So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
If a person said 'I'd never have slaves" but then had slaves then that would be hypocrisy.
No having slaves but saying slavery is wrong is hypocrisy....you believe its wrong then lead by example, I don't believe in slavery and even if was legal I would not keep a slave because guess what I think its wrong.
Kinablu is the same with tax here, saying I dont believe people should be minimising tax but its legal so I will do it too. That would be exactly the same as me saying I think slavery is wrong but its legal so I will own some.
Should @kinabalu for instance not take out ISAs? That is a state sponsored mechanism for avoiding tax.
Where do you draw this line?
I sense Pagan will narrow his eyes and draw the line so I'm standing just on the wrong side of it.
I don't invest in isa's. The only tax avoidance I do is my pension scheme which is now state mandated and I will be taxed on the outflowings as much as the tax reduction I get paying in.
I am not rich enough or earning enough that I have money to shove into an isa for a start like 80% of the country so its a no brainer. Paying into a tax efficient vehicle like an isa is something for the well off
@Pagan2 That is not correct. You will get a tax benefit from your pension. First of all you saved tax on all you put in, yet you will get 25% out tax free. It is also likely your pension will be less than your current salary so whereas what you put in will save tax at your marginal rate now what you get out will be in different lower tax bands.
And it is nonsense to say ISAs are only for the rich. My daughter who is 23 and only getting just above the living wage has an ISA. Anyone who has any savings no matter how small can open an ISA even if only a few hundred pounds.
As I mentioned previously I opened an ISA for each of my children when they were born and put in what we could afford each month. 18 years later it was enough to pay for my daughter through Uni and get her a deposit on ahouse. The same will hopefully apply to my son.
The amount was £100 a month for each of them. We chose to do thisratherthan take holidays or buy cars etc. I don't consider we were 'rich' although more recently we have been much better off (after 38 years of work). THe whole point of an ISA is it allows normal people to save tax efficiently where the rich use all the loopholes
Here is your basic mistake however 1) If I take 25% of my pension pot I will get 3 - to 4k a year not index linked instead of 5 - 6k a year not index linked....cant afford to do it
2) isa's yes your daughter is lucky obviously the month runs out before her paycheck most of us aren't in that situation we are the reverse where the paycheque runs out far before the month
Well judging by the number of people taking holidays every year, subscribing to netflix, Amazon Prime and Sky or buying new cars, clearly it isn't the case that 'most' people are in your situation. Some people clearly are but certainly not 'most'.
Life is all about choices. We chose not to buy new cars or take holidays. Again, as with the paying tax thing, there is nothing 'honourable' about this. We simply had a set of priorities and didn't feel we needed a hoiday each year or a new car... well ever. Other people feel differently and that is entirely their affair. I genuinely don't care. But to claim we are 'better off' or 'rich' because we can afford to put money away for our kids is crass and stupid. I am afraid you are floundering to justify your position.
My first foreign holiday was in 2000, also my last and had a partner and two incomes then. I gave up my car, motorcycle in 2002 as could no longer justify the tax and insurance. I moved gradually down the rental ladder from a three bedroom house to a studio flat as rents increased and took more and more of my pay. Telling me I can afford to save money is the crass thing most people in this country live one paycheque to another and yes some of them do waste money I don't disagree, doesnt mean they have money to put away....good on your daughter that she can but sorry if you have money left at the end of the month you are better off than a lot of people
I did't deny that your position is bad. I simply took issue with your claim that it is the norm for most people (your claim not mine).
Like I said, you are floundering because it turns out that the world does not revolve around your circumstances or your chosen principles.
39% of people in the uk have savings under 1k
Terrifying stat if true. So many people are totally screwed if they lose their jobs.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
Oh dear that is a problem for me kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
One of the things I found rather disturbing about Jeremy Corbyn was that by his own admission he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a Grammar school and he disagreed.
I am sorry but if you are willing to give up your son and your wife for your political beliefs then that marks you as aan extremist in my eyes.
There you go. But the other way he'd have been (on the sloppy @Nigel_Foremain metric) a hypocrite.
I'm with you btw. Putting your politics above your family smacks of zealotry.
Principles, yes, great, but don't go right up yourself with them. That's off-putting.
You have principles or you don't sorry. If you have principles you don't violate them because it is convenient for you that means they aren't principles
No, you have views and opinions, some of which will be sufficiently dear to you to be called "principles".
They aren't views and opinions they are absolutes I live by. You think it being merely views and opinions demeans you not me
There is a rather simple solution to this, which is a classic case of irregular verb approach.
Since you are human you must have not lived up to some view at some point. However you maintain you would not do so on your principles. Ergo, you probably have views and opinions you have not lived up to, and this is just a dispute on what you regard as people being overdramatic by describing their views as principles.
If a principle is just something people never bend on then no-one has ever violated their principles, since by definition they cannot.
So far I have never violated one of my principles, not saying it couldn't happen I only have a few however
I have never struck a woman I have never raped I have always payed full tax without seeking to avoid it I have never killed anyone when maiming was sufficient I have never maimed someone when injuring them was sufficient I have never injured someone when a harsh word was enough I have never taken from someone things they need I have always helped the less fortunate where I can
These are the principles I live by and yes not violated one as yet
What about the times when maiming was NOT sufficient?
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
If a person said 'I'd never have slaves" but then had slaves then that would be hypocrisy.
No having slaves but saying slavery is wrong is hypocrisy....you believe its wrong then lead by example, I don't believe in slavery and even if was legal I would not keep a slave because guess what I think its wrong.
Kinablu is the same with tax here, saying I dont believe people should be minimising tax but its legal so I will do it too. That would be exactly the same as me saying I think slavery is wrong but its legal so I will own some.
Should @kinabalu for instance not take out ISAs? That is a state sponsored mechanism for avoiding tax.
Where do you draw this line?
I sense Pagan will narrow his eyes and draw the line so I'm standing just on the wrong side of it.
I don't invest in isa's. The only tax avoidance I do is my pension scheme which is now state mandated and I will be taxed on the outflowings as much as the tax reduction I get paying in.
I am not rich enough or earning enough that I have money to shove into an isa for a start like 80% of the country so its a no brainer. Paying into a tax efficient vehicle like an isa is something for the well off
@Pagan2 That is not correct. You will get a tax benefit from your pension. First of all you saved tax on all you put in, yet you will get 25% out tax free. It is also likely your pension will be less than your current salary so whereas what you put in will save tax at your marginal rate now what you get out will be in different lower tax bands.
And it is nonsense to say ISAs are only for the rich. My daughter who is 23 and only getting just above the living wage has an ISA. Anyone who has any savings no matter how small can open an ISA even if only a few hundred pounds.
As I mentioned previously I opened an ISA for each of my children when they were born and put in what we could afford each month. 18 years later it was enough to pay for my daughter through Uni and get her a deposit on ahouse. The same will hopefully apply to my son.
The amount was £100 a month for each of them. We chose to do thisratherthan take holidays or buy cars etc. I don't consider we were 'rich' although more recently we have been much better off (after 38 years of work). THe whole point of an ISA is it allows normal people to save tax efficiently where the rich use all the loopholes
Here is your basic mistake however 1) If I take 25% of my pension pot I will get 3 - to 4k a year not index linked instead of 5 - 6k a year not index linked....cant afford to do it
2) isa's yes your daughter is lucky obviously the month runs out before her paycheck most of us aren't in that situation we are the reverse where the paycheque runs out far before the month
Well judging by the number of people taking holidays every year, subscribing to netflix, Amazon Prime and Sky or buying new cars, clearly it isn't the case that 'most' people are in your situation. Some people clearly are but certainly not 'most'.
Life is all about choices. We chose not to buy new cars or take holidays. Again, as with the paying tax thing, there is nothing 'honourable' about this. We simply had a set of priorities and didn't feel we needed a hoiday each year or a new car... well ever. Other people feel differently and that is entirely their affair. I genuinely don't care. But to claim we are 'better off' or 'rich' because we can afford to put money away for our kids is crass and stupid. I am afraid you are floundering to justify your position.
My first foreign holiday was in 2000, also my last and had a partner and two incomes then. I gave up my car, motorcycle in 2002 as could no longer justify the tax and insurance. I moved gradually down the rental ladder from a three bedroom house to a studio flat as rents increased and took more and more of my pay. Telling me I can afford to save money is the crass thing most people in this country live one paycheque to another and yes some of them do waste money I don't disagree, doesnt mean they have money to put away....good on your daughter that she can but sorry if you have money left at the end of the month you are better off than a lot of people
I did't deny that your position is bad. I simply took issue with your claim that it is the norm for most people (your claim not mine).
Like I said, you are floundering because it turns out that the world does not revolve around your circumstances or your chosen principles.
39% of people in the uk have savings under 1k
So the majority have savings over £1000? TO be honest I am amazed. THere seems to be so little appetite for saving and everyone seems to be interested in spending their last penny that I would have thought it was far less than that.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
Oh dear that is a problem for me kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
One of the things I found rather disturbing about Jeremy Corbyn was that by his own admission he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a Grammar school and he disagreed.
I am sorry but if you are willing to give up your son and your wife for your political beliefs then that marks you as aan extremist in my eyes.
There you go. But the other way he'd have been (on the sloppy @Nigel_Foremain metric) a hypocrite.
I'm with you btw. Putting your politics above your family smacks of zealotry.
Principles, yes, great, but don't go right up yourself with them. That's off-putting.
You have principles or you don't sorry. If you have principles you don't violate them because it is convenient for you that means they aren't principles
No, you have views and opinions, some of which will be sufficiently dear to you to be called "principles".
They aren't views and opinions they are absolutes I live by. You think it being merely views and opinions demeans you not me
There is a rather simple solution to this, which is a classic case of irregular verb approach.
Since you are human you must have not lived up to some view at some point. However you maintain you would not do so on your principles. Ergo, you probably have views and opinions you have not lived up to, and this is just a dispute on what you regard as people being overdramatic by describing their views as principles.
If a principle is just something people never bend on then no-one has ever violated their principles, since by definition they cannot.
So far I have never violated one of my principles, not saying it couldn't happen I only have a few however
I have never struck a woman I have never raped I have always payed full tax without seeking to avoid it I have never killed anyone when maiming was sufficient I have never maimed someone when injuring them was sufficient I have never injured someone when a harsh word was enough I have never taken from someone things they need I have always helped the less fortunate where I can
These are the principles I live by and yes not violated one as yet
What about the times when maiming was NOT sufficient?
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
Oh dear that is a problem for me @kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
One of the things I found rather disturbing about Jeremy Corbyn was that by his own admission he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a Grammar school and he disagreed.
I am sorry but if you are willing to give up your son and your wife for your political beliefs then that marks you as aan extremist in my eyes.
There you go. But the other way he'd have been (on the sloppy @Nigel_Foremain metric) a hypocrite.
I'm with you btw. Putting your politics above your family smacks of zealotry.
Principles, yes, great, but don't go right up yourself with them. That's off-putting.
You have principles or you don't sorry. If you have principles you don't violate them because it is convenient for you that means they aren't principles
I like to think I have principles but when it comes to tax I think the main reason I stick to the rules absolutely is because I am too frightened of getting caught. I pay everything they ask of me and have insurance for the (vast) accountants fees for HMRC investigations and I sleep soundly in my bed knowing if they knock on the door I am good.
There is nothing moral or hnourable about this. I am very risk averse and the risk of getting caught is greater in my mind than the possible marginal benefits of doing anything dodgy.
This is why I went through an umbrella when I contracted, that and I had a friend caught out by an IR35 investigation which made me even more risk averse.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
If a person said 'I'd never have slaves" but then had slaves then that would be hypocrisy.
No having slaves but saying slavery is wrong is hypocrisy....you believe its wrong then lead by example, I don't believe in slavery and even if was legal I would not keep a slave because guess what I think its wrong.
Kinablu is the same with tax here, saying I dont believe people should be minimising tax but its legal so I will do it too. That would be exactly the same as me saying I think slavery is wrong but its legal so I will own some.
Should @kinabalu for instance not take out ISAs? That is a state sponsored mechanism for avoiding tax.
Where do you draw this line?
I sense Pagan will narrow his eyes and draw the line so I'm standing just on the wrong side of it.
I don't invest in isa's. The only tax avoidance I do is my pension scheme which is now state mandated and I will be taxed on the outflowings as much as the tax reduction I get paying in.
I am not rich enough or earning enough that I have money to shove into an isa for a start like 80% of the country so its a no brainer. Paying into a tax efficient vehicle like an isa is something for the well off
@Pagan2 That is not correct. You will get a tax benefit from your pension. First of all you saved tax on all you put in, yet you will get 25% out tax free. It is also likely your pension will be less than your current salary so whereas what you put in will save tax at your marginal rate now what you get out will be in different lower tax bands.
And it is nonsense to say ISAs are only for the rich. My daughter who is 23 and only getting just above the living wage has an ISA. Anyone who has any savings no matter how small can open an ISA even if only a few hundred pounds.
As I mentioned previously I opened an ISA for each of my children when they were born and put in what we could afford each month. 18 years later it was enough to pay for my daughter through Uni and get her a deposit on ahouse. The same will hopefully apply to my son.
The amount was £100 a month for each of them. We chose to do thisratherthan take holidays or buy cars etc. I don't consider we were 'rich' although more recently we have been much better off (after 38 years of work). THe whole point of an ISA is it allows normal people to save tax efficiently where the rich use all the loopholes
Here is your basic mistake however 1) If I take 25% of my pension pot I will get 3 - to 4k a year not index linked instead of 5 - 6k a year not index linked....cant afford to do it
2) isa's yes your daughter is lucky obviously the month runs out before her paycheck most of us aren't in that situation we are the reverse where the paycheque runs out far before the month
Well judging by the number of people taking holidays every year, subscribing to netflix, Amazon Prime and Sky or buying new cars, clearly it isn't the case that 'most' people are in your situation. Some people clearly are but certainly not 'most'.
Life is all about choices. We chose not to buy new cars or take holidays. Again, as with the paying tax thing, there is nothing 'honourable' about this. We simply had a set of priorities and didn't feel we needed a hoiday each year or a new car... well ever. Other people feel differently and that is entirely their affair. I genuinely don't care. But to claim we are 'better off' or 'rich' because we can afford to put money away for our kids is crass and stupid. I am afraid you are floundering to justify your position.
My first foreign holiday was in 2000, also my last and had a partner and two incomes then. I gave up my car, motorcycle in 2002 as could no longer justify the tax and insurance. I moved gradually down the rental ladder from a three bedroom house to a studio flat as rents increased and took more and more of my pay. Telling me I can afford to save money is the crass thing most people in this country live one paycheque to another and yes some of them do waste money I don't disagree, doesnt mean they have money to put away....good on your daughter that she can but sorry if you have money left at the end of the month you are better off than a lot of people
I did't deny that your position is bad. I simply took issue with your claim that it is the norm for most people (your claim not mine).
Like I said, you are floundering because it turns out that the world does not revolve around your circumstances or your chosen principles.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
If a person said 'I'd never have slaves" but then had slaves then that would be hypocrisy.
No having slaves but saying slavery is wrong is hypocrisy....you believe its wrong then lead by example, I don't believe in slavery and even if was legal I would not keep a slave because guess what I think its wrong.
Kinablu is the same with tax here, saying I dont believe people should be minimising tax but its legal so I will do it too. That would be exactly the same as me saying I think slavery is wrong but its legal so I will own some.
Should @kinabalu for instance not take out ISAs? That is a state sponsored mechanism for avoiding tax.
Where do you draw this line?
I sense Pagan will narrow his eyes and draw the line so I'm standing just on the wrong side of it.
I don't invest in isa's. The only tax avoidance I do is my pension scheme which is now state mandated and I will be taxed on the outflowings as much as the tax reduction I get paying in.
I am not rich enough or earning enough that I have money to shove into an isa for a start like 80% of the country so its a no brainer. Paying into a tax efficient vehicle like an isa is something for the well off
@Pagan2 That is not correct. You will get a tax benefit from your pension. First of all you saved tax on all you put in, yet you will get 25% out tax free. It is also likely your pension will be less than your current salary so whereas what you put in will save tax at your marginal rate now what you get out will be in different lower tax bands.
And it is nonsense to say ISAs are only for the rich. My daughter who is 23 and only getting just above the living wage has an ISA. Anyone who has any savings no matter how small can open an ISA even if only a few hundred pounds.
As I mentioned previously I opened an ISA for each of my children when they were born and put in what we could afford each month. 18 years later it was enough to pay for my daughter through Uni and get her a deposit on ahouse. The same will hopefully apply to my son.
The amount was £100 a month for each of them. We chose to do thisratherthan take holidays or buy cars etc. I don't consider we were 'rich' although more recently we have been much better off (after 38 years of work). THe whole point of an ISA is it allows normal people to save tax efficiently where the rich use all the loopholes
Here is your basic mistake however 1) If I take 25% of my pension pot I will get 3 - to 4k a year not index linked instead of 5 - 6k a year not index linked....cant afford to do it
2) isa's yes your daughter is lucky obviously the month runs out before her paycheck most of us aren't in that situation we are the reverse where the paycheque runs out far before the month
Well judging by the number of people taking holidays every year, subscribing to netflix, Amazon Prime and Sky or buying new cars, clearly it isn't the case that 'most' people are in your situation. Some people clearly are but certainly not 'most'.
