of the UK’s largest motor financiers through its Black Horse arm, became the latest lender to revamp its practices by abolishing bonuses paid to car dealers.

    The bank has introduced a “no commission” contract, meaning no fees will be paid to dealerships.

    William Chalmers, Lloyds’s chief of finance, held an urgent call with investors last night to explain the situation, saying it wanted to stand by its customers and the UK economy to carry on lending.

    Car finance is the biggest source of funding used by drivers to buy new vehicles, with nine in every 10 cars bought by motorists relying on a loan, according to Autotrader.

    There are fears a loan famine would effectively freeze up the market – damaging the already under-fire sector.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/10/30/ministers-scramble-to-prevent-car-sale-market-collapsing/

    The Lloyds position seems eminently sensible. Continue to lend but don't pay commission.

    The dealerships can adjust their sales pricing strategy with an explicit fee paid up front by the buyer. Or spread over time separate to the lease if they so wish.

    Frankly I'm amazed so many people buy new cars on lease. You pay for the most expensive part of the depreciation of a car, plus a very significant interest rate.
    Not just a shock today with new cars. Pick-Up trucks are being reclassified as cars for tax purposes. Which will have a pretty brutal impact on rural communities who use them to haul farm and construction stuff and their kids to and from school.
    IMO that's actually good to see, and was one thing I listed this morning on my expectations and hopes.

    What it means is that huge pickup trucks will no longer have tax preference over smaller pickup trucks (I think the load capacity of 1 tonne is the dividing line), and only applies to crew cab pickups. In my view this just puts these in their proper place in the tax system, and is a moderately significant positive for road safety.

    It should also have an impact on the intended plans of some Usonian car companies to start mass imports of "Light Trucks" using the Individual Vehicle Approval process as a loophole.

    It was a Court Decision the HMRC won in early 2024 I think, and the Conservatives overruled as one of their Save Out Backside election gimmicks.

    The benefit is that there will not be a large, artificial tax break encouraging the bigger, less safe for anyone who's not actually inside it, trucks on our roads - over the smaller ones. The smaller ones are also problematic, but it's a step forward.

    Auto Express have a decent commentary article on it:
    https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/vans/95748/double-cab-pick-up-truck-tax-benefits-explained
    As a further note, I see that opinion at Pistonheads is on both sides of this one.
    https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=&t=2064428

    (This is a thread from when the HRMC legal action was determined.)
    I'm on that thread. In summary:
    TOWNIES: Great news, I dislike hairdressers / angry men driving these as a tax dodge down my urban streets
    BUMPKINS: This absolutely shags the rural economy
    TOWNIES: Just use your own car for non-business use
    BUMPKINS: But everything is miles and miles and miles away. And when you need to take engineers plural out to site you'd need multiple vehicles
    TOWNIES: Yebbut I don't like these other people driving pick-ups in town where they all get driven
    Not too far off, and also that it is our rural roads which have heavier KSIs, and tend to be a Wild West hidden from plain sight.

    I spotted things there around "what about plumbers?". I'd suggest a mid-size van is more suitable for a plumber.

    I wonder what else is hidden in the undergrowth of the budget documents?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,476
    eek said:

    Taz said:

    DavidL said:

    The closing advert for Harris: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/10/30/2280999/-Harris-campaign-s-gripping-next-chapter-ad-will-give-you-goosebumps?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=top_news_slot_8&pm_medium=web

    She has become a genuinely compelling politician. Really exceptional. I hope it’s enough.

    Really, I hope she wins as the alternative would be a disaster for the global economy but she strikes me as mediocre at best.
    If the Republicans had a decent candidate this election wouldn't be close - the only reason the result isn't obvious is because Trump is their candidate..
    That cuts both ways, doesn't it? If Haley was the candidate and Trump hadn't stood at all, Haley would in all probability have won easily (especially as it's difficult to imagine Biden could have been persuaded to withdraw if the Republican hadn't been a crazed threat to democracy and the rule of law).

    But if the candidate had been Vance, the Republicans would be completely stuffed, because he has all of Trump's drawbacks and none of his messianic support.

    Trump is, oddly, the perfect candidate therefore to keep this election on a knife-edge.

    Not great for the world economy, but good news for pundits seeking value.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,949
    edited October 31
    glw said:

    £600m for social care.

    £22bn for NHS.

    This makes my blood boil.

    When will the political class wake up to the social care crisis and finally accept health and social care are the same fucking thing? All part of a continuum of care. Directly linked. Hospitals cannot discharge because the care homes don't have staff and beds, OTs so short in supply it takes months to get an assessment to send someone home etc etc.

    I am so bloody sick of this. Every single budget, year after year, decade after decade. Labour or Conservative.

    You are right. I think social care is an issue a bit like "growth" that we have been talking about, or reforming the tax system.

    We all know these are major problems. Few people have a good idea of exactly how to fix those issues. Even fewer are willing to stake the political capital to actually tackle them . So nothing happens from parliament to parliament.

    And frankly the UK public would almost certainly reject a party that had good ideas about these issues. Too big a change, too scary, too risky, so keep patching and tweaking the broken systems.
    The political ‘wisdom’ is that there are hardly any votes in social care; surprising really, given the dramatic cost and effect on family finances when an elderly relative goes into care, as I am now dealing with. Ed Davey has gone a little way to proving this wisdom wrong; the LDs got a bit of traction for focusing on the issue during the GE and it was good to see Ed get a hat tip from the Budget speech. But Labour in particular always campaigns on the NHS (even in local elections) where it thinks the votes are, and has never made social care a priority. Streeting is clearly now fishing around for some way of offloading his promise of a resolution into some sort of cross-party long grass.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 71,476
    Bangladesh follow on 415 behind.

    And but for Mominul Haq scoring 82 out of 159 that would have been *a lot* worse.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,930
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    biggles said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    SteveS said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Eabhal said:

    rcs1000 said:

    RobD said:

    DavidL said:

    algarkirk said:

    WRT the budget, while like everyone else I can make individual criticisms, but over the big picture, what do her many critics think she should have done differently and how?

    I'm not at all sure I have heard or seen a radically 'alternative budget' covering the totality of tax, spend and borrow from anyone or anywhere; including from the Tories. Has anyone?

    I've had a go, albeit only in the broadest of terms. I said I broadly agreed with the tax rises but was appalled at the level of additional spending and, consequentially, borrowing. A reset should have put us on an even keel. Our borrowing has been out of control since Covid. It is actually quite scary that it is going higher.

    I would accept that we needed more money on defence and Ukraine. I would even accept that the NHS is currently a bottomless pit and that, until we find a better way, there is not much choice about throwing more money at it. But the priority should have been to find as many cuts as possible to offset these additional sums and, at the very least, keep the increase in spending to less than the increase in taxes.
    We had 14 years of cuts. There's precious little left to cut.
    Cuts? Government expenditure is the highest it has been since the 70s.
    The problem is - as always - that there are some parts of the government budget that grow irrespective: simply, irrespective of what is going on in the world, the amount of money we pay out in pensions will rise, because there aree more retirees and the triple lock.

    This means that the rest of the government budget is under perpetual pressure.
    The State Pension is going to cost an additional £31 billion per year by the end of the parliament.

    (or the cost of HS2 to Manchester)
    The state pension is a drop in the bucket compared to the public sector pension issue

    https://www.pensionsage.com/pa/Public-sector-pension-bill-passes-size-of-the-economy-for-the-first-time.php
    I think you’re confusing annual payments with total liabilities.
    No I realise they are total liabilities but thge annual figure is also ever increasing and as the article nots tax payers are on the hook for the difference between the funding and total cost
    I don't know about other schemes but NHS superannuation annuation recently had its liabilities substantially reduced in an actuarial analysis. Mostly this was due to improved annuity rates.

    "As at 31 March 2023 the pension liabilities of the Scheme were valued at £460.6 billion. This is a decrease of £380.3 billion from the liabilities at 31 March 2022 of £840.9 billion. As the NHS Pension Scheme is an unfunded scheme, these liabilities are underwritten by the Exchequer."

    In this tax year NHS superannuation is paying in £4.31 billion INTO national coffers as contributions exceed payments made:

    "In cash terms, the Scheme recorded a Net Cash Requirement (NCR) of minus £4.31 billion against the voted estimate of minus £3.44 billion, this means the Scheme has surplus cash due to income exceeding pension benefit payments, and the £4.31 billion will be returned to HMT during 2024-25."

    Both from the NHSBA report here:

    https://www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/sites/default/files/2024-08/NHS Pension Scheme Accounts 2023-24.pdf
    Yes many (most?) public sector workers are due a contributions cut because of that calculation. But Gvt sat on it to examine what McCloud meant in full.
    I think that is the Universities Scheme.

    There is no plan to reduce contribution rates for NHS Superannuation as far as I know.

    £4.31 billion Net income from the NHS scheme for the exchequer this year is quite useful for Ms Reeves.
    yes bit most of that "income" is employer contributions that are funded by government spending on the NHS in the first place
    It's normal for employers as well as employees to contribute to pensions.

    Currently the NHS Trust contributes 14.38% of my salary and I contribute 14.5% to NHS superannuation, so a lot of money goes in to fund these pensions. NHS superannuation is "unfunded" in the sense that there is no fund, but not "unfunded" in the sense that contributions do not exist.

    The point stands: in this financial year NHS pensions scheme is paying £4.31 billion into Treasury coffers so is the very opposite of a national expense.
    That's an accounting trick @Foxy. That £4.31bn is paid out of the massive sums that the government pays to the NHS in the first place, a significant portion of which is for existing pensions in payment. The NHS is not in the position of the fire service, where more money is paid in pensions than is spent of current firemen, but its getting there. This is a massive and ongoing public expense.