Life is all about choices. We chose not to buy new cars or take holidays. Again, as with the paying tax thing, there is nothing 'honourable' about this. We simply had a set of priorities and didn't feel we needed a hoiday each year or a new car... well ever. Other people feel differently and that is entirely their affair. I genuinely don't care. But to claim we are 'better off' or 'rich' because we can afford to put money away for our kids is crass and stupid. I am afraid you are floundering to justify your position.
My first foreign holiday was in 2000, also my last and had a partner and two incomes then. I gave up my car, motorcycle in 2002 as could no longer justify the tax and insurance. I moved gradually down the rental ladder from a three bedroom house to a studio flat as rents increased and took more and more of my pay. Telling me I can afford to save money is the crass thing most people in this country live one paycheque to another and yes some of them do waste money I don't disagree, doesnt mean they have money to put away....good on your daughter that she can but sorry if you have money left at the end of the month you are better off than a lot of people
I did't deny that your position is bad. I simply took issue with your claim that it is the norm for most people (your claim not mine).
Like I said, you are floundering because it turns out that the world does not revolve around your circumstances or your chosen principles.
39% of people in the uk have savings under 1k
That's shameful for a relatively wealthy country.
I have zero savings, which probably puts me in the minority on PB! However, I do have some equity in my home.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
If a person said 'I'd never have slaves" but then had slaves then that would be hypocrisy.
No having slaves but saying slavery is wrong is hypocrisy....you believe its wrong then lead by example, I don't believe in slavery and even if was legal I would not keep a slave because guess what I think its wrong.
Kinablu is the same with tax here, saying I dont believe people should be minimising tax but its legal so I will do it too. That would be exactly the same as me saying I think slavery is wrong but its legal so I will own some.
Should @kinabalu for instance not take out ISAs? That is a state sponsored mechanism for avoiding tax.
Where do you draw this line?
I sense Pagan will narrow his eyes and draw the line so I'm standing just on the wrong side of it.
I don't invest in isa's. The only tax avoidance I do is my pension scheme which is now state mandated and I will be taxed on the outflowings as much as the tax reduction I get paying in.
I am not rich enough or earning enough that I have money to shove into an isa for a start like 80% of the country so its a no brainer. Paying into a tax efficient vehicle like an isa is something for the well off
@Pagan2 That is not correct. You will get a tax benefit from your pension. First of all you saved tax on all you put in, yet you will get 25% out tax free. It is also likely your pension will be less than your current salary so whereas what you put in will save tax at your marginal rate now what you get out will be in different lower tax bands.
And it is nonsense to say ISAs are only for the rich. My daughter who is 23 and only getting just above the living wage has an ISA. Anyone who has any savings no matter how small can open an ISA even if only a few hundred pounds.
As I mentioned previously I opened an ISA for each of my children when they were born and put in what we could afford each month. 18 years later it was enough to pay for my daughter through Uni and get her a deposit on ahouse. The same will hopefully apply to my son.
The amount was £100 a month for each of them. We chose to do thisratherthan take holidays or buy cars etc. I don't consider we were 'rich' although more recently we have been much better off (after 38 years of work). THe whole point of an ISA is it allows normal people to save tax efficiently where the rich use all the loopholes
Here is your basic mistake however 1) If I take 25% of my pension pot I will get 3 - to 4k a year not index linked instead of 5 - 6k a year not index linked....cant afford to do it
2) isa's yes your daughter is lucky obviously the month runs out before her paycheck most of us aren't in that situation we are the reverse where the paycheque runs out far before the month
Well judging by the number of people taking holidays every year, subscribing to netflix, Amazon Prime and Sky or buying new cars, clearly it isn't the case that 'most' people are in your situation. Some people clearly are but certainly not 'most'.
Life is all about choices. We chose not to buy new cars or take holidays. Again, as with the paying tax thing, there is nothing 'honourable' about this. We simply had a set of priorities and didn't feel we needed a hoiday each year or a new car... well ever. Other people feel differently and that is entirely their affair. I genuinely don't care. But to claim we are 'better off' or 'rich' because we can afford to put money away for our kids is crass and stupid. I am afraid you are floundering to justify your position.
My first foreign holiday was in 2000, also my last and had a partner and two incomes then. I gave up my car, motorcycle in 2002 as could no longer justify the tax and insurance. I moved gradually down the rental ladder from a three bedroom house to a studio flat as rents increased and took more and more of my pay. Telling me I can afford to save money is the crass thing most people in this country live one paycheque to another and yes some of them do waste money I don't disagree, doesnt mean they have money to put away....good on your daughter that she can but sorry if you have money left at the end of the month you are better off than a lot of people
I did't deny that your position is bad. I simply took issue with your claim that it is the norm for most people (your claim not mine).
Like I said, you are floundering because it turns out that the world does not revolve around your circumstances or your chosen principles.
39% of people in the uk have savings under 1k
So the majority have savings over £1000? TO be honest I am amazed. THere seems to be so little appetite for saving and everyone seems to be interested in spending their last penny that I would have thought it was far less than that.
Needless to say it proves nothing.
For most its not about not saving their last penny its just getting from one pay cheque to another. For example my bills for rent, electric, gas, phone etc come to almost 2k a month...my only extravagance getting my father out of the home once a week and taking him for a pint or two, I could just leave him in there to save 16£ but thats just 64 pounds I guess but at least wouldnt have to live on a pot noodle for a week
According to my bank when logging in encouraging me to invest, '46% of our new investors were between the ages of 35 and 55'. That actually would surprise me.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
If a person said 'I'd never have slaves" but then had slaves then that would be hypocrisy.
No having slaves but saying slavery is wrong is hypocrisy....you believe its wrong then lead by example, I don't believe in slavery and even if was legal I would not keep a slave because guess what I think its wrong.
Kinablu is the same with tax here, saying I dont believe people should be minimising tax but its legal so I will do it too. That would be exactly the same as me saying I think slavery is wrong but its legal so I will own some.
Should @kinabalu for instance not take out ISAs? That is a state sponsored mechanism for avoiding tax.
Where do you draw this line?
I sense Pagan will narrow his eyes and draw the line so I'm standing just on the wrong side of it.
I don't invest in isa's. The only tax avoidance I do is my pension scheme which is now state mandated and I will be taxed on the outflowings as much as the tax reduction I get paying in.
I am not rich enough or earning enough that I have money to shove into an isa for a start like 80% of the country so its a no brainer. Paying into a tax efficient vehicle like an isa is something for the well off
@Pagan2 That is not correct. You will get a tax benefit from your pension. First of all you saved tax on all you put in, yet you will get 25% out tax free. It is also likely your pension will be less than your current salary so whereas what you put in will save tax at your marginal rate now what you get out will be in different lower tax bands.
And it is nonsense to say ISAs are only for the rich. My daughter who is 23 and only getting just above the living wage has an ISA. Anyone who has any savings no matter how small can open an ISA even if only a few hundred pounds.
As I mentioned previously I opened an ISA for each of my children when they were born and put in what we could afford each month. 18 years later it was enough to pay for my daughter through Uni and get her a deposit on ahouse. The same will hopefully apply to my son.
The amount was £100 a month for each of them. We chose to do thisratherthan take holidays or buy cars etc. I don't consider we were 'rich' although more recently we have been much better off (after 38 years of work). THe whole point of an ISA is it allows normal people to save tax efficiently where the rich use all the loopholes
Here is your basic mistake however 1) If I take 25% of my pension pot I will get 3 - to 4k a year not index linked instead of 5 - 6k a year not index linked....cant afford to do it
2) isa's yes your daughter is lucky obviously the month runs out before her paycheck most of us aren't in that situation we are the reverse where the paycheque runs out far before the month
Well judging by the number of people taking holidays every year, subscribing to netflix, Amazon Prime and Sky or buying new cars, clearly it isn't the case that 'most' people are in your situation. Some people clearly are but certainly not 'most'.
Life is all about choices. We chose not to buy new cars or take holidays. Again, as with the paying tax thing, there is nothing 'honourable' about this. We simply had a set of priorities and didn't feel we needed a hoiday each year or a new car... well ever. Other people feel differently and that is entirely their affair. I genuinely don't care. But to claim we are 'better off' or 'rich' because we can afford to put money away for our kids is crass and stupid. I am afraid you are floundering to justify your position.
My first foreign holiday was in 2000, also my last and had a partner and two incomes then. I gave up my car, motorcycle in 2002 as could no longer justify the tax and insurance. I moved gradually down the rental ladder from a three bedroom house to a studio flat as rents increased and took more and more of my pay. Telling me I can afford to save money is the crass thing most people in this country live one paycheque to another and yes some of them do waste money I don't disagree, doesnt mean they have money to put away....good on your daughter that she can but sorry if you have money left at the end of the month you are better off than a lot of people
I did't deny that your position is bad. I simply took issue with your claim that it is the norm for most people (your claim not mine).
Like I said, you are floundering because it turns out that the world does not revolve around your circumstances or your chosen principles.
39% of people in the uk have savings under 1k
That's shameful for a relatively wealthy country.
I have zero savings, which probably puts me in the minority on PB!
It would. Although some of that is due to age. Hopefully you'll accrue as time passes. Harder than it used to be though in many ways.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
If a person said 'I'd never have slaves" but then had slaves then that would be hypocrisy.
No having slaves but saying slavery is wrong is hypocrisy....you believe its wrong then lead by example, I don't believe in slavery and even if was legal I would not keep a slave because guess what I think its wrong.
Kinablu is the same with tax here, saying I dont believe people should be minimising tax but its legal so I will do it too. That would be exactly the same as me saying I think slavery is wrong but its legal so I will own some.
Should @kinabalu for instance not take out ISAs? That is a state sponsored mechanism for avoiding tax.
Where do you draw this line?
I sense Pagan will narrow his eyes and draw the line so I'm standing just on the wrong side of it.
I don't invest in isa's. The only tax avoidance I do is my pension scheme which is now state mandated and I will be taxed on the outflowings as much as the tax reduction I get paying in.
I am not rich enough or earning enough that I have money to shove into an isa for a start like 80% of the country so its a no brainer. Paying into a tax efficient vehicle like an isa is something for the well off
@Pagan2 That is not correct. You will get a tax benefit from your pension. First of all you saved tax on all you put in, yet you will get 25% out tax free. It is also likely your pension will be less than your current salary so whereas what you put in will save tax at your marginal rate now what you get out will be in different lower tax bands.
And it is nonsense to say ISAs are only for the rich. My daughter who is 23 and only getting just above the living wage has an ISA. Anyone who has any savings no matter how small can open an ISA even if only a few hundred pounds.
As I mentioned previously I opened an ISA for each of my children when they were born and put in what we could afford each month. 18 years later it was enough to pay for my daughter through Uni and get her a deposit on ahouse. The same will hopefully apply to my son.
The amount was £100 a month for each of them. We chose to do thisratherthan take holidays or buy cars etc. I don't consider we were 'rich' although more recently we have been much better off (after 38 years of work). THe whole point of an ISA is it allows normal people to save tax efficiently where the rich use all the loopholes
Here is your basic mistake however 1) If I take 25% of my pension pot I will get 3 - to 4k a year not index linked instead of 5 - 6k a year not index linked....cant afford to do it
2) isa's yes your daughter is lucky obviously the month runs out before her paycheck most of us aren't in that situation we are the reverse where the paycheque runs out far before the month
Well judging by the number of people taking holidays every year, subscribing to netflix, Amazon Prime and Sky or buying new cars, clearly it isn't the case that 'most' people are in your situation. Some people clearly are but certainly not 'most'.
Life is all about choices. We chose not to buy new cars or take holidays. Again, as with the paying tax thing, there is nothing 'honourable' about this. We simply had a set of priorities and didn't feel we needed a hoiday each year or a new car... well ever. Other people feel differently and that is entirely their affair. I genuinely don't care. But to claim we are 'better off' or 'rich' because we can afford to put money away for our kids is crass and stupid. I am afraid you are floundering to justify your position.
My first foreign holiday was in 2000, also my last and had a partner and two incomes then. I gave up my car, motorcycle in 2002 as could no longer justify the tax and insurance. I moved gradually down the rental ladder from a three bedroom house to a studio flat as rents increased and took more and more of my pay. Telling me I can afford to save money is the crass thing most people in this country live one paycheque to another and yes some of them do waste money I don't disagree, doesnt mean they have money to put away....good on your daughter that she can but sorry if you have money left at the end of the month you are better off than a lot of people
I did't deny that your position is bad. I simply took issue with your claim that it is the norm for most people (your claim not mine).
Like I said, you are floundering because it turns out that the world does not revolve around your circumstances or your chosen principles.
39% of people in the uk have savings under 1k
That's shameful for a relatively wealthy country.
Most here are on good salary's or pensions they dont understand how badly the min wage workers are doing. I am far from min wage but not in the stratosphere yet I get bills and how do i pay this
Thai thread reminds me why I despise lefties. They are always like this. Grotesque hypocrites who ALSO preach and lecture. And they’re inevitably dull
It’s hard to think of a more objectionable species of humanity
We are having a very civilised and enjoyable and informative conversation, and I might add many of which are not 'lefties' (eg Richard) and you come on and lower the tone spectacularly. If you haven't got anything positive to add why bother? @Pagan2 is doing well enough without your help.
Why not ask for me to be banned
Oh the irony. Short memory haven't we as I have never asked for you to be banned and if you remember campaigned for you to be reinstated after a previous ban for which you thanked me. Remember?
But your latest posts just come over as very needy and very insecure. We are having a health discussion without you and you can't stand not being the centre of attention. Your attempt to hijack it failed so then you attempt to deflect it back onto your trip to Uruguay and still fail.
How about not trying to always make it about you and join in and not dominate.
Thai thread reminds me why I despise lefties. They are always like this. Grotesque hypocrites who ALSO preach and lecture. And they’re inevitably dull
It’s hard to think of a more objectionable species of humanity
We are having a very civilised and enjoyable and informative conversation, and I might add many of which are not 'lefties' (eg Richard) and you come on and lower the tone spectacularly. If you haven't got anything positive to add why bother? @Pagan2 is doing well enough without your help.
Why not ask for me to be banned
Oh the irony. Short memory haven't we as I have never asked for you to be banned and if you remember campaigned for you to be reinstated after a previous ban for which you thanked me. Remember?
But your latest posts just come over as very needy and very insecure. We are having a health discussion without you and you can't stand not being the centre of attention. Your attempt to hijack it failed so then you attempt to deflect it back onto your trip to Uruguay and still fail.
How about not trying to always make it about you and join in and not dominate.
If no one feeds his ego he will shrivel and disappear
Wow. Hodges pulls no punches as he tears into Starmer's administration over welfare:
Remember what people were told they were voting for last July: ‘Change’. And what were they presented with yesterday? The spectacle of a Labour minister – a Labour minister – aggressively confronting anyone who had the gall to question whether demanding that the most vulnerable in society again make the greatest sacrifices was really morally or economically sustainable.
A storm is coming. The British people have had enough. They are not going to tolerate another parade of ministers in tight grey suits, sporting red – rather than blue – ties, telling them those in most need have to do with less.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
If a person said 'I'd never have slaves" but then had slaves then that would be hypocrisy.
No having slaves but saying slavery is wrong is hypocrisy....you believe its wrong then lead by example, I don't believe in slavery and even if was legal I would not keep a slave because guess what I think its wrong.
Kinablu is the same with tax here, saying I dont believe people should be minimising tax but its legal so I will do it too. That would be exactly the same as me saying I think slavery is wrong but its legal so I will own some.
Should @kinabalu for instance not take out ISAs? That is a state sponsored mechanism for avoiding tax.
Where do you draw this line?
I sense Pagan will narrow his eyes and draw the line so I'm standing just on the wrong side of it.
I don't invest in isa's. The only tax avoidance I do is my pension scheme which is now state mandated and I will be taxed on the outflowings as much as the tax reduction I get paying in.
I am not rich enough or earning enough that I have money to shove into an isa for a start like 80% of the country so its a no brainer. Paying into a tax efficient vehicle like an isa is something for the well off
@Pagan2 That is not correct. You will get a tax benefit from your pension. First of all you saved tax on all you put in, yet you will get 25% out tax free. It is also likely your pension will be less than your current salary so whereas what you put in will save tax at your marginal rate now what you get out will be in different lower tax bands.
And it is nonsense to say ISAs are only for the rich. My daughter who is 23 and only getting just above the living wage has an ISA. Anyone who has any savings no matter how small can open an ISA even if only a few hundred pounds.
As I mentioned previously I opened an ISA for each of my children when they were born and put in what we could afford each month. 18 years later it was enough to pay for my daughter through Uni and get her a deposit on ahouse. The same will hopefully apply to my son.
The amount was £100 a month for each of them. We chose to do thisratherthan take holidays or buy cars etc. I don't consider we were 'rich' although more recently we have been much better off (after 38 years of work). THe whole point of an ISA is it allows normal people to save tax efficiently where the rich use all the loopholes
Here is your basic mistake however 1) If I take 25% of my pension pot I will get 3 - to 4k a year not index linked instead of 5 - 6k a year not index linked....cant afford to do it
2) isa's yes your daughter is lucky obviously the month runs out before her paycheck most of us aren't in that situation we are the reverse where the paycheque runs out far before the month
Well judging by the number of people taking holidays every year, subscribing to netflix, Amazon Prime and Sky or buying new cars, clearly it isn't the case that 'most' people are in your situation. Some people clearly are but certainly not 'most'.