    It is not a coincidence that the tax issues of senior consultants, and their inability to pay more into their pensions, thus increasing their tax bill, has played a highly disproportionate role in our tax policies as many consultants were taking the view that retirement was the most advantageous route.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 12,670

    Fishing said:

    kyf_100 said:

    Nigelb said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    kyf_100 said:

    As CGT is up with immediate effect, the amount I would now save by leaving the UK for 5 years stands at £59638 per annum over 5 years. Which is equivalent to a salary of 85k a year. Previous two jobs were 70k and 90k respectively, so split the difference and I can approximately afford to leave the UK, do nothing for five years, and end up in the same place as if I stayed here and worked.

    The main reason for staying is that I'm still young-ish in my 40s and quite like work.

    The main reason for leaving is the country is on its uppers and things are hardly likely to get better from here. Better to cash out now and enjoy one's retirement from warmer climes.

    I'm less concerned about paying an extra 4% a year, more worried that the country is going to continue to get worse and my quality of life here will continue to decline.

    As I said in the previous thread, if I do remain in the UK i will significantly alter my behaviour, making fewer capital disposals so as to incur less tax. If I leave I retire.

    Decisions, decisions.

    My feeling is that the UK is in terminal decline and this budget is another notch on the death spiral. The Tories screwed the pooch, but squeezing the life out of the private sector to give to the inefficient public sector is a one way ticket back to the 70s. So why not buy a one way ticket out...

    Most of the 0% places are gonna seriously screw you over (far more than here) if you have certain recreational hobbies. Or accidentally annoy the local tyrants (far more than here). Just be aware of that.

    If I were moving out of the country I'd be going somewhere in Africa, indeed it's my medium term plan atm to be 50% in Zambia. This makes no sense on a tax level but as a final frontier, it's very exciting.
    I do indeed have *all* the recreational hobbies you imagine wouldn't go down well in Dubai.

    The difference is, of course, I don't need to spend five years there. Or anywhere, for that matter.

    If I decide to leave the UK the worst I'm out is a single year in the Crown Dependencies (I know Jersey and Guernsey well through work, so know what I'm in for - IoM less so) then I can rebase myself somewhere civilized like Portugal on the D7 visa for the remaining four years. The key is to be in a 0% CGT regime for the year of the disposal then anywhere else for a chuckle for the next 4 years. Not living in a gilded cage with no drugs or bum sex for the next 5 years...
    The lack of drugs or bum sex ain't an issue for me. Don't do them, so won't miss them.

    (Would miss the English seasons. And that BBC i-player doesn't work in a gilded cage. They're my sex and drugs these days. Can I still have rock'n'roll?)

    But the UK Government would deffo miss the tax on what I'm planning though.

    Trumpeting an end to non-dom status gets a cheer from the Labour MPs.

    Closing hospital wards because those who were non-doms take their money elsewhere - will that get a cheer, Labour?

    Labour is about to learn - rich people pay for the NHS. Oh, and also that rich people are the most mobile on the planet. Fuck them off - and off they fuck.

    The people who end up making up the difference are those who just already got clobbered today. The ones left cutting the jobs or not buying that discretionary item with its lovely VAT take for the government.

    Though you'll probably end up closing a hospital ward too, Labour.

    I can do without both, tbh, I prefer women, though am open to other options. And prefer pints to other substances, but, again, I keep a broad mind. I would have fewer options in the middle east, rather than none ;)

    I do have an issue with countries who want to persecute people simply because of their sexual preferences, but I'm an old fashioned liberal. So it wouldn't be my first choice.

    I agreee entirely with the substance of your post. Be it non doms or just rich people deciding to bugger off - I suppose I'm one of the latter - rich people largely fund all the services everyone else takes for granted.

    Labour keep on saying the widest shoulders should bear the highest burden, while ignoring the fact that the richest in the UK already shoulder a huge amount of the tax burden. And are globally mobile. And use very few services.

    As I say, I'm less concerned about the 4% CGT hike and how it affects me, and more concerned that the UK is in a doom loop of low growth and poorer living standards. If you're rich and you can leave, why not?
    We’ll have to work out the consequences of that in due course.

    But we’re too big just to be a tax haven.
    The other way round for me. I'd rather catch a hundred billionaires at 10% tax than 0 blliionaires at 40% tax.

    It is an unpleasant fact of life that the richer you are the more globally mobile you are. In an ideal world we would tax the ultra wealthy at a rate equal to or greater than we tax the middle and working classes.

    But when the ultra rich are globally mobile, it's a bidding war - which we are badly losing.

    They are people who pay for our services while using very few of them, and Labour is driving them away.
    That's all true, but there's a very important point you're missing though.