Life is all about choices. We chose not to buy new cars or take holidays. Again, as with the paying tax thing, there is nothing 'honourable' about this. We simply had a set of priorities and didn't feel we needed a hoiday each year or a new car... well ever. Other people feel differently and that is entirely their affair. I genuinely don't care. But to claim we are 'better off' or 'rich' because we can afford to put money away for our kids is crass and stupid. I am afraid you are floundering to justify your position.
My first foreign holiday was in 2000, also my last and had a partner and two incomes then. I gave up my car, motorcycle in 2002 as could no longer justify the tax and insurance. I moved gradually down the rental ladder from a three bedroom house to a studio flat as rents increased and took more and more of my pay. Telling me I can afford to save money is the crass thing most people in this country live one paycheque to another and yes some of them do waste money I don't disagree, doesnt mean they have money to put away....good on your daughter that she can but sorry if you have money left at the end of the month you are better off than a lot of people
I did't deny that your position is bad. I simply took issue with your claim that it is the norm for most people (your claim not mine).
Like I said, you are floundering because it turns out that the world does not revolve around your circumstances or your chosen principles.
39% of people in the uk have savings under 1k
That's shameful for a relatively wealthy country.
Most here are on good salary's or pensions they dont understand how badly the min wage workers are doing. I am far from min wage but not in the stratosphere yet I get bills and how do i pay this
There is a strong bias to financial comfort on here. You are a beneficial (to the board) outlier voice. Keep on keeping on.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
If a person said 'I'd never have slaves" but then had slaves then that would be hypocrisy.
No having slaves but saying slavery is wrong is hypocrisy....you believe its wrong then lead by example, I don't believe in slavery and even if was legal I would not keep a slave because guess what I think its wrong.
Kinablu is the same with tax here, saying I dont believe people should be minimising tax but its legal so I will do it too. That would be exactly the same as me saying I think slavery is wrong but its legal so I will own some.
Should @kinabalu for instance not take out ISAs? That is a state sponsored mechanism for avoiding tax.
Where do you draw this line?
I sense Pagan will narrow his eyes and draw the line so I'm standing just on the wrong side of it.
I don't invest in isa's. The only tax avoidance I do is my pension scheme which is now state mandated and I will be taxed on the outflowings as much as the tax reduction I get paying in.
I am not rich enough or earning enough that I have money to shove into an isa for a start like 80% of the country so its a no brainer. Paying into a tax efficient vehicle like an isa is something for the well off
@Pagan2 That is not correct. You will get a tax benefit from your pension. First of all you saved tax on all you put in, yet you will get 25% out tax free. It is also likely your pension will be less than your current salary so whereas what you put in will save tax at your marginal rate now what you get out will be in different lower tax bands.
And it is nonsense to say ISAs are only for the rich. My daughter who is 23 and only getting just above the living wage has an ISA. Anyone who has any savings no matter how small can open an ISA even if only a few hundred pounds.
As I mentioned previously I opened an ISA for each of my children when they were born and put in what we could afford each month. 18 years later it was enough to pay for my daughter through Uni and get her a deposit on ahouse. The same will hopefully apply to my son.
The amount was £100 a month for each of them. We chose to do thisratherthan take holidays or buy cars etc. I don't consider we were 'rich' although more recently we have been much better off (after 38 years of work). THe whole point of an ISA is it allows normal people to save tax efficiently where the rich use all the loopholes
Here is your basic mistake however 1) If I take 25% of my pension pot I will get 3 - to 4k a year not index linked instead of 5 - 6k a year not index linked....cant afford to do it
2) isa's yes your daughter is lucky obviously the month runs out before her paycheck most of us aren't in that situation we are the reverse where the paycheque runs out far before the month
Well judging by the number of people taking holidays every year, subscribing to netflix, Amazon Prime and Sky or buying new cars, clearly it isn't the case that 'most' people are in your situation. Some people clearly are but certainly not 'most'.
Life is all about choices. We chose not to buy new cars or take holidays. Again, as with the paying tax thing, there is nothing 'honourable' about this. We simply had a set of priorities and didn't feel we needed a hoiday each year or a new car... well ever. Other people feel differently and that is entirely their affair. I genuinely don't care. But to claim we are 'better off' or 'rich' because we can afford to put money away for our kids is crass and stupid. I am afraid you are floundering to justify your position.
My first foreign holiday was in 2000, also my last and had a partner and two incomes then. I gave up my car, motorcycle in 2002 as could no longer justify the tax and insurance. I moved gradually down the rental ladder from a three bedroom house to a studio flat as rents increased and took more and more of my pay. Telling me I can afford to save money is the crass thing most people in this country live one paycheque to another and yes some of them do waste money I don't disagree, doesnt mean they have money to put away....good on your daughter that she can but sorry if you have money left at the end of the month you are better off than a lot of people
I did't deny that your position is bad. I simply took issue with your claim that it is the norm for most people (your claim not mine).
Like I said, you are floundering because it turns out that the world does not revolve around your circumstances or your chosen principles.
39% of people in the uk have savings under 1k
That's shameful for a relatively wealthy country.
I have zero savings, which probably puts me in the minority on PB!
It would. Although some of that is due to age. Hopefully you'll accrue as time passes. Harder than it used to be though in many ways.
It's mainly because I am paying a substantial amount per month in repayments on legal career change related debts. Once they are gone, I hope to rebuild my savings...
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
If a person said 'I'd never have slaves" but then had slaves then that would be hypocrisy.
No having slaves but saying slavery is wrong is hypocrisy....you believe its wrong then lead by example, I don't believe in slavery and even if was legal I would not keep a slave because guess what I think its wrong.
Kinablu is the same with tax here, saying I dont believe people should be minimising tax but its legal so I will do it too. That would be exactly the same as me saying I think slavery is wrong but its legal so I will own some.
Should @kinabalu for instance not take out ISAs? That is a state sponsored mechanism for avoiding tax.
Where do you draw this line?
I sense Pagan will narrow his eyes and draw the line so I'm standing just on the wrong side of it.
I don't invest in isa's. The only tax avoidance I do is my pension scheme which is now state mandated and I will be taxed on the outflowings as much as the tax reduction I get paying in.
I am not rich enough or earning enough that I have money to shove into an isa for a start like 80% of the country so its a no brainer. Paying into a tax efficient vehicle like an isa is something for the well off
@Pagan2 That is not correct. You will get a tax benefit from your pension. First of all you saved tax on all you put in, yet you will get 25% out tax free. It is also likely your pension will be less than your current salary so whereas what you put in will save tax at your marginal rate now what you get out will be in different lower tax bands.
And it is nonsense to say ISAs are only for the rich. My daughter who is 23 and only getting just above the living wage has an ISA. Anyone who has any savings no matter how small can open an ISA even if only a few hundred pounds.
As I mentioned previously I opened an ISA for each of my children when they were born and put in what we could afford each month. 18 years later it was enough to pay for my daughter through Uni and get her a deposit on ahouse. The same will hopefully apply to my son.
The amount was £100 a month for each of them. We chose to do thisratherthan take holidays or buy cars etc. I don't consider we were 'rich' although more recently we have been much better off (after 38 years of work). THe whole point of an ISA is it allows normal people to save tax efficiently where the rich use all the loopholes
Here is your basic mistake however 1) If I take 25% of my pension pot I will get 3 - to 4k a year not index linked instead of 5 - 6k a year not index linked....cant afford to do it
2) isa's yes your daughter is lucky obviously the month runs out before her paycheck most of us aren't in that situation we are the reverse where the paycheque runs out far before the month
Well judging by the number of people taking holidays every year, subscribing to netflix, Amazon Prime and Sky or buying new cars, clearly it isn't the case that 'most' people are in your situation. Some people clearly are but certainly not 'most'.
Life is all about choices. We chose not to buy new cars or take holidays. Again, as with the paying tax thing, there is nothing 'honourable' about this. We simply had a set of priorities and didn't feel we needed a hoiday each year or a new car... well ever. Other people feel differently and that is entirely their affair. I genuinely don't care. But to claim we are 'better off' or 'rich' because we can afford to put money away for our kids is crass and stupid. I am afraid you are floundering to justify your position.
My first foreign holiday was in 2000, also my last and had a partner and two incomes then. I gave up my car, motorcycle in 2002 as could no longer justify the tax and insurance. I moved gradually down the rental ladder from a three bedroom house to a studio flat as rents increased and took more and more of my pay. Telling me I can afford to save money is the crass thing most people in this country live one paycheque to another and yes some of them do waste money I don't disagree, doesnt mean they have money to put away....good on your daughter that she can but sorry if you have money left at the end of the month you are better off than a lot of people
I did't deny that your position is bad. I simply took issue with your claim that it is the norm for most people (your claim not mine).
Like I said, you are floundering because it turns out that the world does not revolve around your circumstances or your chosen principles.
39% of people in the uk have savings under 1k
That's shameful for a relatively wealthy country.
Most here are on good salary's or pensions they dont understand how badly the min wage workers are doing. I am far from min wage but not in the stratosphere yet I get bills and how do i pay this
There is a strong bias to financial comfort on here. You are a beneficial (to the board) outlier voice. Keep on keeping on.
While we often disagree I hope you dont take it personally
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
If a person said 'I'd never have slaves" but then had slaves then that would be hypocrisy.
No having slaves but saying slavery is wrong is hypocrisy....you believe its wrong then lead by example, I don't believe in slavery and even if was legal I would not keep a slave because guess what I think its wrong.
Kinablu is the same with tax here, saying I dont believe people should be minimising tax but its legal so I will do it too. That would be exactly the same as me saying I think slavery is wrong but its legal so I will own some.
Should @kinabalu for instance not take out ISAs? That is a state sponsored mechanism for avoiding tax.
Where do you draw this line?
I sense Pagan will narrow his eyes and draw the line so I'm standing just on the wrong side of it.
I don't invest in isa's. The only tax avoidance I do is my pension scheme which is now state mandated and I will be taxed on the outflowings as much as the tax reduction I get paying in.
I am not rich enough or earning enough that I have money to shove into an isa for a start like 80% of the country so its a no brainer. Paying into a tax efficient vehicle like an isa is something for the well off
@Pagan2 That is not correct. You will get a tax benefit from your pension. First of all you saved tax on all you put in, yet you will get 25% out tax free. It is also likely your pension will be less than your current salary so whereas what you put in will save tax at your marginal rate now what you get out will be in different lower tax bands.
And it is nonsense to say ISAs are only for the rich. My daughter who is 23 and only getting just above the living wage has an ISA. Anyone who has any savings no matter how small can open an ISA even if only a few hundred pounds.
As I mentioned previously I opened an ISA for each of my children when they were born and put in what we could afford each month. 18 years later it was enough to pay for my daughter through Uni and get her a deposit on ahouse. The same will hopefully apply to my son.
The amount was £100 a month for each of them. We chose to do thisratherthan take holidays or buy cars etc. I don't consider we were 'rich' although more recently we have been much better off (after 38 years of work). THe whole point of an ISA is it allows normal people to save tax efficiently where the rich use all the loopholes
Here is your basic mistake however 1) If I take 25% of my pension pot I will get 3 - to 4k a year not index linked instead of 5 - 6k a year not index linked....cant afford to do it
2) isa's yes your daughter is lucky obviously the month runs out before her paycheck most of us aren't in that situation we are the reverse where the paycheque runs out far before the month
Well judging by the number of people taking holidays every year, subscribing to netflix, Amazon Prime and Sky or buying new cars, clearly it isn't the case that 'most' people are in your situation. Some people clearly are but certainly not 'most'.
Life is all about choices. We chose not to buy new cars or take holidays. Again, as with the paying tax thing, there is nothing 'honourable' about this. We simply had a set of priorities and didn't feel we needed a hoiday each year or a new car... well ever. Other people feel differently and that is entirely their affair. I genuinely don't care. But to claim we are 'better off' or 'rich' because we can afford to put money away for our kids is crass and stupid. I am afraid you are floundering to justify your position.
My first foreign holiday was in 2000, also my last and had a partner and two incomes then. I gave up my car, motorcycle in 2002 as could no longer justify the tax and insurance. I moved gradually down the rental ladder from a three bedroom house to a studio flat as rents increased and took more and more of my pay. Telling me I can afford to save money is the crass thing most people in this country live one paycheque to another and yes some of them do waste money I don't disagree, doesnt mean they have money to put away....good on your daughter that she can but sorry if you have money left at the end of the month you are better off than a lot of people
I did't deny that your position is bad. I simply took issue with your claim that it is the norm for most people (your claim not mine).
Like I said, you are floundering because it turns out that the world does not revolve around your circumstances or your chosen principles.
39% of people in the uk have savings under 1k
That's shameful for a relatively wealthy country.
I have zero savings, which probably puts me in the minority on PB!
It would. Although some of that is due to age. Hopefully you'll accrue as time passes. Harder than it used to be though in many ways.
It's mainly because I am paying a substantial amount per month in repayments on legal career change related debts. Once they are gone, I hope to rebuild my savings...
What’s interesting about this story is that net household debt has been falling since 2009 and now at levels below historical averages, while government debt has been rising. So on macro figures we are saving too much.
But that probably hides a huge difference between those with mortgage free houses, pensions and decent savings and large numbers with nothing.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
If a person said 'I'd never have slaves" but then had slaves then that would be hypocrisy.
No having slaves but saying slavery is wrong is hypocrisy....you believe its wrong then lead by example, I don't believe in slavery and even if was legal I would not keep a slave because guess what I think its wrong.
Kinablu is the same with tax here, saying I dont believe people should be minimising tax but its legal so I will do it too. That would be exactly the same as me saying I think slavery is wrong but its legal so I will own some.
Should @kinabalu for instance not take out ISAs? That is a state sponsored mechanism for avoiding tax.
Where do you draw this line?
I sense Pagan will narrow his eyes and draw the line so I'm standing just on the wrong side of it.
I don't invest in isa's. The only tax avoidance I do is my pension scheme which is now state mandated and I will be taxed on the outflowings as much as the tax reduction I get paying in.
I am not rich enough or earning enough that I have money to shove into an isa for a start like 80% of the country so its a no brainer. Paying into a tax efficient vehicle like an isa is something for the well off
@Pagan2 That is not correct. You will get a tax benefit from your pension. First of all you saved tax on all you put in, yet you will get 25% out tax free. It is also likely your pension will be less than your current salary so whereas what you put in will save tax at your marginal rate now what you get out will be in different lower tax bands.
And it is nonsense to say ISAs are only for the rich. My daughter who is 23 and only getting just above the living wage has an ISA. Anyone who has any savings no matter how small can open an ISA even if only a few hundred pounds.
As I mentioned previously I opened an ISA for each of my children when they were born and put in what we could afford each month. 18 years later it was enough to pay for my daughter through Uni and get her a deposit on ahouse. The same will hopefully apply to my son.
The amount was £100 a month for each of them. We chose to do thisratherthan take holidays or buy cars etc. I don't consider we were 'rich' although more recently we have been much better off (after 38 years of work). THe whole point of an ISA is it allows normal people to save tax efficiently where the rich use all the loopholes
Here is your basic mistake however 1) If I take 25% of my pension pot I will get 3 - to 4k a year not index linked instead of 5 - 6k a year not index linked....cant afford to do it
2) isa's yes your daughter is lucky obviously the month runs out before her paycheck most of us aren't in that situation we are the reverse where the paycheque runs out far before the month
Well judging by the number of people taking holidays every year, subscribing to netflix, Amazon Prime and Sky or buying new cars, clearly it isn't the case that 'most' people are in your situation. Some people clearly are but certainly not 'most'.
Life is all about choices. We chose not to buy new cars or take holidays. Again, as with the paying tax thing, there is nothing 'honourable' about this. We simply had a set of priorities and didn't feel we needed a hoiday each year or a new car... well ever. Other people feel differently and that is entirely their affair. I genuinely don't care. But to claim we are 'better off' or 'rich' because we can afford to put money away for our kids is crass and stupid. I am afraid you are floundering to justify your position.
My first foreign holiday was in 2000, also my last and had a partner and two incomes then. I gave up my car, motorcycle in 2002 as could no longer justify the tax and insurance. I moved gradually down the rental ladder from a three bedroom house to a studio flat as rents increased and took more and more of my pay. Telling me I can afford to save money is the crass thing most people in this country live one paycheque to another and yes some of them do waste money I don't disagree, doesnt mean they have money to put away....good on your daughter that she can but sorry if you have money left at the end of the month you are better off than a lot of people
I did't deny that your position is bad. I simply took issue with your claim that it is the norm for most people (your claim not mine).
Like I said, you are floundering because it turns out that the world does not revolve around your circumstances or your chosen principles.
39% of people in the uk have savings under 1k
That's shameful for a relatively wealthy country.
I have zero savings, which probably puts me in the minority on PB!
It would. Although some of that is due to age. Hopefully you'll accrue as time passes. Harder than it used to be though in many ways.
It's mainly because I am paying a substantial amount per month in repayments on legal career change related debts. Once they are gone, I hope to rebuild my savings...
What’s interesting about this story is that net household debt has been falling since 2009 and now at levels below historical averages, while government debt has been rising. So on macro figures we are saving too much.
But that probably hides a huge difference between those with mortgage free houses, pensions and decent savings and large numbers with nothing.
If you are a renter I suspect most don't have savings much these days, rent, council tax, electric, water and gas seem to go up well above inflation every year payrises go up less so. All of my colleagues for example got 1% except those on min wage
Thai thread reminds me why I despise lefties. They are always like this. Grotesque hypocrites who ALSO preach and lecture. And they’re inevitably dull
It’s hard to think of a more objectionable species of humanity
We are having a very civilised and enjoyable and informative conversation, and I might add many of which are not 'lefties' (eg Richard) and you come on and lower the tone spectacularly. If you haven't got anything positive to add why bother? @Pagan2 is doing well enough without your help.
Why not ask for me to be banned
Oh the irony. Short memory haven't we as I have never asked for you to be banned and if you remember campaigned for you to be reinstated after a previous ban for which you thanked me. Remember?
But your latest posts just come over as very needy and very insecure. We are having a health discussion without you and you can't stand not being the centre of attention. Your attempt to hijack it failed so then you attempt to deflect it back onto your trip to Uruguay and still fail.
How about not trying to always make it about you and join in and not dominate.
@kjh you responded to Leon's post. You didn't need to.
Leon is getting a lot of hate on here at the moment. It's far easier and more pleasant to skip past his posts if you don't like them.
He only becomes the centre of attention if people reply to him*; those that enjoy his posts will do so.
This place benefits from all sorts, and we're all humans behind the usernames.
*Or if he spams us all with his latest craze, but the mods are good at dealing with that.
ALSO, I’ve been sat in this hotel for 24 hours (when not touring weird barrios with Rwandan genocide witnesses) presuming I am staring at the sea
I am not. I am looking at the River Plate. It’s a river. I’ve never seen a river like this. It’s freaking enormous
Some weirdos say it’s a bay or a “marginal sea” but they’re a disregarded fringe, in reality
“for those who regard it as a river, it is the widest in the world, with a maximum width of about 220 kilometres (140 mi) and a total surface area of about 35,000 square kilometres (14,000 sq mi).”
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
If a person said 'I'd never have slaves" but then had slaves then that would be hypocrisy.
No having slaves but saying slavery is wrong is hypocrisy....you believe its wrong then lead by example, I don't believe in slavery and even if was legal I would not keep a slave because guess what I think its wrong.
Kinablu is the same with tax here, saying I dont believe people should be minimising tax but its legal so I will do it too. That would be exactly the same as me saying I think slavery is wrong but its legal so I will own some.
Should @kinabalu for instance not take out ISAs? That is a state sponsored mechanism for avoiding tax.
Where do you draw this line?
I sense Pagan will narrow his eyes and draw the line so I'm standing just on the wrong side of it.
I don't invest in isa's. The only tax avoidance I do is my pension scheme which is now state mandated and I will be taxed on the outflowings as much as the tax reduction I get paying in.
I am not rich enough or earning enough that I have money to shove into an isa for a start like 80% of the country so its a no brainer. Paying into a tax efficient vehicle like an isa is something for the well off
@Pagan2 That is not correct. You will get a tax benefit from your pension. First of all you saved tax on all you put in, yet you will get 25% out tax free. It is also likely your pension will be less than your current salary so whereas what you put in will save tax at your marginal rate now what you get out will be in different lower tax bands.
And it is nonsense to say ISAs are only for the rich. My daughter who is 23 and only getting just above the living wage has an ISA. Anyone who has any savings no matter how small can open an ISA even if only a few hundred pounds.
As I mentioned previously I opened an ISA for each of my children when they were born and put in what we could afford each month. 18 years later it was enough to pay for my daughter through Uni and get her a deposit on ahouse. The same will hopefully apply to my son.
The amount was £100 a month for each of them. We chose to do thisratherthan take holidays or buy cars etc. I don't consider we were 'rich' although more recently we have been much better off (after 38 years of work). THe whole point of an ISA is it allows normal people to save tax efficiently where the rich use all the loopholes
Here is your basic mistake however 1) If I take 25% of my pension pot I will get 3 - to 4k a year not index linked instead of 5 - 6k a year not index linked....cant afford to do it
2) isa's yes your daughter is lucky obviously the month runs out before her paycheck most of us aren't in that situation we are the reverse where the paycheque runs out far before the month
Well judging by the number of people taking holidays every year, subscribing to netflix, Amazon Prime and Sky or buying new cars, clearly it isn't the case that 'most' people are in your situation. Some people clearly are but certainly not 'most'.
Life is all about choices. We chose not to buy new cars or take holidays. Again, as with the paying tax thing, there is nothing 'honourable' about this. We simply had a set of priorities and didn't feel we needed a hoiday each year or a new car... well ever. Other people feel differently and that is entirely their affair. I genuinely don't care. But to claim we are 'better off' or 'rich' because we can afford to put money away for our kids is crass and stupid. I am afraid you are floundering to justify your position.
My first foreign holiday was in 2000, also my last and had a partner and two incomes then. I gave up my car, motorcycle in 2002 as could no longer justify the tax and insurance. I moved gradually down the rental ladder from a three bedroom house to a studio flat as rents increased and took more and more of my pay. Telling me I can afford to save money is the crass thing most people in this country live one paycheque to another and yes some of them do waste money I don't disagree, doesnt mean they have money to put away....good on your daughter that she can but sorry if you have money left at the end of the month you are better off than a lot of people
I did't deny that your position is bad. I simply took issue with your claim that it is the norm for most people (your claim not mine).
Like I said, you are floundering because it turns out that the world does not revolve around your circumstances or your chosen principles.
39% of people in the uk have savings under 1k
That's shameful for a relatively wealthy country.
I have zero savings, which probably puts me in the minority on PB!
It would. Although some of that is due to age. Hopefully you'll accrue as time passes. Harder than it used to be though in many ways.
It's mainly because I am paying a substantial amount per month in repayments on legal career change related debts. Once they are gone, I hope to rebuild my savings...
What’s interesting about this story is that net household debt has been falling since 2009 and now at levels below historical averages, while government debt has been rising. So on macro figures we are saving too much.
But that probably hides a huge difference between those with mortgage free houses, pensions and decent savings and large numbers with nothing.
If you are a renter I suspect most don't have savings much these days, rent, council tax, electric, water and gas seem to go up well above inflation every year payrises go up less so. All of my colleagues for example got 1% except those on min wage
You seem to be employed in a uniquely poorly paid sector. The UK had private sector pay up by 6% in December 2024.
John Bolton @AmbJohnBolton · 37s During the Cold War, it was the Soviet objective to split the West. By Trump bringing Russia out of isolation and favoring it over Ukraine, and European NATO members saying they want independence from the U.S., we are heading toward achieving Moscow's long-standing objective.
Off topic - I used to think that Elon Musk was a genius visionary, albeit with a few personality issues. Then he got involved with Trump and I thought he had become an evil demagogue.
But I then listened to his most recent interview on Josh Rogan podcast, and he comes across as quite sensible and balanced (with a few awkward pauses) - my only criticism of him is the Trumpian habit of regularly slagging of 'The Biden Administration' - which makes him sound way too partisan.
Unfortunately, his hamfisted cuts started killing people almost immediately, with deaths within a year estimated in the millions.
There are also questions about the constitutionality of his actions, with his legal status as DOGE pseudo-head not compatible with him firing workers nor interfering with agencies set up by Congress.
He also moved his plants from California to Texas due to loose labor laws and (planned to) have plants in China because - I paraphrase - "they work harder into the night and don't complain". So he's a unionbuster as well.
This also omits his preference for keeping multiple partners as baby producers, having them artificially inseminated to produce only male children, for reasons unstated but rumoured. His trans daughter theorises that this explains his rage at trans people as he considers her - again I paraphrase - "malfunctioning product".
Due to the mods' preferences and the Online Safety Act I will not address the rumours about why he no longer has sex with his partners nor why his launch site Starbase is less than two kilometers to the Mexican border.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
If a person said 'I'd never have slaves" but then had slaves then that would be hypocrisy.
No having slaves but saying slavery is wrong is hypocrisy....you believe its wrong then lead by example, I don't believe in slavery and even if was legal I would not keep a slave because guess what I think its wrong.
Kinablu is the same with tax here, saying I dont believe people should be minimising tax but its legal so I will do it too. That would be exactly the same as me saying I think slavery is wrong but its legal so I will own some.
Should @kinabalu for instance not take out ISAs? That is a state sponsored mechanism for avoiding tax.
Where do you draw this line?
I sense Pagan will narrow his eyes and draw the line so I'm standing just on the wrong side of it.
I don't invest in isa's. The only tax avoidance I do is my pension scheme which is now state mandated and I will be taxed on the outflowings as much as the tax reduction I get paying in.
I am not rich enough or earning enough that I have money to shove into an isa for a start like 80% of the country so its a no brainer. Paying into a tax efficient vehicle like an isa is something for the well off
@Pagan2 That is not correct. You will get a tax benefit from your pension. First of all you saved tax on all you put in, yet you will get 25% out tax free. It is also likely your pension will be less than your current salary so whereas what you put in will save tax at your marginal rate now what you get out will be in different lower tax bands.
And it is nonsense to say ISAs are only for the rich. My daughter who is 23 and only getting just above the living wage has an ISA. Anyone who has any savings no matter how small can open an ISA even if only a few hundred pounds.
As I mentioned previously I opened an ISA for each of my children when they were born and put in what we could afford each month. 18 years later it was enough to pay for my daughter through Uni and get her a deposit on ahouse. The same will hopefully apply to my son.
The amount was £100 a month for each of them. We chose to do thisratherthan take holidays or buy cars etc. I don't consider we were 'rich' although more recently we have been much better off (after 38 years of work). THe whole point of an ISA is it allows normal people to save tax efficiently where the rich use all the loopholes
Here is your basic mistake however 1) If I take 25% of my pension pot I will get 3 - to 4k a year not index linked instead of 5 - 6k a year not index linked....cant afford to do it
2) isa's yes your daughter is lucky obviously the month runs out before her paycheck most of us aren't in that situation we are the reverse where the paycheque runs out far before the month
Well judging by the number of people taking holidays every year, subscribing to netflix, Amazon Prime and Sky or buying new cars, clearly it isn't the case that 'most' people are in your situation. Some people clearly are but certainly not 'most'.
Life is all about choices. We chose not to buy new cars or take holidays. Again, as with the paying tax thing, there is nothing 'honourable' about this. We simply had a set of priorities and didn't feel we needed a hoiday each year or a new car... well ever. Other people feel differently and that is entirely their affair. I genuinely don't care. But to claim we are 'better off' or 'rich' because we can afford to put money away for our kids is crass and stupid. I am afraid you are floundering to justify your position.
My first foreign holiday was in 2000, also my last and had a partner and two incomes then. I gave up my car, motorcycle in 2002 as could no longer justify the tax and insurance. I moved gradually down the rental ladder from a three bedroom house to a studio flat as rents increased and took more and more of my pay. Telling me I can afford to save money is the crass thing most people in this country live one paycheque to another and yes some of them do waste money I don't disagree, doesnt mean they have money to put away....good on your daughter that she can but sorry if you have money left at the end of the month you are better off than a lot of people
I did't deny that your position is bad. I simply took issue with your claim that it is the norm for most people (your claim not mine).
Like I said, you are floundering because it turns out that the world does not revolve around your circumstances or your chosen principles.
39% of people in the uk have savings under 1k
That's shameful for a relatively wealthy country.
I have zero savings, which probably puts me in the minority on PB!
It would. Although some of that is due to age. Hopefully you'll accrue as time passes. Harder than it used to be though in many ways.
It's mainly because I am paying a substantial amount per month in repayments on legal career change related debts. Once they are gone, I hope to rebuild my savings...
What’s interesting about this story is that net household debt has been falling since 2009 and now at levels below historical averages, while government debt has been rising. So on macro figures we are saving too much.
But that probably hides a huge difference between those with mortgage free houses, pensions and decent savings and large numbers with nothing.
If you are a renter I suspect most don't have savings much these days, rent, council tax, electric, water and gas seem to go up well above inflation every year payrises go up less so. All of my colleagues for example got 1% except those on min wage
You seem to be employed in a uniquely poorly paid sector. The UK had private sector pay up by 6% in December 2024.
ALSO, I’ve been sat in this hotel for 24 hours (when not touring weird barrios with Rwandan genocide witnesses) presuming I am staring at the sea
I am not. I am looking at the River Plate. It’s a river. I’ve never seen a river like this. It’s freaking enormous
Some weirdos say it’s a bay or a “marginal sea” but they’re a disregarded fringe, in reality
“for those who regard it as a river, it is the widest in the world, with a maximum width of about 220 kilometres (140 mi) and a total surface area of about 35,000 square kilometres (14,000 sq mi).”
Wow. Hodges pulls no punches as he tears into Starmer's administration over welfare:
Remember what people were told they were voting for last July: ‘Change’. And what were they presented with yesterday? The spectacle of a Labour minister – a Labour minister – aggressively confronting anyone who had the gall to question whether demanding that the most vulnerable in society again make the greatest sacrifices was really morally or economically sustainable.
A storm is coming. The British people have had enough. They are not going to tolerate another parade of ministers in tight grey suits, sporting red – rather than blue – ties, telling them those in most need have to do with less.
I don't always agree with Fraser Nelson though he's done some interesting research on this. Are there too many off sick with mental health related conditions? Probably. The question is why. The best bet is identifying the people who ought to be in work. Are they actually going to do that?
Thai thread reminds me why I despise lefties. They are always like this. Grotesque hypocrites who ALSO preach and lecture. And they’re inevitably dull
It’s hard to think of a more objectionable species of humanity
And then someone flagged this. I hope it was a mischievous but noble right winger. Not yet another example of the pb Left at its craven, cowardly, hypocritical and repulsive worst
And I thought Uruguay and Montevideo were going to be boring
Just goes to show. It’s all about the people
Why would you think it was going to be boring?
Coz I did my research and - to be kind - it sounds like the Denmark of South America, only much poorer and without the interesting mouldy food
It has THREE UNESCO sites and one of them is a derelict corned beef factory
I wonder if this is why their army is so keen on peacekeeping. It’s the only way of having dangerous fun. I definitely got that vibe from my brilliant guide
Also he kept saying how amazingly safe Uruguay is, compared to the rest of Latin America (and it is) but then he admitted he missed the adrenaline rush of his prior job and when he went on again about how safe Uruguay is I did wonder if he slightly yearned for some urban danger. Anything to liven up the day
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
If a person said 'I'd never have slaves" but then had slaves then that would be hypocrisy.
No having slaves but saying slavery is wrong is hypocrisy....you believe its wrong then lead by example, I don't believe in slavery and even if was legal I would not keep a slave because guess what I think its wrong.
Kinablu is the same with tax here, saying I dont believe people should be minimising tax but its legal so I will do it too. That would be exactly the same as me saying I think slavery is wrong but its legal so I will own some.
Should @kinabalu for instance not take out ISAs? That is a state sponsored mechanism for avoiding tax.
Where do you draw this line?
I sense Pagan will narrow his eyes and draw the line so I'm standing just on the wrong side of it.
I don't invest in isa's. The only tax avoidance I do is my pension scheme which is now state mandated and I will be taxed on the outflowings as much as the tax reduction I get paying in.
I am not rich enough or earning enough that I have money to shove into an isa for a start like 80% of the country so its a no brainer. Paying into a tax efficient vehicle like an isa is something for the well off
@Pagan2 That is not correct. You will get a tax benefit from your pension. First of all you saved tax on all you put in, yet you will get 25% out tax free. It is also likely your pension will be less than your current salary so whereas what you put in will save tax at your marginal rate now what you get out will be in different lower tax bands.
And it is nonsense to say ISAs are only for the rich. My daughter who is 23 and only getting just above the living wage has an ISA. Anyone who has any savings no matter how small can open an ISA even if only a few hundred pounds.
As I mentioned previously I opened an ISA for each of my children when they were born and put in what we could afford each month. 18 years later it was enough to pay for my daughter through Uni and get her a deposit on ahouse. The same will hopefully apply to my son.
The amount was £100 a month for each of them. We chose to do thisratherthan take holidays or buy cars etc. I don't consider we were 'rich' although more recently we have been much better off (after 38 years of work). THe whole point of an ISA is it allows normal people to save tax efficiently where the rich use all the loopholes
Here is your basic mistake however 1) If I take 25% of my pension pot I will get 3 - to 4k a year not index linked instead of 5 - 6k a year not index linked....cant afford to do it
2) isa's yes your daughter is lucky obviously the month runs out before her paycheck most of us aren't in that situation we are the reverse where the paycheque runs out far before the month
Well judging by the number of people taking holidays every year, subscribing to netflix, Amazon Prime and Sky or buying new cars, clearly it isn't the case that 'most' people are in your situation. Some people clearly are but certainly not 'most'.
Life is all about choices. We chose not to buy new cars or take holidays. Again, as with the paying tax thing, there is nothing 'honourable' about this. We simply had a set of priorities and didn't feel we needed a hoiday each year or a new car... well ever. Other people feel differently and that is entirely their affair. I genuinely don't care. But to claim we are 'better off' or 'rich' because we can afford to put money away for our kids is crass and stupid. I am afraid you are floundering to justify your position.