    Even if the billionaires pay 0% tax, they still enrich the country through buying goods and services here, investing money, creating wealth and businesses, supporting charities and cultural events, etc etc etc. So the country is vastly better off for having them.

    We need to look at their contribution to society in the aggregate, not just as fat cows for the public sector to milk. That is the Socialist way of thinking, and one that has gone unchallenged for far too long.
    So, you’re saying that the billionaires’ money kind of trickles down?
    'Trickles down' is a political expression with a particular political meaning in support of maximally free markets and minimal taxation of the rich. So it isn't helpful.

    Two things can be true. The super rich are not taxed enough; and it is true that all economic activity, including that of billionaires, circulates money, goods and services including to the very poor, and those who spend/invest more do more of it while also doing well out of it.
  • NEW THREAD

  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 542
    IanB2 said:

    glw said:

    £600m for social care.

    £22bn for NHS.

    This makes my blood boil.

    When will the political class wake up to the social care crisis and finally accept health and social care are the same fucking thing? All part of a continuum of care. Directly linked. Hospitals cannot discharge because the care homes don't have staff and beds, OTs so short in supply it takes months to get an assessment to send someone home etc etc.

    I am so bloody sick of this. Every single budget, year after year, decade after decade. Labour or Conservative.

    You are right. I think social care is an issue a bit like "growth" that we have been talking about, or reforming the tax system.

    We all know these are major problems. Few people have a good idea of exactly how to fix those issues. Even fewer are willing to stake the political capital to actually tackle them . So nothing happens from parliament to parliament.

    And frankly the UK public would almost certainly reject a party that had good ideas about these issues. Too big a change, too scary, too risky, so keep patching and tweaking the broken systems.
    The political ‘wisdom’ is that there are hardly any votes in social care; surprising really, given the dramatic cost and effect on family finances when an elderly relative goes into care, as I am now dealing with. Ed Davey has gone a little way to proving this wisdom wrong; the LDs got a bit of traction for focusing on the issue during the GE and it was good to see Ed get a hat tip from the Budget speech. But Labour in particular always campaigns on the NHS (even in local elections) where it thinks the votes are, and has never made social care a priority. Streeting is clearly now fishing around for some way of offloading his promise of a resolution into some sort of cross-party long grass.
    The problem iis the enormous cost, as May found out, any suggestion that the elderly should pitch in and share the risk of social care costs is political suicide. The only time a govt could do this is early in their term but Labour learnt a lesson when Cameron pulled out of cross party talks on a solution, choosing instead to use it for political point scoring.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,209
    eek said:

    Taz said:

    DavidL said:

    The closing advert for Harris: https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/10/30/2280999/-Harris-campaign-s-gripping-next-chapter-ad-will-give-you-goosebumps?pm_campaign=front_page&pm_source=top_news_slot_8&pm_medium=web

    She has become a genuinely compelling politician. Really exceptional. I hope it’s enough.

    Really, I hope she wins as the alternative would be a disaster for the global economy but she strikes me as mediocre at best.
    If the Republicans had a decent candidate this election wouldn't be close - the only reason the result isn't obvious is because Trump is their candidate..
    Which of every single Republican candidate beaten by Trump would do better against Harris than Trump?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 71,452

    Sandpit said:

    moonshine said:

    https://x.com/lesialvd/status/1851653466340409542?s=46&t=Vp6NqNN4ktoNY0DO98xlGA

    “After today’s press conference by Zelenskyy where it turned out that the White House leaked the secret parts of that plan, refused to supply missiles in principle because that’s escalation, and Ukraine received only 10% of that April 2024 package, I have absolutely zero doubt left that the U.S. is done with this war. We’re being deliberately put in a situation where we’re bleeding so much that we'll ask for negotiations, agree to cease the land, and shelve the NATO membership prospect forever. Yes, don’t have any illusions about that. Ukraine won’t be in NATO despite whatever memorandum crap is written there. That’s all there is to it”

    That’s more than a little concerning. It does sound like the US focus is now much more on Israel and the Middle East issues, than what’s going on in Eastern Europe.

    European nations are going to have to step up to the plate here, alongside a serious diplomatic effort on the BRICS and other ‘neutral’ nations to also take an interest.
    Criticisms of Biden over this from Trump supporters seem a little odd, given the way the GOP has tried to stop Ukraine getting help at every turn. How many Ukrainians died because of the six month long shell drought they suffered because some in the GOP wanted to help Russia?

    Especially as Trump will do far, far worse than Biden. He will sell Ukraine down the river.

    Shame on anyone who supports or shills for Trump.
    It's not unfair, though, to criticise Biden for excessive timidity. Even if both Trump, and a large majority of the GOP have opposed any aid to Ukraine almost every step of the way.
    Trump is characteristically a fan of Orban, who is quite clearly in Putin's pocket.