My first foreign holiday was in 2000, also my last and had a partner and two incomes then. I gave up my car, motorcycle in 2002 as could no longer justify the tax and insurance. I moved gradually down the rental ladder from a three bedroom house to a studio flat as rents increased and took more and more of my pay. Telling me I can afford to save money is the crass thing most people in this country live one paycheque to another and yes some of them do waste money I don't disagree, doesnt mean they have money to put away....good on your daughter that she can but sorry if you have money left at the end of the month you are better off than a lot of people
I did't deny that your position is bad. I simply took issue with your claim that it is the norm for most people (your claim not mine).
Like I said, you are floundering because it turns out that the world does not revolve around your circumstances or your chosen principles.
39% of people in the uk have savings under 1k
That's shameful for a relatively wealthy country.
I have zero savings, which probably puts me in the minority on PB!
It would. Although some of that is due to age. Hopefully you'll accrue as time passes. Harder than it used to be though in many ways.
It's mainly because I am paying a substantial amount per month in repayments on legal career change related debts. Once they are gone, I hope to rebuild my savings...
What’s interesting about this story is that net household debt has been falling since 2009 and now at levels below historical averages, while government debt has been rising. So on macro figures we are saving too much.
But that probably hides a huge difference between those with mortgage free houses, pensions and decent savings and large numbers with nothing.
If you are a renter I suspect most don't have savings much these days, rent, council tax, electric, water and gas seem to go up well above inflation every year payrises go up less so. All of my colleagues for example got 1% except those on min wage
You seem to be employed in a uniquely poorly paid sector. The UK had private sector pay up by 6% in December 2024.
ALSO, I’ve been sat in this hotel for 24 hours (when not touring weird barrios with Rwandan genocide witnesses) presuming I am staring at the sea
I am not. I am looking at the River Plate. It’s a river. I’ve never seen a river like this. It’s freaking enormous
Some weirdos say it’s a bay or a “marginal sea” but they’re a disregarded fringe, in reality
“for those who regard it as a river, it is the widest in the world, with a maximum width of about 220 kilometres (140 mi) and a total surface area of about 35,000 square kilometres (14,000 sq mi).”
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
If a person said 'I'd never have slaves" but then had slaves then that would be hypocrisy.
No having slaves but saying slavery is wrong is hypocrisy....you believe its wrong then lead by example, I don't believe in slavery and even if was legal I would not keep a slave because guess what I think its wrong.
Kinablu is the same with tax here, saying I dont believe people should be minimising tax but its legal so I will do it too. That would be exactly the same as me saying I think slavery is wrong but its legal so I will own some.
Should @kinabalu for instance not take out ISAs? That is a state sponsored mechanism for avoiding tax.
Where do you draw this line?
I sense Pagan will narrow his eyes and draw the line so I'm standing just on the wrong side of it.
I don't invest in isa's. The only tax avoidance I do is my pension scheme which is now state mandated and I will be taxed on the outflowings as much as the tax reduction I get paying in.
I am not rich enough or earning enough that I have money to shove into an isa for a start like 80% of the country so its a no brainer. Paying into a tax efficient vehicle like an isa is something for the well off
@Pagan2 That is not correct. You will get a tax benefit from your pension. First of all you saved tax on all you put in, yet you will get 25% out tax free. It is also likely your pension will be less than your current salary so whereas what you put in will save tax at your marginal rate now what you get out will be in different lower tax bands.
And it is nonsense to say ISAs are only for the rich. My daughter who is 23 and only getting just above the living wage has an ISA. Anyone who has any savings no matter how small can open an ISA even if only a few hundred pounds.
As I mentioned previously I opened an ISA for each of my children when they were born and put in what we could afford each month. 18 years later it was enough to pay for my daughter through Uni and get her a deposit on ahouse. The same will hopefully apply to my son.
The amount was £100 a month for each of them. We chose to do thisratherthan take holidays or buy cars etc. I don't consider we were 'rich' although more recently we have been much better off (after 38 years of work). THe whole point of an ISA is it allows normal people to save tax efficiently where the rich use all the loopholes
Here is your basic mistake however 1) If I take 25% of my pension pot I will get 3 - to 4k a year not index linked instead of 5 - 6k a year not index linked....cant afford to do it
2) isa's yes your daughter is lucky obviously the month runs out before her paycheck most of us aren't in that situation we are the reverse where the paycheque runs out far before the month
Well judging by the number of people taking holidays every year, subscribing to netflix, Amazon Prime and Sky or buying new cars, clearly it isn't the case that 'most' people are in your situation. Some people clearly are but certainly not 'most'.
Life is all about choices. We chose not to buy new cars or take holidays. Again, as with the paying tax thing, there is nothing 'honourable' about this. We simply had a set of priorities and didn't feel we needed a hoiday each year or a new car... well ever. Other people feel differently and that is entirely their affair. I genuinely don't care. But to claim we are 'better off' or 'rich' because we can afford to put money away for our kids is crass and stupid. I am afraid you are floundering to justify your position.
My first foreign holiday was in 2000, also my last and had a partner and two incomes then. I gave up my car, motorcycle in 2002 as could no longer justify the tax and insurance. I moved gradually down the rental ladder from a three bedroom house to a studio flat as rents increased and took more and more of my pay. Telling me I can afford to save money is the crass thing most people in this country live one paycheque to another and yes some of them do waste money I don't disagree, doesnt mean they have money to put away....good on your daughter that she can but sorry if you have money left at the end of the month you are better off than a lot of people
I did't deny that your position is bad. I simply took issue with your claim that it is the norm for most people (your claim not mine).
Like I said, you are floundering because it turns out that the world does not revolve around your circumstances or your chosen principles.
39% of people in the uk have savings under 1k
That's shameful for a relatively wealthy country.
I have zero savings, which probably puts me in the minority on PB!
It would. Although some of that is due to age. Hopefully you'll accrue as time passes. Harder than it used to be though in many ways.
It's mainly because I am paying a substantial amount per month in repayments on legal career change related debts. Once they are gone, I hope to rebuild my savings...
What’s interesting about this story is that net household debt has been falling since 2009 and now at levels below historical averages, while government debt has been rising. So on macro figures we are saving too much.
But that probably hides a huge difference between those with mortgage free houses, pensions and decent savings and large numbers with nothing.
If you are a renter I suspect most don't have savings much these days, rent, council tax, electric, water and gas seem to go up well above inflation every year payrises go up less so. All of my colleagues for example got 1% except those on min wage
You seem to be employed in a uniquely poorly paid sector. The UK had private sector pay up by 6% in December 2024.
Well I got a 16% pay rise last time I changed job 3 years ago...still makes my current pay 33% under inflation
Might be worth looking for another job then.
We have been a shortage profession since before brexit, just means companies have been able to bring people in to keep our wages down....if payed by inflation based rises I would be on 90k a year
Thai thread reminds me why I despise lefties. They are always like this. Grotesque hypocrites who ALSO preach and lecture. And they’re inevitably dull
It’s hard to think of a more objectionable species of humanity
We are having a very civilised and enjoyable and informative conversation, and I might add many of which are not 'lefties' (eg Richard) and you come on and lower the tone spectacularly. If you haven't got anything positive to add why bother? @Pagan2 is doing well enough without your help.
Why not ask for me to be banned
Oh the irony. Short memory haven't we as I have never asked for you to be banned and if you remember campaigned for you to be reinstated after a previous ban for which you thanked me. Remember?
But your latest posts just come over as very needy and very insecure. We are having a health discussion without you and you can't stand not being the centre of attention. Your attempt to hijack it failed so then you attempt to deflect it back onto your trip to Uruguay and still fail.
How about not trying to always make it about you and join in and not dominate.
@kjh you responded to Leon's post. You didn't need to.
Leon is getting a lot of hate on here at the moment. It's far easier and more pleasant to skip past his posts if you don't like them.
He only becomes the centre of attention if people reply to him*; those that enjoy his posts will do so.
This place benefits from all sorts, and we're all humans behind the usernames.
*Or if he spams us all with his latest craze, but the mods are good at dealing with that.
I enjoy discussions with @leon often. I also ignore him if I have no interest. If you look I haven't engaged with him once since coming back from his ban. Not for any reason other than having no interest in the topics.
But this time he went too far. And oddly not because it was offensive, because it wasn't. But it was the sad obvious sight of the desperate attempt to again become the centre of attention in the middle of a civilised discussion and when that failed to try and take over the thread again by bringing up the banning issue (which he again failed on) or trying to get us all talking about Uruguay.
It looked pathetic and was very annoying because the existing discussion was very lively and interesting and with no insults or rancour.
Looks like I won't be allowed to visit America for at least the next four years.
"This measure was apparently taken by the American authorities because the researcher's phone contained exchanges with colleagues and friends in which he expressed a personal opinion on the Trump administration's research policy"
When do we start to call this by its name? A French researcher has his phone and laptop confiscated and is refused entry because of personal messages found in a "random search" at the border criticizing Trump.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
If a person said 'I'd never have slaves" but then had slaves then that would be hypocrisy.
No having slaves but saying slavery is wrong is hypocrisy....you believe its wrong then lead by example, I don't believe in slavery and even if was legal I would not keep a slave because guess what I think its wrong.
Kinablu is the same with tax here, saying I dont believe people should be minimising tax but its legal so I will do it too. That would be exactly the same as me saying I think slavery is wrong but its legal so I will own some.
Should @kinabalu for instance not take out ISAs? That is a state sponsored mechanism for avoiding tax.
Where do you draw this line?
I sense Pagan will narrow his eyes and draw the line so I'm standing just on the wrong side of it.
I don't invest in isa's. The only tax avoidance I do is my pension scheme which is now state mandated and I will be taxed on the outflowings as much as the tax reduction I get paying in.
I am not rich enough or earning enough that I have money to shove into an isa for a start like 80% of the country so its a no brainer. Paying into a tax efficient vehicle like an isa is something for the well off
@Pagan2 That is not correct. You will get a tax benefit from your pension. First of all you saved tax on all you put in, yet you will get 25% out tax free. It is also likely your pension will be less than your current salary so whereas what you put in will save tax at your marginal rate now what you get out will be in different lower tax bands.
And it is nonsense to say ISAs are only for the rich. My daughter who is 23 and only getting just above the living wage has an ISA. Anyone who has any savings no matter how small can open an ISA even if only a few hundred pounds.
As I mentioned previously I opened an ISA for each of my children when they were born and put in what we could afford each month. 18 years later it was enough to pay for my daughter through Uni and get her a deposit on ahouse. The same will hopefully apply to my son.
The amount was £100 a month for each of them. We chose to do thisratherthan take holidays or buy cars etc. I don't consider we were 'rich' although more recently we have been much better off (after 38 years of work). THe whole point of an ISA is it allows normal people to save tax efficiently where the rich use all the loopholes
Here is your basic mistake however 1) If I take 25% of my pension pot I will get 3 - to 4k a year not index linked instead of 5 - 6k a year not index linked....cant afford to do it
2) isa's yes your daughter is lucky obviously the month runs out before her paycheck most of us aren't in that situation we are the reverse where the paycheque runs out far before the month
Well judging by the number of people taking holidays every year, subscribing to netflix, Amazon Prime and Sky or buying new cars, clearly it isn't the case that 'most' people are in your situation. Some people clearly are but certainly not 'most'.
Life is all about choices. We chose not to buy new cars or take holidays. Again, as with the paying tax thing, there is nothing 'honourable' about this. We simply had a set of priorities and didn't feel we needed a hoiday each year or a new car... well ever. Other people feel differently and that is entirely their affair. I genuinely don't care. But to claim we are 'better off' or 'rich' because we can afford to put money away for our kids is crass and stupid. I am afraid you are floundering to justify your position.
My first foreign holiday was in 2000, also my last and had a partner and two incomes then. I gave up my car, motorcycle in 2002 as could no longer justify the tax and insurance. I moved gradually down the rental ladder from a three bedroom house to a studio flat as rents increased and took more and more of my pay. Telling me I can afford to save money is the crass thing most people in this country live one paycheque to another and yes some of them do waste money I don't disagree, doesnt mean they have money to put away....good on your daughter that she can but sorry if you have money left at the end of the month you are better off than a lot of people
I did't deny that your position is bad. I simply took issue with your claim that it is the norm for most people (your claim not mine).
Like I said, you are floundering because it turns out that the world does not revolve around your circumstances or your chosen principles.
39% of people in the uk have savings under 1k
Terrifying stat if true. So many people are totally screwed if they lose their jobs.
A number of people here talk about fairness, poverty etc.
But are surprised when it happens to people.
Far more common than living-in-a-carboard-box poverty is working poverty. Where each year, you have less and less.
One guy I knew broke out of the cycle by emigrating to Australia. His partner had opened his eyes to a world beyond grinding away in jobs that became dead ends. There, they can trivially afford a nice 3 bed house - even on him working a warehouse job and his wife doing some part time consultancy. Here, they were in a tiny one bedroom.
He has cash to spare for the first time. Not vast amounts, but enough to afford some new bits for his bike - loves long club rides. His social media shows a cloud has lifted. He's enjoying living again.
Perhaps because of the optimism, he's got a supervisor job now and is actually happy at work.
Looks like I won't be allowed to visit America for at least the next four years.
"This measure was apparently taken by the American authorities because the researcher's phone contained exchanges with colleagues and friends in which he expressed a personal opinion on the Trump administration's research policy"
When do we start to call this by its name? A French researcher has his phone and laptop confiscated and is refused entry because of personal messages found in a "random search" at the border criticizing Trump.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
If a person said 'I'd never have slaves" but then had slaves then that would be hypocrisy.
No having slaves but saying slavery is wrong is hypocrisy....you believe its wrong then lead by example, I don't believe in slavery and even if was legal I would not keep a slave because guess what I think its wrong.
Kinablu is the same with tax here, saying I dont believe people should be minimising tax but its legal so I will do it too. That would be exactly the same as me saying I think slavery is wrong but its legal so I will own some.
Should @kinabalu for instance not take out ISAs? That is a state sponsored mechanism for avoiding tax.
Where do you draw this line?
I sense Pagan will narrow his eyes and draw the line so I'm standing just on the wrong side of it.
I don't invest in isa's. The only tax avoidance I do is my pension scheme which is now state mandated and I will be taxed on the outflowings as much as the tax reduction I get paying in.
I am not rich enough or earning enough that I have money to shove into an isa for a start like 80% of the country so its a no brainer. Paying into a tax efficient vehicle like an isa is something for the well off
@Pagan2 That is not correct. You will get a tax benefit from your pension. First of all you saved tax on all you put in, yet you will get 25% out tax free. It is also likely your pension will be less than your current salary so whereas what you put in will save tax at your marginal rate now what you get out will be in different lower tax bands.
And it is nonsense to say ISAs are only for the rich. My daughter who is 23 and only getting just above the living wage has an ISA. Anyone who has any savings no matter how small can open an ISA even if only a few hundred pounds.
As I mentioned previously I opened an ISA for each of my children when they were born and put in what we could afford each month. 18 years later it was enough to pay for my daughter through Uni and get her a deposit on ahouse. The same will hopefully apply to my son.
The amount was £100 a month for each of them. We chose to do thisratherthan take holidays or buy cars etc. I don't consider we were 'rich' although more recently we have been much better off (after 38 years of work). THe whole point of an ISA is it allows normal people to save tax efficiently where the rich use all the loopholes
Here is your basic mistake however 1) If I take 25% of my pension pot I will get 3 - to 4k a year not index linked instead of 5 - 6k a year not index linked....cant afford to do it
2) isa's yes your daughter is lucky obviously the month runs out before her paycheck most of us aren't in that situation we are the reverse where the paycheque runs out far before the month
Well judging by the number of people taking holidays every year, subscribing to netflix, Amazon Prime and Sky or buying new cars, clearly it isn't the case that 'most' people are in your situation. Some people clearly are but certainly not 'most'.
Life is all about choices. We chose not to buy new cars or take holidays. Again, as with the paying tax thing, there is nothing 'honourable' about this. We simply had a set of priorities and didn't feel we needed a hoiday each year or a new car... well ever. Other people feel differently and that is entirely their affair. I genuinely don't care. But to claim we are 'better off' or 'rich' because we can afford to put money away for our kids is crass and stupid. I am afraid you are floundering to justify your position.
My first foreign holiday was in 2000, also my last and had a partner and two incomes then. I gave up my car, motorcycle in 2002 as could no longer justify the tax and insurance. I moved gradually down the rental ladder from a three bedroom house to a studio flat as rents increased and took more and more of my pay. Telling me I can afford to save money is the crass thing most people in this country live one paycheque to another and yes some of them do waste money I don't disagree, doesnt mean they have money to put away....good on your daughter that she can but sorry if you have money left at the end of the month you are better off than a lot of people
I did't deny that your position is bad. I simply took issue with your claim that it is the norm for most people (your claim not mine).
Like I said, you are floundering because it turns out that the world does not revolve around your circumstances or your chosen principles.
39% of people in the uk have savings under 1k
Terrifying stat if true. So many people are totally screwed if they lose their jobs.
A number of people here talk about fairness, poverty etc.
But are surprised when it happens to people.
Far more common than living-in-a-carboard-box poverty is working poverty. Where each year, you have less and less.
One guy I knew broke out of the cycle by emigrating to Australia. His partner had opened his eyes to a world beyond grinding away in jobs that became dead ends. There, they can trivially afford a nice 3 bed house - even on him working a warehouse job and his wife doing some part time consultancy. Here, they were in a tiny one bedroom.
He has cash to spare for the first time. Not vast amounts, but enough to afford some new bits for his bike - loves long club rides. His social media shows a cloud has lifted. He's enjoying living again.