    Harris has also said she will back Ukraine "as long as it takes". Those claiming "the fix is in" are just posting baseless shit.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,817
    moonshine said:

    https://x.com/jayinkyiv/status/1851598898218844470?s=46&t=Vp6NqNN4ktoNY0DO98xlGA

    Zelensky on North Korean soldiers entering the war. “The west is in denial… they are silent…”. Refers to their “escalation fears”. “I do not know how many soldiers from North Korea or Iran may come”.

    Something has changes in recent months with western policy in Ukraine. I don’t think it relates to the UK election. More likely it’s the changed balance of power in Washington since Biden announced his withdrawal. But who knows.

    I think they have solid intelligence that Russia will go nuclear if Ukraine allowed to use western weapons and guidance systems to launch attacks deep in Russia. Some back door talking i think -
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,809
    edited October 31
    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    biggles said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    SteveS said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Eabhal said:

    rcs1000 said:

    RobD said:

    DavidL said:

    algarkirk said:

    WRT the budget, while like everyone else I can make individual criticisms, but over the big picture, what do her many critics think she should have done differently and how?

    I'm not at all sure I have heard or seen a radically 'alternative budget' covering the totality of tax, spend and borrow from anyone or anywhere; including from the Tories. Has anyone?

    I've had a go, albeit only in the broadest of terms. I said I broadly agreed with the tax rises but was appalled at the level of additional spending and, consequentially, borrowing. A reset should have put us on an even keel. Our borrowing has been out of control since Covid. It is actually quite scary that it is going higher.

    I would accept that we needed more money on defence and Ukraine. I would even accept that the NHS is currently a bottomless pit and that, until we find a better way, there is not much choice about throwing more money at it. But the priority should have been to find as many cuts as possible to offset these additional sums and, at the very least, keep the increase in spending to less than the increase in taxes.
    We had 14 years of cuts. There's precious little left to cut.
    Cuts? Government expenditure is the highest it has been since the 70s.
    The problem is - as always - that there are some parts of the government budget that grow irrespective: simply, irrespective of what is going on in the world, the amount of money we pay out in pensions will rise, because there aree more retirees and the triple lock.

    This means that the rest of the government budget is under perpetual pressure.
    The State Pension is going to cost an additional £31 billion per year by the end of the parliament.

    (or the cost of HS2 to Manchester)
    The state pension is a drop in the bucket compared to the public sector pension issue

    https://www.pensionsage.com/pa/Public-sector-pension-bill-passes-size-of-the-economy-for-the-first-time.php
    I think you’re confusing annual payments with total liabilities.
    No I realise they are total liabilities but thge annual figure is also ever increasing and as the article nots tax payers are on the hook for the difference between the funding and total cost
    I don't know about other schemes but NHS superannuation annuation recently had its liabilities substantially reduced in an actuarial analysis. Mostly this was due to improved annuity rates.

    "As at 31 March 2023 the pension liabilities of the Scheme were valued at £460.6 billion. This is a decrease of £380.3 billion from the liabilities at 31 March 2022 of £840.9 billion. As the NHS Pension Scheme is an unfunded scheme, these liabilities are underwritten by the Exchequer."

    In this tax year NHS superannuation is paying in £4.31 billion INTO national coffers as contributions exceed payments made:

    "In cash terms, the Scheme recorded a Net Cash Requirement (NCR) of minus £4.31 billion against the voted estimate of minus £3.44 billion, this means the Scheme has surplus cash due to income exceeding pension benefit payments, and the £4.31 billion will be returned to HMT during 2024-25."

    Both from the NHSBA report here:

    https://www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/sites/default/files/2024-08/NHS Pension Scheme Accounts 2023-24.pdf
    Yes many (most?) public sector workers are due a contributions cut because of that calculation. But Gvt sat on it to examine what McCloud meant in full.
    I think that is the Universities Scheme.

    There is no plan to reduce contribution rates for NHS Superannuation as far as I know.

    £4.31 billion Net income from the NHS scheme for the exchequer this year is quite useful for Ms Reeves.
    yes bit most of that "income" is employer contributions that are funded by government spending on the NHS in the first place
    It's normal for employers as well as employees to contribute to pensions.

    Currently the NHS Trust contributes 14.38% of my salary and I contribute 14.5% to NHS superannuation, so a lot of money goes in to fund these pensions. NHS superannuation is "unfunded" in the sense that there is no fund, but not "unfunded" in the sense that contributions do not exist.

    The point stands: in this financial year NHS pensions scheme is paying £4.31 billion into Treasury coffers so is the very opposite of a national expense.
    It is not a coincidence that the tax issues of senior consultants, and their inability to pay more into their pensions, thus increasing their tax bill, has played a highly disproportionate role in our tax policies as many consultants were taking the view that retirement was the most advantageous route.
    Certainly so. The restrictions on Annual Allowance gave me a massive tax bill a few years back (hence the rebate I am due when McCloud compensation comes through). Many of my senior colleagues had to reduce hours or refuse overtime as the marginal tax rate exceeded 100%.

    Fortunately, Hunt largely fixed the Annual Allowance and Lifetime Allowance issues, and the changes in the NHS partial retirement rules last October also addressed the issue. Hence I can now work part time, and collect my pension too.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,646
    ydoethur said:

    Bangladesh follow on 415 behind.

    And but for Mominul Haq scoring 82 out of 159 that would have been *a lot* worse.

    Also think just how much worse it would have been of the Saffers had used all ten of the available wickets with the bat, instead of only six.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 11,209
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/oct/30/texas-woman-death-abortion-ban-miscarriage

    “Texas woman died after being denied miscarriage care due to abortion ban, report finds”

    The GOP are killing women.
  • Foxy said:

    DavidL said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    biggles said:

    Foxy said:

    Pagan2 said:

    SteveS said:

    Pagan2 said:

    Eabhal said:

    rcs1000 said:

    RobD said:

    DavidL said:

    algarkirk said:

    WRT the budget, while like everyone else I can make individual criticisms, but over the big picture, what do her many critics think she should have done differently and how?

    I'm not at all sure I have heard or seen a radically 'alternative budget' covering the totality of tax, spend and borrow from anyone or anywhere; including from the Tories. Has anyone?

    I've had a go, albeit only in the broadest of terms. I said I broadly agreed with the tax rises but was appalled at the level of additional spending and, consequentially, borrowing. A reset should have put us on an even keel. Our borrowing has been out of control since Covid. It is actually quite scary that it is going higher.

    I would accept that we needed more money on defence and Ukraine. I would even accept that the NHS is currently a bottomless pit and that, until we find a better way, there is not much choice about throwing more money at it. But the priority should have been to find as many cuts as possible to offset these additional sums and, at the very least, keep the increase in spending to less than the increase in taxes.
    We had 14 years of cuts. There's precious little left to cut.
    Cuts? Government expenditure is the highest it has been since the 70s.
    The problem is - as always - that there are some parts of the government budget that grow irrespective: simply, irrespective of what is going on in the world, the amount of money we pay out in pensions will rise, because there aree more retirees and the triple lock.

    This means that the rest of the government budget is under perpetual pressure.
    The State Pension is going to cost an additional £31 billion per year by the end of the parliament.

    (or the cost of HS2 to Manchester)
    The state pension is a drop in the bucket compared to the public sector pension issue

    https://www.pensionsage.com/pa/Public-sector-pension-bill-passes-size-of-the-economy-for-the-first-time.php
    I think you’re confusing annual payments with total liabilities.
    No I realise they are total liabilities but thge annual figure is also ever increasing and as the article nots tax payers are on the hook for the difference between the funding and total cost
    I don't know about other schemes but NHS superannuation annuation recently had its liabilities substantially reduced in an actuarial analysis. Mostly this was due to improved annuity rates.

    "As at 31 March 2023 the pension liabilities of the Scheme were valued at £460.6 billion. This is a decrease of £380.3 billion from the liabilities at 31 March 2022 of £840.9 billion. As the NHS Pension Scheme is an unfunded scheme, these liabilities are underwritten by the Exchequer."

    In this tax year NHS superannuation is paying in £4.31 billion INTO national coffers as contributions exceed payments made:

    "In cash terms, the Scheme recorded a Net Cash Requirement (NCR) of minus £4.31 billion against the voted estimate of minus £3.44 billion, this means the Scheme has surplus cash due to income exceeding pension benefit payments, and the £4.31 billion will be returned to HMT during 2024-25."

    Both from the NHSBA report here:

    https://www.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/sites/default/files/2024-08/NHS Pension Scheme Accounts 2023-24.pdf
    Yes many (most?) public sector workers are due a contributions cut because of that calculation. But Gvt sat on it to examine what McCloud meant in full.
    I think that is the Universities Scheme.

    There is no plan to reduce contribution rates for NHS Superannuation as far as I know.

    £4.31 billion Net income from the NHS scheme for the exchequer this year is quite useful for Ms Reeves.
    yes bit most of that "income" is employer contributions that are funded by government spending on the NHS in the first place
    It's normal for employers as well as employees to contribute to pensions.

    Currently the NHS Trust contributes 14.38% of my salary and I contribute 14.5% to NHS superannuation, so a lot of money goes in to fund these pensions. NHS superannuation is "unfunded" in the sense that there is no fund, but not "unfunded" in the sense that contributions do not exist.

    The point stands: in this financial year NHS pensions scheme is paying £4.31 billion into Treasury coffers so is the very opposite of a national expense.
    It is not a coincidence that the tax issues of senior consultants, and their inability to pay more into their pensions, thus increasing their tax bill, has played a highly disproportionate role in our tax policies as many consultants were taking the view that retirement was the most advantageous route.
    Certainly so. The restrictions on Annual Allowance gave me a massive tax bill a few years back (hence the rebate I am due when McCloud compensation comes through). Many of my senior colleagues had to reduce hours or refuse overtime as the marginal tax rate exceeded 100%.