Perhaps because of the optimism, he's got a supervisor job now and is actually happy at work.
How many in that rut, here?
Its not easy to get out of a rut its true but I have australian and american friends and they are also telling me about rent rises. Also emigration is only open to those of the right age and with wanted skills mostly
Looks like I won't be allowed to visit America for at least the next four years.
"This measure was apparently taken by the American authorities because the researcher's phone contained exchanges with colleagues and friends in which he expressed a personal opinion on the Trump administration's research policy"
When do we start to call this by its name? A French researcher has his phone and laptop confiscated and is refused entry because of personal messages found in a "random search" at the border criticizing Trump.
Anybody made a stab at reading the 60,000 pages of released JFK assassination papers yet?
My friend has, he's a JFK assassination aficionado, he says most of the stuff has already been released before but the new stuff is mostly CIA spying on Russia and Cuba.
If they are going to try that then Labour will lose badly. People will choose the real thing over pallid and unconvincing facsimile.
Interesting focus groups in Grimsby on C4 News, of both Labour voters and non-voters. Mostly leaning Reform, but complaints about Labour mostly about cutting benefits.
I know the Face Eating Leopards meme is getting a bit tired, but is there another way to describe this?
This is a rather fun detail in the rather convenient story about Erdogan arresting a potential opponent, showing more creative approaches.
Imamoglu's arrest came a day after Istanbul University annulled his degree due to alleged irregularities - a decision which, if upheld, would prevent him from running in presidential elections.
According to the Turkish constitution, presidents must have completed higher education to hold office.
I know it is unusual for it not to the case here for PMs and even most MPs now not to have them (though a few prominent examples exist), but curious it is a formal rule for President there. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5yren8mxp8o
Pete Buttigieg may find himself similarly jailed in 2028.
Looks like I won't be allowed to visit America for at least the next four years.
"This measure was apparently taken by the American authorities because the researcher's phone contained exchanges with colleagues and friends in which he expressed a personal opinion on the Trump administration's research policy"
When do we start to call this by its name? A French researcher has his phone and laptop confiscated and is refused entry because of personal messages found in a "random search" at the border criticizing Trump.
It really is becoming like the Stasi. Soon families will be betraying each other for not showing total allegiance to the Great Leader .
The next time I hear “ leader of the free world “ I might do a Linda Blair . I just realized that younger folk won’t have a clue what I mean so basically chuck my guts up as my head spins around !
Israel has started another "ground operation" in Gaza.
I am not really sure what they hope to achieve that they didn't achieve last time.
They got several Hamas leaders, including the de facto head Essam a-Da'lees. That's good news isn't it?
Hamas can end the conflict immediately by releasing all hostages and laying down all arms unconditionally - why hasn't it?
Ukraine can end the conflict immediately by surrendering all their territory and laying down arms unconditionally - why haven't they?
You see your statement sounds as ridiculous as mine.
Somewhat different in that Ukraine is the victim of the war of aggression of Russia.
Israel is the victim of attacks from Hamas continuing decades of harassment and seeking to annihilate Israel from the map right from the start.
We should support Ukraine and Israel to win their wars and defeat their enemies.
The government of Israel is seeking to annihilate Palestine. Some in the Israeli government have been explicit about their desire for a Greater Israel. Israel has been in violation of international law for decades, building settlements on occupied land and annexing territory. Israeli Arabs are treated as second-class citizens.
That doesn’t justify Hamas’s 2023 attack, but to paint Israel as entirely the innocent victim is balderdash.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
If a person said 'I'd never have slaves" but then had slaves then that would be hypocrisy.
No having slaves but saying slavery is wrong is hypocrisy....you believe its wrong then lead by example, I don't believe in slavery and even if was legal I would not keep a slave because guess what I think its wrong.
Kinablu is the same with tax here, saying I dont believe people should be minimising tax but its legal so I will do it too. That would be exactly the same as me saying I think slavery is wrong but its legal so I will own some.
Should @kinabalu for instance not take out ISAs? That is a state sponsored mechanism for avoiding tax.
Where do you draw this line?
I sense Pagan will narrow his eyes and draw the line so I'm standing just on the wrong side of it.
I don't invest in isa's. The only tax avoidance I do is my pension scheme which is now state mandated and I will be taxed on the outflowings as much as the tax reduction I get paying in.
I am not rich enough or earning enough that I have money to shove into an isa for a start like 80% of the country so its a no brainer. Paying into a tax efficient vehicle like an isa is something for the well off
@Pagan2 That is not correct. You will get a tax benefit from your pension. First of all you saved tax on all you put in, yet you will get 25% out tax free. It is also likely your pension will be less than your current salary so whereas what you put in will save tax at your marginal rate now what you get out will be in different lower tax bands.
And it is nonsense to say ISAs are only for the rich. My daughter who is 23 and only getting just above the living wage has an ISA. Anyone who has any savings no matter how small can open an ISA even if only a few hundred pounds.
As I mentioned previously I opened an ISA for each of my children when they were born and put in what we could afford each month. 18 years later it was enough to pay for my daughter through Uni and get her a deposit on ahouse. The same will hopefully apply to my son.
The amount was £100 a month for each of them. We chose to do thisratherthan take holidays or buy cars etc. I don't consider we were 'rich' although more recently we have been much better off (after 38 years of work). THe whole point of an ISA is it allows normal people to save tax efficiently where the rich use all the loopholes
Here is your basic mistake however 1) If I take 25% of my pension pot I will get 3 - to 4k a year not index linked instead of 5 - 6k a year not index linked....cant afford to do it
2) isa's yes your daughter is lucky obviously the month runs out before her paycheck most of us aren't in that situation we are the reverse where the paycheque runs out far before the month
Well judging by the number of people taking holidays every year, subscribing to netflix, Amazon Prime and Sky or buying new cars, clearly it isn't the case that 'most' people are in your situation. Some people clearly are but certainly not 'most'.
Life is all about choices. We chose not to buy new cars or take holidays. Again, as with the paying tax thing, there is nothing 'honourable' about this. We simply had a set of priorities and didn't feel we needed a hoiday each year or a new car... well ever. Other people feel differently and that is entirely their affair. I genuinely don't care. But to claim we are 'better off' or 'rich' because we can afford to put money away for our kids is crass and stupid. I am afraid you are floundering to justify your position.
My first foreign holiday was in 2000, also my last and had a partner and two incomes then. I gave up my car, motorcycle in 2002 as could no longer justify the tax and insurance. I moved gradually down the rental ladder from a three bedroom house to a studio flat as rents increased and took more and more of my pay. Telling me I can afford to save money is the crass thing most people in this country live one paycheque to another and yes some of them do waste money I don't disagree, doesnt mean they have money to put away....good on your daughter that she can but sorry if you have money left at the end of the month you are better off than a lot of people
I did't deny that your position is bad. I simply took issue with your claim that it is the norm for most people (your claim not mine).
Like I said, you are floundering because it turns out that the world does not revolve around your circumstances or your chosen principles.
39% of people in the uk have savings under 1k
Terrifying stat if true. So many people are totally screwed if they lose their jobs.
A number of people here talk about fairness, poverty etc.
But are surprised when it happens to people.
Far more common than living-in-a-carboard-box poverty is working poverty. Where each year, you have less and less.
One guy I knew broke out of the cycle by emigrating to Australia. His partner had opened his eyes to a world beyond grinding away in jobs that became dead ends. There, they can trivially afford a nice 3 bed house - even on him working a warehouse job and his wife doing some part time consultancy. Here, they were in a tiny one bedroom.
He has cash to spare for the first time. Not vast amounts, but enough to afford some new bits for his bike - loves long club rides. His social media shows a cloud has lifted. He's enjoying living again.
Perhaps because of the optimism, he's got a supervisor job now and is actually happy at work.
How many in that rut, here?
Its not easy to get out of a rut its true but I have australian and american friends and they are also telling me about rent rises. Also emigration is only open to those of the right age and with wanted skills mostly
Yes - he managed to get in with quite a lot of effort. The other thing was deliberately heading to the right suburbs there. Where the local government was especially spurning the mantra of "don't build".
Looks like I won't be allowed to visit America for at least the next four years.
"This measure was apparently taken by the American authorities because the researcher's phone contained exchanges with colleagues and friends in which he expressed a personal opinion on the Trump administration's research policy"
When do we start to call this by its name? A French researcher has his phone and laptop confiscated and is refused entry because of personal messages found in a "random search" at the border criticizing Trump.
OK, I may have to be careful. This new project I am working on has the (distant) prospect of a trip to Monterrey, which I believe means changing planes in Texas…
Naah, screw it. Trump can go do himself up the wrong’un
If they are going to try that then Labour will lose badly. People will choose the real thing over pallid and unconvincing facsimile.
Interesting focus groups in Grimsby on C4 News, of both Labour voters and non-voters. Mostly leaning Reform, but complaints about Labour mostly about cutting benefits.
I know the Face Eating Leopards meme is getting a bit tired, but is there another way to describe this?
Maybe rcs1000's prediction of the Greens coming second will happen after all.
Looks like I won't be allowed to visit America for at least the next four years.
"This measure was apparently taken by the American authorities because the researcher's phone contained exchanges with colleagues and friends in which he expressed a personal opinion on the Trump administration's research policy"
When do we start to call this by its name? A French researcher has his phone and laptop confiscated and is refused entry because of personal messages found in a "random search" at the border criticizing Trump.
OK, I may have to be careful. This new project I am working on has the (distant) prospect of a trip to Monterrey, which I believe means changing planes in Texas…
Naah, screw it. Trump can go do himself up the wrong’un
Just declare your Tesla promoting social media and you'll be safe. You might get VIP treatment.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
If a person said 'I'd never have slaves" but then had slaves then that would be hypocrisy.
No having slaves but saying slavery is wrong is hypocrisy....you believe its wrong then lead by example, I don't believe in slavery and even if was legal I would not keep a slave because guess what I think its wrong.
Kinablu is the same with tax here, saying I dont believe people should be minimising tax but its legal so I will do it too. That would be exactly the same as me saying I think slavery is wrong but its legal so I will own some.
Should @kinabalu for instance not take out ISAs? That is a state sponsored mechanism for avoiding tax.
Where do you draw this line?
I sense Pagan will narrow his eyes and draw the line so I'm standing just on the wrong side of it.
I don't invest in isa's. The only tax avoidance I do is my pension scheme which is now state mandated and I will be taxed on the outflowings as much as the tax reduction I get paying in.
I am not rich enough or earning enough that I have money to shove into an isa for a start like 80% of the country so its a no brainer. Paying into a tax efficient vehicle like an isa is something for the well off
@Pagan2 That is not correct. You will get a tax benefit from your pension. First of all you saved tax on all you put in, yet you will get 25% out tax free. It is also likely your pension will be less than your current salary so whereas what you put in will save tax at your marginal rate now what you get out will be in different lower tax bands.
And it is nonsense to say ISAs are only for the rich. My daughter who is 23 and only getting just above the living wage has an ISA. Anyone who has any savings no matter how small can open an ISA even if only a few hundred pounds.
As I mentioned previously I opened an ISA for each of my children when they were born and put in what we could afford each month. 18 years later it was enough to pay for my daughter through Uni and get her a deposit on ahouse. The same will hopefully apply to my son.
The amount was £100 a month for each of them. We chose to do thisratherthan take holidays or buy cars etc. I don't consider we were 'rich' although more recently we have been much better off (after 38 years of work). THe whole point of an ISA is it allows normal people to save tax efficiently where the rich use all the loopholes
Here is your basic mistake however 1) If I take 25% of my pension pot I will get 3 - to 4k a year not index linked instead of 5 - 6k a year not index linked....cant afford to do it
2) isa's yes your daughter is lucky obviously the month runs out before her paycheck most of us aren't in that situation we are the reverse where the paycheque runs out far before the month
Well judging by the number of people taking holidays every year, subscribing to netflix, Amazon Prime and Sky or buying new cars, clearly it isn't the case that 'most' people are in your situation. Some people clearly are but certainly not 'most'.
Life is all about choices. We chose not to buy new cars or take holidays. Again, as with the paying tax thing, there is nothing 'honourable' about this. We simply had a set of priorities and didn't feel we needed a hoiday each year or a new car... well ever. Other people feel differently and that is entirely their affair. I genuinely don't care. But to claim we are 'better off' or 'rich' because we can afford to put money away for our kids is crass and stupid. I am afraid you are floundering to justify your position.
My first foreign holiday was in 2000, also my last and had a partner and two incomes then. I gave up my car, motorcycle in 2002 as could no longer justify the tax and insurance. I moved gradually down the rental ladder from a three bedroom house to a studio flat as rents increased and took more and more of my pay. Telling me I can afford to save money is the crass thing most people in this country live one paycheque to another and yes some of them do waste money I don't disagree, doesnt mean they have money to put away....good on your daughter that she can but sorry if you have money left at the end of the month you are better off than a lot of people
I did't deny that your position is bad. I simply took issue with your claim that it is the norm for most people (your claim not mine).
Like I said, you are floundering because it turns out that the world does not revolve around your circumstances or your chosen principles.
39% of people in the uk have savings under 1k
Terrifying stat if true. So many people are totally screwed if they lose their jobs.
I know people in this situation. It isn't uncommon at all.
Looks like I won't be allowed to visit America for at least the next four years.
"This measure was apparently taken by the American authorities because the researcher's phone contained exchanges with colleagues and friends in which he expressed a personal opinion on the Trump administration's research policy"
When do we start to call this by its name? A French researcher has his phone and laptop confiscated and is refused entry because of personal messages found in a "random search" at the border criticizing Trump.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
If a person said 'I'd never have slaves" but then had slaves then that would be hypocrisy.
No having slaves but saying slavery is wrong is hypocrisy....you believe its wrong then lead by example, I don't believe in slavery and even if was legal I would not keep a slave because guess what I think its wrong.
Kinablu is the same with tax here, saying I dont believe people should be minimising tax but its legal so I will do it too. That would be exactly the same as me saying I think slavery is wrong but its legal so I will own some.
Should @kinabalu for instance not take out ISAs? That is a state sponsored mechanism for avoiding tax.
Where do you draw this line?
I sense Pagan will narrow his eyes and draw the line so I'm standing just on the wrong side of it.
I don't invest in isa's. The only tax avoidance I do is my pension scheme which is now state mandated and I will be taxed on the outflowings as much as the tax reduction I get paying in.
I am not rich enough or earning enough that I have money to shove into an isa for a start like 80% of the country so its a no brainer. Paying into a tax efficient vehicle like an isa is something for the well off
@Pagan2 That is not correct. You will get a tax benefit from your pension. First of all you saved tax on all you put in, yet you will get 25% out tax free. It is also likely your pension will be less than your current salary so whereas what you put in will save tax at your marginal rate now what you get out will be in different lower tax bands.
And it is nonsense to say ISAs are only for the rich. My daughter who is 23 and only getting just above the living wage has an ISA. Anyone who has any savings no matter how small can open an ISA even if only a few hundred pounds.
As I mentioned previously I opened an ISA for each of my children when they were born and put in what we could afford each month. 18 years later it was enough to pay for my daughter through Uni and get her a deposit on ahouse. The same will hopefully apply to my son.
The amount was £100 a month for each of them. We chose to do thisratherthan take holidays or buy cars etc. I don't consider we were 'rich' although more recently we have been much better off (after 38 years of work). THe whole point of an ISA is it allows normal people to save tax efficiently where the rich use all the loopholes
Here is your basic mistake however 1) If I take 25% of my pension pot I will get 3 - to 4k a year not index linked instead of 5 - 6k a year not index linked....cant afford to do it
2) isa's yes your daughter is lucky obviously the month runs out before her paycheck most of us aren't in that situation we are the reverse where the paycheque runs out far before the month
Well judging by the number of people taking holidays every year, subscribing to netflix, Amazon Prime and Sky or buying new cars, clearly it isn't the case that 'most' people are in your situation. Some people clearly are but certainly not 'most'.
Life is all about choices. We chose not to buy new cars or take holidays. Again, as with the paying tax thing, there is nothing 'honourable' about this. We simply had a set of priorities and didn't feel we needed a hoiday each year or a new car... well ever. Other people feel differently and that is entirely their affair. I genuinely don't care. But to claim we are 'better off' or 'rich' because we can afford to put money away for our kids is crass and stupid. I am afraid you are floundering to justify your position.
My first foreign holiday was in 2000, also my last and had a partner and two incomes then. I gave up my car, motorcycle in 2002 as could no longer justify the tax and insurance. I moved gradually down the rental ladder from a three bedroom house to a studio flat as rents increased and took more and more of my pay. Telling me I can afford to save money is the crass thing most people in this country live one paycheque to another and yes some of them do waste money I don't disagree, doesnt mean they have money to put away....good on your daughter that she can but sorry if you have money left at the end of the month you are better off than a lot of people
I did't deny that your position is bad. I simply took issue with your claim that it is the norm for most people (your claim not mine).
Like I said, you are floundering because it turns out that the world does not revolve around your circumstances or your chosen principles.
39% of people in the uk have savings under 1k
Terrifying stat if true. So many people are totally screwed if they lose their jobs.
I know people in this situation. It isn't uncommon at all.
Of all the people I know I am the only one not on min wage.....their situation is terrifying for them
Looks like I won't be allowed to visit America for at least the next four years.
"This measure was apparently taken by the American authorities because the researcher's phone contained exchanges with colleagues and friends in which he expressed a personal opinion on the Trump administration's research policy"
When do we start to call this by its name? A French researcher has his phone and laptop confiscated and is refused entry because of personal messages found in a "random search" at the border criticizing Trump.
OK, I may have to be careful. This new project I am working on has the (distant) prospect of a trip to Monterrey, which I believe means changing planes in Texas…
Naah, screw it. Trump can go do himself up the wrong’un
Just declare your Tesla promoting social media and you'll be safe. You might get VIP treatment.
Visitors and tourism to US is going to fall off a cliff rapidly.
There's already discussion on academic social media about whether it is "safe" to go there for a conference with all this going on.
Trumpski is depth charging everything America stood for and the whirlwind economically and geopolitically they reap will be truly awful.
But hey they voted for this shit because of eggs and so here you go...
Looks like I won't be allowed to visit America for at least the next four years.
"This measure was apparently taken by the American authorities because the researcher's phone contained exchanges with colleagues and friends in which he expressed a personal opinion on the Trump administration's research policy"
When do we start to call this by its name? A French researcher has his phone and laptop confiscated and is refused entry because of personal messages found in a "random search" at the border criticizing Trump.
Quite seriously, if this was PB America I'd be slightly nervous of posting anti-Trump material. Which would be sub-optimal given it's half of my output.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
Oh dear that is a problem for me kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
One of the things I found rather disturbing about Jeremy Corbyn was that by his own admission he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a Grammar school and he disagreed.
I am sorry but if you are willing to give up your son and your wife for your political beliefs then that marks you as aan extremist in my eyes.
There you go. But the other way he'd have been (on the sloppy @Nigel_Foremain metric) a hypocrite.
I'm with you btw. Putting your politics above your family smacks of zealotry.
Principles, yes, great, but don't go right up yourself with them. That's off-putting.
You have principles or you don't sorry. If you have principles you don't violate them because it is convenient for you that means they aren't principles
No, you have views and opinions, some of which will be sufficiently dear to you to be called "principles".
They aren't views and opinions they are absolutes I live by. You think it being merely views and opinions demeans you not me
There is a rather simple solution to this, which is a classic case of irregular verb approach.
Since you are human you must have not lived up to some view at some point. However you maintain you would not do so on your principles. Ergo, you probably have views and opinions you have not lived up to, and this is just a dispute on what you regard as people being overdramatic by describing their views as principles.
If a principle is just something people never bend on then no-one has ever violated their principles, since by definition they cannot.
So far I have never violated one of my principles, not saying it couldn't happen I only have a few however
I have never struck a woman I have never raped I have always payed full tax without seeking to avoid it I have never killed anyone when maiming was sufficient I have never maimed someone when injuring them was sufficient I have never injured someone when a harsh word was enough I have never taken from someone things they need I have always helped the less fortunate where I can
These are the principles I live by and yes not violated one as yet
The highly disturbing implication of that sentence is that you have decided, on occasion, that maiming was not sufficient - and killed someone.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
If a person said 'I'd never have slaves" but then had slaves then that would be hypocrisy.
No having slaves but saying slavery is wrong is hypocrisy....you believe its wrong then lead by example, I don't believe in slavery and even if was legal I would not keep a slave because guess what I think its wrong.
Kinablu is the same with tax here, saying I dont believe people should be minimising tax but its legal so I will do it too. That would be exactly the same as me saying I think slavery is wrong but its legal so I will own some.
Should @kinabalu for instance not take out ISAs? That is a state sponsored mechanism for avoiding tax.
Where do you draw this line?
I sense Pagan will narrow his eyes and draw the line so I'm standing just on the wrong side of it.
I don't invest in isa's. The only tax avoidance I do is my pension scheme which is now state mandated and I will be taxed on the outflowings as much as the tax reduction I get paying in.
I am not rich enough or earning enough that I have money to shove into an isa for a start like 80% of the country so its a no brainer. Paying into a tax efficient vehicle like an isa is something for the well off
@Pagan2 That is not correct. You will get a tax benefit from your pension. First of all you saved tax on all you put in, yet you will get 25% out tax free. It is also likely your pension will be less than your current salary so whereas what you put in will save tax at your marginal rate now what you get out will be in different lower tax bands.
And it is nonsense to say ISAs are only for the rich. My daughter who is 23 and only getting just above the living wage has an ISA. Anyone who has any savings no matter how small can open an ISA even if only a few hundred pounds.
As I mentioned previously I opened an ISA for each of my children when they were born and put in what we could afford each month. 18 years later it was enough to pay for my daughter through Uni and get her a deposit on ahouse. The same will hopefully apply to my son.
The amount was £100 a month for each of them. We chose to do thisratherthan take holidays or buy cars etc. I don't consider we were 'rich' although more recently we have been much better off (after 38 years of work). THe whole point of an ISA is it allows normal people to save tax efficiently where the rich use all the loopholes
Here is your basic mistake however 1) If I take 25% of my pension pot I will get 3 - to 4k a year not index linked instead of 5 - 6k a year not index linked....cant afford to do it
2) isa's yes your daughter is lucky obviously the month runs out before her paycheck most of us aren't in that situation we are the reverse where the paycheque runs out far before the month
Well judging by the number of people taking holidays every year, subscribing to netflix, Amazon Prime and Sky or buying new cars, clearly it isn't the case that 'most' people are in your situation. Some people clearly are but certainly not 'most'.
Life is all about choices. We chose not to buy new cars or take holidays. Again, as with the paying tax thing, there is nothing 'honourable' about this. We simply had a set of priorities and didn't feel we needed a hoiday each year or a new car... well ever. Other people feel differently and that is entirely their affair. I genuinely don't care. But to claim we are 'better off' or 'rich' because we can afford to put money away for our kids is crass and stupid. I am afraid you are floundering to justify your position.
My first foreign holiday was in 2000, also my last and had a partner and two incomes then. I gave up my car, motorcycle in 2002 as could no longer justify the tax and insurance. I moved gradually down the rental ladder from a three bedroom house to a studio flat as rents increased and took more and more of my pay. Telling me I can afford to save money is the crass thing most people in this country live one paycheque to another and yes some of them do waste money I don't disagree, doesnt mean they have money to put away....good on your daughter that she can but sorry if you have money left at the end of the month you are better off than a lot of people
I did't deny that your position is bad. I simply took issue with your claim that it is the norm for most people (your claim not mine).
Like I said, you are floundering because it turns out that the world does not revolve around your circumstances or your chosen principles.
39% of people in the uk have savings under 1k
Terrifying stat if true. So many people are totally screwed if they lose their jobs.
I know people in this situation. It isn't uncommon at all.
Not uncommon, before we retired we were barely covering the credit card bills. Being retired has made it easier, funnily enough.
Looks like I won't be allowed to visit America for at least the next four years.
"This measure was apparently taken by the American authorities because the researcher's phone contained exchanges with colleagues and friends in which he expressed a personal opinion on the Trump administration's research policy"
When do we start to call this by its name? A French researcher has his phone and laptop confiscated and is refused entry because of personal messages found in a "random search" at the border criticizing Trump.
OK, I may have to be careful. This new project I am working on has the (distant) prospect of a trip to Monterrey, which I believe means changing planes in Texas…
Naah, screw it. Trump can go do himself up the wrong’un
Just declare your Tesla promoting social media and you'll be safe. You might get VIP treatment.
Visitors and tourism to US is going to fall off a cliff rapidly.
There's already discussion on academic social media about whether it is "safe" to go there for a conference with all this going on.
Trumpski is depth charging everything America stood for and the whirlwind economically and geopolitically they reap will be truly awful.
But hey they voted for this shit because of eggs and so here you go...
I am off to a US research conference in a couple of months. They have discounted the conference fees because numbers are way down. The US delegates have all had their NIH funding cut, and the overseas delegates are dropping out fast too. The bottoms dropping out of medical research there.
My flights are non-returnable, so I am going out. I may be some time.
Looks like I won't be allowed to visit America for at least the next four years.
"This measure was apparently taken by the American authorities because the researcher's phone contained exchanges with colleagues and friends in which he expressed a personal opinion on the Trump administration's research policy"
When do we start to call this by its name? A French researcher has his phone and laptop confiscated and is refused entry because of personal messages found in a "random search" at the border criticizing Trump.
Looks like I won't be allowed to visit America for at least the next four years.
"This measure was apparently taken by the American authorities because the researcher's phone contained exchanges with colleagues and friends in which he expressed a personal opinion on the Trump administration's research policy"
When do we start to call this by its name? A French researcher has his phone and laptop confiscated and is refused entry because of personal messages found in a "random search" at the border criticizing Trump.
Quite seriously, if this was PB America I'd be slightly nervous of posting anti-Trump material. Which would be sub-optimal given it's half of my output.
It seems rather quaint that you think, if it comes to that, being over the pond will protect us much.
Looks like I won't be allowed to visit America for at least the next four years.
"This measure was apparently taken by the American authorities because the researcher's phone contained exchanges with colleagues and friends in which he expressed a personal opinion on the Trump administration's research policy"
When do we start to call this by its name? A French researcher has his phone and laptop confiscated and is refused entry because of personal messages found in a "random search" at the border criticizing Trump.
OK, I may have to be careful. This new project I am working on has the (distant) prospect of a trip to Monterrey, which I believe means changing planes in Texas…
Naah, screw it. Trump can go do himself up the wrong’un
Just declare your Tesla promoting social media and you'll be safe. You might get VIP treatment.
Visitors and tourism to US is going to fall off a cliff rapidly.
There's already discussion on academic social media about whether it is "safe" to go there for a conference with all this going on.
Trumpski is depth charging everything America stood for and the whirlwind economically and geopolitically they reap will be truly awful.
But hey they voted for this shit because of eggs and so here you go...
I am off to a US research conference in a couple of months. They have discounted the conference fees because numbers are way down. The US delegates have all had their NIH funding cut, and the overseas delegates are dropping out fast too. The bottoms dropping out of medical research there.
My flights are non-returnable, so I am going out. I may be some time.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
Oh dear that is a problem for me kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
One of the things I found rather disturbing about Jeremy Corbyn was that by his own admission he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a Grammar school and he disagreed.
I am sorry but if you are willing to give up your son and your wife for your political beliefs then that marks you as aan extremist in my eyes.
There you go. But the other way he'd have been (on the sloppy @Nigel_Foremain metric) a hypocrite.
I'm with you btw. Putting your politics above your family smacks of zealotry.
Principles, yes, great, but don't go right up yourself with them. That's off-putting.
You have principles or you don't sorry. If you have principles you don't violate them because it is convenient for you that means they aren't principles
No, you have views and opinions, some of which will be sufficiently dear to you to be called "principles".
They aren't views and opinions they are absolutes I live by. You think it being merely views and opinions demeans you not me
There is a rather simple solution to this, which is a classic case of irregular verb approach.
Since you are human you must have not lived up to some view at some point. However you maintain you would not do so on your principles. Ergo, you probably have views and opinions you have not lived up to, and this is just a dispute on what you regard as people being overdramatic by describing their views as principles.
If a principle is just something people never bend on then no-one has ever violated their principles, since by definition they cannot.
So far I have never violated one of my principles, not saying it couldn't happen I only have a few however
I have never struck a woman I have never raped I have always payed full tax without seeking to avoid it I have never killed anyone when maiming was sufficient I have never maimed someone when injuring them was sufficient I have never injured someone when a harsh word was enough I have never taken from someone things they need I have always helped the less fortunate where I can
These are the principles I live by and yes not violated one as yet
The highly disturbing implication of that sentence is that you have decided, on occasion, that maiming was not sufficient - and killed someone.
I dont see why you see it as disturbing please explain
Looks like I won't be allowed to visit America for at least the next four years.
"This measure was apparently taken by the American authorities because the researcher's phone contained exchanges with colleagues and friends in which he expressed a personal opinion on the Trump administration's research policy"
When do we start to call this by its name? A French researcher has his phone and laptop confiscated and is refused entry because of personal messages found in a "random search" at the border criticizing Trump.
OK, I may have to be careful. This new project I am working on has the (distant) prospect of a trip to Monterrey, which I believe means changing planes in Texas…
Naah, screw it. Trump can go do himself up the wrong’un
Just declare your Tesla promoting social media and you'll be safe. You might get VIP treatment.
Visitors and tourism to US is going to fall off a cliff rapidly.
There's already discussion on academic social media about whether it is "safe" to go there for a conference with all this going on.
Trumpski is depth charging everything America stood for and the whirlwind economically and geopolitically they reap will be truly awful.
But hey they voted for this shit because of eggs and so here you go...
Yep. Gone there the last two years. No further plans, whereas we were considering it.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
Oh dear that is a problem for me kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
One of the things I found rather disturbing about Jeremy Corbyn was that by his own admission he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a Grammar school and he disagreed.
I am sorry but if you are willing to give up your son and your wife for your political beliefs then that marks you as aan extremist in my eyes.
There you go. But the other way he'd have been (on the sloppy @Nigel_Foremain metric) a hypocrite.
I'm with you btw. Putting your politics above your family smacks of zealotry.
Principles, yes, great, but don't go right up yourself with them. That's off-putting.
You have principles or you don't sorry. If you have principles you don't violate them because it is convenient for you that means they aren't principles
No, you have views and opinions, some of which will be sufficiently dear to you to be called "principles".
They aren't views and opinions they are absolutes I live by. You think it being merely views and opinions demeans you not me
There is a rather simple solution to this, which is a classic case of irregular verb approach.
Since you are human you must have not lived up to some view at some point. However you maintain you would not do so on your principles. Ergo, you probably have views and opinions you have not lived up to, and this is just a dispute on what you regard as people being overdramatic by describing their views as principles.
If a principle is just something people never bend on then no-one has ever violated their principles, since by definition they cannot.
So far I have never violated one of my principles, not saying it couldn't happen I only have a few however
I have never struck a woman I have never raped I have always payed full tax without seeking to avoid it I have never killed anyone when maiming was sufficient I have never maimed someone when injuring them was sufficient I have never injured someone when a harsh word was enough I have never taken from someone things they need I have always helped the less fortunate where I can
These are the principles I live by and yes not violated one as yet
The highly disturbing implication of that sentence is that you have decided, on occasion, that maiming was not sufficient - and killed someone.
I dont see why you see it as disturbing please explain
Well, I'm not too keen on people going around killing other people at random.
Looks like I won't be allowed to visit America for at least the next four years.
"This measure was apparently taken by the American authorities because the researcher's phone contained exchanges with colleagues and friends in which he expressed a personal opinion on the Trump administration's research policy"
When do we start to call this by its name? A French researcher has his phone and laptop confiscated and is refused entry because of personal messages found in a "random search" at the border criticizing Trump.
OK, I may have to be careful. This new project I am working on has the (distant) prospect of a trip to Monterrey, which I believe means changing planes in Texas…
Naah, screw it. Trump can go do himself up the wrong’un
Just declare your Tesla promoting social media and you'll be safe. You might get VIP treatment.
Visitors and tourism to US is going to fall off a cliff rapidly.
There's already discussion on academic social media about whether it is "safe" to go there for a conference with all this going on.
Trumpski is depth charging everything America stood for and the whirlwind economically and geopolitically they reap will be truly awful.
But hey they voted for this shit because of eggs and so here you go...
I am off to a US research conference in a couple of months. They have discounted the conference fees because numbers are way down. The US delegates have all had their NIH funding cut, and the overseas delegates are dropping out fast too. The bottoms dropping out of medical research there.
My flights are non-returnable, so I am going out. I may be some time.
Is that a very Freudian slip for non-refundable?
Yes, I meant not refundable.
If I go silent here for a bit, I would be most grateful if the PB mods could bust me out of the El Salvadorian Gulag. Much thanks in anticipation.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
Oh dear that is a problem for me kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
One of the things I found rather disturbing about Jeremy Corbyn was that by his own admission he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a Grammar school and he disagreed.
I am sorry but if you are willing to give up your son and your wife for your political beliefs then that marks you as aan extremist in my eyes.
There you go. But the other way he'd have been (on the sloppy @Nigel_Foremain metric) a hypocrite.
I'm with you btw. Putting your politics above your family smacks of zealotry.
Principles, yes, great, but don't go right up yourself with them. That's off-putting.
You have principles or you don't sorry. If you have principles you don't violate them because it is convenient for you that means they aren't principles
No, you have views and opinions, some of which will be sufficiently dear to you to be called "principles".
They aren't views and opinions they are absolutes I live by. You think it being merely views and opinions demeans you not me
There is a rather simple solution to this, which is a classic case of irregular verb approach.
Since you are human you must have not lived up to some view at some point. However you maintain you would not do so on your principles. Ergo, you probably have views and opinions you have not lived up to, and this is just a dispute on what you regard as people being overdramatic by describing their views as principles.
If a principle is just something people never bend on then no-one has ever violated their principles, since by definition they cannot.
So far I have never violated one of my principles, not saying it couldn't happen I only have a few however
I have never struck a woman I have never raped I have always payed full tax without seeking to avoid it I have never killed anyone when maiming was sufficient I have never maimed someone when injuring them was sufficient I have never injured someone when a harsh word was enough I have never taken from someone things they need I have always helped the less fortunate where I can
These are the principles I live by and yes not violated one as yet
The highly disturbing implication of that sentence is that you have decided, on occasion, that maiming was not sufficient - and killed someone.