    Fortunately, Hunt largely fixed the Annual Allowance and Lifetime Allowance issues, and the changes in the NHS partial retirement rules last October also addressed the issue. Hence I can now work part time, and collect my pension too.
    "Many of my senior colleagues had to reduce hours or refuse overtime as the marginal tax rate exceeded 100%."

    Not 100% of the value of the additional accrual though. A few of my consultant friends have complained about this to me and been shocked when it turns out I understand the AA and LTA charge mechanisms and the sleight of hand in the way they describe the tax rate.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,888
    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    moonshine said:

    https://x.com/lesialvd/status/1851653466340409542?s=46&t=Vp6NqNN4ktoNY0DO98xlGA

    “After today’s press conference by Zelenskyy where it turned out that the White House leaked the secret parts of that plan, refused to supply missiles in principle because that’s escalation, and Ukraine received only 10% of that April 2024 package, I have absolutely zero doubt left that the U.S. is done with this war. We’re being deliberately put in a situation where we’re bleeding so much that we'll ask for negotiations, agree to cease the land, and shelve the NATO membership prospect forever. Yes, don’t have any illusions about that. Ukraine won’t be in NATO despite whatever memorandum crap is written there. That’s all there is to it”

    That’s more than a little concerning. It does sound like the US focus is now much more on Israel and the Middle East issues, than what’s going on in Eastern Europe.

    European nations are going to have to step up to the plate here, alongside a serious diplomatic effort on the BRICS and other ‘neutral’ nations to also take an interest.
    Criticisms of Biden over this from Trump supporters seem a little odd, given the way the GOP has tried to stop Ukraine getting help at every turn. How many Ukrainians died because of the six month long shell drought they suffered because some in the GOP wanted to help Russia?

    Especially as Trump will do far, far worse than Biden. He will sell Ukraine down the river.

    Shame on anyone who supports or shills for Trump.
    You just aren’t listening are you. Take off your blinkers. This has nothing to do with Trump. The fix is in.
    Go on. 'Educate' us. What is this 'fix' that you are so certain about?

    As I said, shame on anyone who supports or shills for Trump. Even conspiraloons.
    Why do you think I am shilling for Trump? I am merely quoting the furious words of Zelensky from yesterday. He knows that his cause is being abandoned regardless of who wins the election. Be angry with them, not the messenger.
    You are not a 'messenger'.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 60,557

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    moonshine said:

    https://x.com/lesialvd/status/1851653466340409542?s=46&t=Vp6NqNN4ktoNY0DO98xlGA

    “After today’s press conference by Zelenskyy where it turned out that the White House leaked the secret parts of that plan, refused to supply missiles in principle because that’s escalation, and Ukraine received only 10% of that April 2024 package, I have absolutely zero doubt left that the U.S. is done with this war. We’re being deliberately put in a situation where we’re bleeding so much that we'll ask for negotiations, agree to cease the land, and shelve the NATO membership prospect forever. Yes, don’t have any illusions about that. Ukraine won’t be in NATO despite whatever memorandum crap is written there. That’s all there is to it”

    That’s more than a little concerning. It does sound like the US focus is now much more on Israel and the Middle East issues, than what’s going on in Eastern Europe.

    European nations are going to have to step up to the plate here, alongside a serious diplomatic effort on the BRICS and other ‘neutral’ nations to also take an interest.
    Criticisms of Biden over this from Trump supporters seem a little odd, given the way the GOP has tried to stop Ukraine getting help at every turn. How many Ukrainians died because of the six month long shell drought they suffered because some in the GOP wanted to help Russia?

    Especially as Trump will do far, far worse than Biden. He will sell Ukraine down the river.

    Shame on anyone who supports or shills for Trump.
    You just aren’t listening are you. Take off your blinkers. This has nothing to do with Trump. The fix is in.
    Go on. 'Educate' us. What is this 'fix' that you are so certain about?

    As I said, shame on anyone who supports or shills for Trump. Even conspiraloons.
    Why do you think I am shilling for Trump? I am merely quoting the furious words of Zelensky from yesterday. He knows that his cause is being abandoned regardless of who wins the election. Be angry with them, not the messenger.
    You are not a 'messenger'.
    Again, posts like yours are what keep the heads down of the factual insights and analysis we need to bet on this election properly.

    I'm sick and tired of those putting forth pro-Trump arguments being told they are shilling for Trump or secret supporters.

    Stop it.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,888

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    moonshine said:

    https://x.com/lesialvd/status/1851653466340409542?s=46&t=Vp6NqNN4ktoNY0DO98xlGA

    “After today’s press conference by Zelenskyy where it turned out that the White House leaked the secret parts of that plan, refused to supply missiles in principle because that’s escalation, and Ukraine received only 10% of that April 2024 package, I have absolutely zero doubt left that the U.S. is done with this war. We’re being deliberately put in a situation where we’re bleeding so much that we'll ask for negotiations, agree to cease the land, and shelve the NATO membership prospect forever. Yes, don’t have any illusions about that. Ukraine won’t be in NATO despite whatever memorandum crap is written there. That’s all there is to it”

    That’s more than a little concerning. It does sound like the US focus is now much more on Israel and the Middle East issues, than what’s going on in Eastern Europe.

    European nations are going to have to step up to the plate here, alongside a serious diplomatic effort on the BRICS and other ‘neutral’ nations to also take an interest.
    Criticisms of Biden over this from Trump supporters seem a little odd, given the way the GOP has tried to stop Ukraine getting help at every turn. How many Ukrainians died because of the six month long shell drought they suffered because some in the GOP wanted to help Russia?

    Especially as Trump will do far, far worse than Biden. He will sell Ukraine down the river.

    Shame on anyone who supports or shills for Trump.
    You just aren’t listening are you. Take off your blinkers. This has nothing to do with Trump. The fix is in.
    Go on. 'Educate' us. What is this 'fix' that you are so certain about?

    As I said, shame on anyone who supports or shills for Trump. Even conspiraloons.
    Why do you think I am shilling for Trump? I am merely quoting the furious words of Zelensky from yesterday. He knows that his cause is being abandoned regardless of who wins the election. Be angry with them, not the messenger.
    You are not a 'messenger'.
    Again, posts like yours are what keep the heads down of the factual insights and analysis we need to bet on this election properly.

    I'm sick and tired of those putting forth pro-Trump arguments being told they are shilling for Trump or secret supporters.

    Stop it.
    No. Because that's not what I'm doing.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,375
    TimS said:

    ydoethur said:

    TimS said:

    Pagan2 said:

    TimS said:

    Pubs are nice, they’re one of the things we do well in Britain. Ask any European living here.

    Pubs are cesspits I would rather lick a sweaty americans armpit than go in one through choice
    An Englishman, an Irishman and a Scotsman walk into a pub. The Englishman is @Pagan2 . The Scotsman is @malcolmg . Who’s volunteering to be the Irishman? Perhaps @SeaShantyIrish2 if his armpits are suitably sweaty.
    I believe @Alanbrooke is an Ulsterman? Would that count?
    He’d need to be in an angry mood. Perhaps warm him up on some Starmer speeches beforehand.
    I do indeed walk into pubs now and again. I miss the old dives of the 70's with the dodgy wallpaper etc
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 43,375

    moonshine said:

    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    moonshine said:

    https://x.com/lesialvd/status/1851653466340409542?s=46&t=Vp6NqNN4ktoNY0DO98xlGA

    “After today’s press conference by Zelenskyy where it turned out that the White House leaked the secret parts of that plan, refused to supply missiles in principle because that’s escalation, and Ukraine received only 10% of that April 2024 package, I have absolutely zero doubt left that the U.S. is done with this war. We’re being deliberately put in a situation where we’re bleeding so much that we'll ask for negotiations, agree to cease the land, and shelve the NATO membership prospect forever. Yes, don’t have any illusions about that. Ukraine won’t be in NATO despite whatever memorandum crap is written there. That’s all there is to it”

    That’s more than a little concerning. It does sound like the US focus is now much more on Israel and the Middle East issues, than what’s going on in Eastern Europe.

    European nations are going to have to step up to the plate here, alongside a serious diplomatic effort on the BRICS and other ‘neutral’ nations to also take an interest.
    Criticisms of Biden over this from Trump supporters seem a little odd, given the way the GOP has tried to stop Ukraine getting help at every turn. How many Ukrainians died because of the six month long shell drought they suffered because some in the GOP wanted to help Russia?

    Especially as Trump will do far, far worse than Biden. He will sell Ukraine down the river.

    Shame on anyone who supports or shills for Trump.
    You just aren’t listening are you. Take off your blinkers. This has nothing to do with Trump. The fix is in.
    Go on. 'Educate' us. What is this 'fix' that you are so certain about?

    As I said, shame on anyone who supports or shills for Trump. Even conspiraloons.
    Why do you think I am shilling for Trump? I am merely quoting the furious words of Zelensky from yesterday. He knows that his cause is being abandoned regardless of who wins the election. Be angry with them, not the messenger.
    You are not a 'messenger'.
    Again, posts like yours are what keep the heads down of the factual insights and analysis we need to bet on this election properly.

    I'm sick and tired of those putting forth pro-Trump arguments being told they are shilling for Trump or secret supporters.

    Stop it.
    Anyone supporting that cabbage Trump is not right in the head and a wrong un
This discussion has been closed.