I dont see why you see it as disturbing please explain
Well, I'm not too keen on people going around killing other people at random.
Unless you were a soldier.
Well the point was you didn't do it at random only when the previous options were not viable
Looks like I won't be allowed to visit America for at least the next four years.
"This measure was apparently taken by the American authorities because the researcher's phone contained exchanges with colleagues and friends in which he expressed a personal opinion on the Trump administration's research policy"
When do we start to call this by its name? A French researcher has his phone and laptop confiscated and is refused entry because of personal messages found in a "random search" at the border criticizing Trump.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
Oh dear that is a problem for me kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
One of the things I found rather disturbing about Jeremy Corbyn was that by his own admission he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a Grammar school and he disagreed.
I am sorry but if you are willing to give up your son and your wife for your political beliefs then that marks you as aan extremist in my eyes.
There you go. But the other way he'd have been (on the sloppy @Nigel_Foremain metric) a hypocrite.
I'm with you btw. Putting your politics above your family smacks of zealotry.
Principles, yes, great, but don't go right up yourself with them. That's off-putting.
You have principles or you don't sorry. If you have principles you don't violate them because it is convenient for you that means they aren't principles
No, you have views and opinions, some of which will be sufficiently dear to you to be called "principles".
They aren't views and opinions they are absolutes I live by. You think it being merely views and opinions demeans you not me
There is a rather simple solution to this, which is a classic case of irregular verb approach.
Since you are human you must have not lived up to some view at some point. However you maintain you would not do so on your principles. Ergo, you probably have views and opinions you have not lived up to, and this is just a dispute on what you regard as people being overdramatic by describing their views as principles.
If a principle is just something people never bend on then no-one has ever violated their principles, since by definition they cannot.
So far I have never violated one of my principles, not saying it couldn't happen I only have a few however
I have never struck a woman I have never raped I have always payed full tax without seeking to avoid it I have never killed anyone when maiming was sufficient I have never maimed someone when injuring them was sufficient I have never injured someone when a harsh word was enough I have never taken from someone things they need I have always helped the less fortunate where I can
These are the principles I live by and yes not violated one as yet
The highly disturbing implication of that sentence is that you have decided, on occasion, that maiming was not sufficient - and killed someone.
My principles and rules for life are simpler.
1) Never drink straight from a bottle. Insist on a glass.
2) Never wear sportswear except when participating in sport.
3) At social events, always spend some time talking to the oldest person in the room.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
Oh dear that is a problem for me kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
One of the things I found rather disturbing about Jeremy Corbyn was that by his own admission he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a Grammar school and he disagreed.
I am sorry but if you are willing to give up your son and your wife for your political beliefs then that marks you as aan extremist in my eyes.
There you go. But the other way he'd have been (on the sloppy @Nigel_Foremain metric) a hypocrite.
I'm with you btw. Putting your politics above your family smacks of zealotry.
Principles, yes, great, but don't go right up yourself with them. That's off-putting.
You have principles or you don't sorry. If you have principles you don't violate them because it is convenient for you that means they aren't principles
No, you have views and opinions, some of which will be sufficiently dear to you to be called "principles".
They aren't views and opinions they are absolutes I live by. You think it being merely views and opinions demeans you not me
There is a rather simple solution to this, which is a classic case of irregular verb approach.
Since you are human you must have not lived up to some view at some point. However you maintain you would not do so on your principles. Ergo, you probably have views and opinions you have not lived up to, and this is just a dispute on what you regard as people being overdramatic by describing their views as principles.
If a principle is just something people never bend on then no-one has ever violated their principles, since by definition they cannot.
So far I have never violated one of my principles, not saying it couldn't happen I only have a few however
I have never struck a woman I have never raped I have always payed full tax without seeking to avoid it I have never killed anyone when maiming was sufficient I have never maimed someone when injuring them was sufficient I have never injured someone when a harsh word was enough I have never taken from someone things they need I have always helped the less fortunate where I can
These are the principles I live by and yes not violated one as yet
The highly disturbing implication of that sentence is that you have decided, on occasion, that maiming was not sufficient - and killed someone.
My principles and rules for life are simpler.
1) Never drink straight from a bottle. Insist on a glass.
2) Never wear sportswear except when participating in sport.
3) At social events, always spend some time talking to the oldest person in the room.
That pretty much covers it really.
Those principles are great but fairly specific to social functions
Wow. Hodges pulls no punches as he tears into Starmer's administration over welfare:
Remember what people were told they were voting for last July: ‘Change’. And what were they presented with yesterday? The spectacle of a Labour minister – a Labour minister – aggressively confronting anyone who had the gall to question whether demanding that the most vulnerable in society again make the greatest sacrifices was really morally or economically sustainable.
A storm is coming. The British people have had enough. They are not going to tolerate another parade of ministers in tight grey suits, sporting red – rather than blue – ties, telling them those in most need have to do with less.
As I keep pointing out, Blairism DOES NOT WORK in the 2020s. We tried corporatism in 1945-1979: it had its day and then it died. We tried neoliberalism in 1980-2019: it had its day and then it died. This warmed-over rotting-fish neoliberalism is not working and requires Labour to act out of character: if it isn't there to defend the old and the sick, what the hell is it there for? When is the "taxing the rich" bit due to kick in? They aren't going to do that because Blairism could afford not to do so, but these days you have to.
Honestly Morgan McSweeney, if you read PB, please do the bloody maths, yes?
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
Oh dear that is a problem for me kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
One of the things I found rather disturbing about Jeremy Corbyn was that by his own admission he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a Grammar school and he disagreed.
I am sorry but if you are willing to give up your son and your wife for your political beliefs then that marks you as aan extremist in my eyes.
There you go. But the other way he'd have been (on the sloppy @Nigel_Foremain metric) a hypocrite.
I'm with you btw. Putting your politics above your family smacks of zealotry.
Principles, yes, great, but don't go right up yourself with them. That's off-putting.
You have principles or you don't sorry. If you have principles you don't violate them because it is convenient for you that means they aren't principles
No, you have views and opinions, some of which will be sufficiently dear to you to be called "principles".
They aren't views and opinions they are absolutes I live by. You think it being merely views and opinions demeans you not me
There is a rather simple solution to this, which is a classic case of irregular verb approach.
Since you are human you must have not lived up to some view at some point. However you maintain you would not do so on your principles. Ergo, you probably have views and opinions you have not lived up to, and this is just a dispute on what you regard as people being overdramatic by describing their views as principles.
If a principle is just something people never bend on then no-one has ever violated their principles, since by definition they cannot.
So far I have never violated one of my principles, not saying it couldn't happen I only have a few however
I have never struck a woman I have never raped I have always payed full tax without seeking to avoid it I have never killed anyone when maiming was sufficient I have never maimed someone when injuring them was sufficient I have never injured someone when a harsh word was enough I have never taken from someone things they need I have always helped the less fortunate where I can
These are the principles I live by and yes not violated one as yet
The highly disturbing implication of that sentence is that you have decided, on occasion, that maiming was not sufficient - and killed someone.
My principles and rules for life are simpler.
1) Never drink straight from a bottle. Insist on a glass.
2) Never wear sportswear except when participating in sport.
3) At social events, always spend some time talking to the oldest person in the room.
That pretty much covers it really.
Those principles are great but fairly specific to social functions
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
Oh dear that is a problem for me kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
One of the things I found rather disturbing about Jeremy Corbyn was that by his own admission he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a Grammar school and he disagreed.
I am sorry but if you are willing to give up your son and your wife for your political beliefs then that marks you as aan extremist in my eyes.
There you go. But the other way he'd have been (on the sloppy @Nigel_Foremain metric) a hypocrite.
I'm with you btw. Putting your politics above your family smacks of zealotry.
Principles, yes, great, but don't go right up yourself with them. That's off-putting.
You have principles or you don't sorry. If you have principles you don't violate them because it is convenient for you that means they aren't principles
No, you have views and opinions, some of which will be sufficiently dear to you to be called "principles".
They aren't views and opinions they are absolutes I live by. You think it being merely views and opinions demeans you not me
There is a rather simple solution to this, which is a classic case of irregular verb approach.
Since you are human you must have not lived up to some view at some point. However you maintain you would not do so on your principles. Ergo, you probably have views and opinions you have not lived up to, and this is just a dispute on what you regard as people being overdramatic by describing their views as principles.
If a principle is just something people never bend on then no-one has ever violated their principles, since by definition they cannot.
So far I have never violated one of my principles, not saying it couldn't happen I only have a few however
I have never struck a woman I have never raped I have always payed full tax without seeking to avoid it I have never killed anyone when maiming was sufficient I have never maimed someone when injuring them was sufficient I have never injured someone when a harsh word was enough I have never taken from someone things they need I have always helped the less fortunate where I can
These are the principles I live by and yes not violated one as yet
The highly disturbing implication of that sentence is that you have decided, on occasion, that maiming was not sufficient - and killed someone.
I dont see why you see it as disturbing please explain
Well, I'm not too keen on people going around killing other people at random.
Unless you were a soldier.
Well the point was you didn't do it at random only when the previous options were not viable
I am curious why you felt I promoted random killing?
How fucked is the US? part 45584763425474534 of an ongoing series...
DOGE illegally occupied a private building by coercing the security guards
Marisa Kabas
Wow. Judge Howell is worried that if she orders DOGE to leave the USIP building it could turn into an “armed standoff” over unwillingness to vacate, and points out law enforcement has shown willingness to help DOGE. Asks if we’ll need foreign mediators to come in.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
Oh dear that is a problem for me kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
One of the things I found rather disturbing about Jeremy Corbyn was that by his own admission he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a Grammar school and he disagreed.
I am sorry but if you are willing to give up your son and your wife for your political beliefs then that marks you as aan extremist in my eyes.
There you go. But the other way he'd have been (on the sloppy @Nigel_Foremain metric) a hypocrite.
I'm with you btw. Putting your politics above your family smacks of zealotry.
Principles, yes, great, but don't go right up yourself with them. That's off-putting.
You have principles or you don't sorry. If you have principles you don't violate them because it is convenient for you that means they aren't principles
No, you have views and opinions, some of which will be sufficiently dear to you to be called "principles".
They aren't views and opinions they are absolutes I live by. You think it being merely views and opinions demeans you not me
There is a rather simple solution to this, which is a classic case of irregular verb approach.
Since you are human you must have not lived up to some view at some point. However you maintain you would not do so on your principles. Ergo, you probably have views and opinions you have not lived up to, and this is just a dispute on what you regard as people being overdramatic by describing their views as principles.
If a principle is just something people never bend on then no-one has ever violated their principles, since by definition they cannot.
So far I have never violated one of my principles, not saying it couldn't happen I only have a few however
I have never struck a woman I have never raped I have always payed full tax without seeking to avoid it I have never killed anyone when maiming was sufficient I have never maimed someone when injuring them was sufficient I have never injured someone when a harsh word was enough I have never taken from someone things they need I have always helped the less fortunate where I can
These are the principles I live by and yes not violated one as yet
The highly disturbing implication of that sentence is that you have decided, on occasion, that maiming was not sufficient - and killed someone.
I dont see why you see it as disturbing please explain
Well, I'm not too keen on people going around killing other people at random.
Unless you were a soldier.
Well the point was you didn't do it at random only when the previous options were not viable
I am curious why you felt I promoted random killing?
Because I have got through my entire 42 years without managing to feel the need to kill,* maim or even seriously injure anybody, so I'm genuinely surprised anyone else *has* felt that need.
*By a remarkable effort of will, this even includes Amanda Spielman.
So you are a self-confessed tax-avoider for all your left-of-centre champagne socialism. Such hypocrisy that is so typical of Labour supporters, particularly personified by Rayner and her two council house sales, Starmer and his tax-free benefit in kind clothing and Reeves with her lies on her CV and dodgy attitude to expenses.
You believe that you are some sort of special case, and your virtue is unsullied because you vote for the Labour Party
How nice of you to repeat your unpleasant jibes so more people can see them!
If someone is claiming murder is wrong but its allowed in law if its murder of a lower class person and they murder someone....would you not call them out on it even if what they did was legal?
There are things that are legal I wouldn't do because I believe them to be wrong and not what I believe in, Kinablu says these things are wrong but does them because he can and it benefits him is the point
There are also things that are legal that I don't do because I believe them to be wrong. Eg wearing speedos on the heath.
But on this tax thing. You're seriously suggesting that left wing political views should be penalised with a higher effective tax rate than everybody else?
C'mon that's a total joke. Stop messing around. This is a forum of national repute.
Hypocrisy always gets called out.
See the US politicians who denounce “nationalised healthcare”, while using the free comprehensive insurance (nothing excluded), for life, provided by 5 minutes membership of the Senate or Congress.
Hypocrisy is a sloppily used term. It means do as I say not as I do.
Thus if (say) you slag people off for using a tax break but do it yourself. That's hypocrisy.
But if you simply express a view that the break shouldn't be available (and would support its removal) but use it yourself, that isn't.
So people who advocated the abolition of slavery, while keeping slaves….
Ooo edge case. But no I'll stick with my guns. "Hypocrisy" doesn't quite nail that. Course their general anti-slavery credentials would be somewhat strengthened by not having any.
So let's look at a more reasonable example. I am fervently against Grammar schools for lots of reasons, but if I had lived in an area with Grammar schools and my kids got in I would certainly have sent them. Am I a hypocrite? I don't think so. I'm not going to move out of the area because they have that system and much of the damage of Grammars is to the Secondaries that come as a consequence and I'm not going to martyr my kids because of my principles.
I think it depends how you'd expressed your opposition to grammar schools.
If that it's not the system we should really have, but since we do you'd use it, that seems fine.
If someone suggests the system of grammars is a moral outrage, then I think it would be hypocritical to use it.
Oh dear that is a problem for me kle4 because I am in the moral outrage camp. Luckily I was never in that position with my kids, but what would you suggest I do? Sacrifice my children's future by keeping to the moral high ground or be a hypocrite?
I'm happy being a hypocrite if that is what is necessary.
Let's say your partner will die if they don't have a drug, but you are anti private health care and that is the only way you can get it and you can afford it easily. Would you sacrifice your partner on that principle?
One of the things I found rather disturbing about Jeremy Corbyn was that by his own admission he divorced his wife because she wanted to send their son to a Grammar school and he disagreed.
I am sorry but if you are willing to give up your son and your wife for your political beliefs then that marks you as aan extremist in my eyes.
There you go. But the other way he'd have been (on the sloppy @Nigel_Foremain metric) a hypocrite.
I'm with you btw. Putting your politics above your family smacks of zealotry.
Principles, yes, great, but don't go right up yourself with them. That's off-putting.
You have principles or you don't sorry. If you have principles you don't violate them because it is convenient for you that means they aren't principles
No, you have views and opinions, some of which will be sufficiently dear to you to be called "principles".
They aren't views and opinions they are absolutes I live by. You think it being merely views and opinions demeans you not me
There is a rather simple solution to this, which is a classic case of irregular verb approach.
Since you are human you must have not lived up to some view at some point. However you maintain you would not do so on your principles. Ergo, you probably have views and opinions you have not lived up to, and this is just a dispute on what you regard as people being overdramatic by describing their views as principles.
If a principle is just something people never bend on then no-one has ever violated their principles, since by definition they cannot.
So far I have never violated one of my principles, not saying it couldn't happen I only have a few however
I have never struck a woman I have never raped I have always payed full tax without seeking to avoid it I have never killed anyone when maiming was sufficient I have never maimed someone when injuring them was sufficient I have never injured someone when a harsh word was enough I have never taken from someone things they need I have always helped the less fortunate where I can
These are the principles I live by and yes not violated one as yet
The highly disturbing implication of that sentence is that you have decided, on occasion, that maiming was not sufficient - and killed someone.
My principles and rules for life are simpler.
1) Never drink straight from a bottle. Insist on a glass.
2) Never wear sportswear except when participating in sport.
3) At social events, always spend some time talking to the oldest person in the room.
That pretty much covers it really.
Those principles are great but fairly specific to social functions
All life is a social function.
Well there are social functions like the local hospital dinner dance
and social functions
such as you walk into an alley to find five guys gang raping a girl
I suspect that your principles work for the former but not the latter
Comments
Needless to say it proves nothing.
https://x.com/jonathanpienews/status/1902345404273836105
Not sure slagging off the Tories is really appropriate now you’re going further than they ever did to cut back on welfare.
But your latest posts just come over as very needy and very insecure. We are having a health discussion without you and you can't stand not being the centre of attention. Your attempt to hijack it failed so then you attempt to deflect it back onto your trip to Uruguay and still fail.
How about not trying to always make it about you and join in and not dominate.
Remember what people were told they were voting for last July: ‘Change’. And what were they presented with yesterday? The spectacle of a Labour minister – a Labour minister – aggressively confronting anyone who had the gall to question whether demanding that the most vulnerable in society again make the greatest sacrifices was really morally or economically sustainable.
A storm is coming. The British people have had enough. They are not going to tolerate another parade of ministers in tight grey suits, sporting red – rather than blue – ties, telling them those in most need have to do with less.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-14514899/DAN-HODGES-Labour-minister-Newsnight-Keir-Starmer.html
Just goes to show. It’s all about the people
But that probably hides a huge difference between those with mortgage free houses, pensions and decent savings and large numbers with nothing.
https://x.com/maxtempers/status/1902336574894841886
Leon is getting a lot of hate on here at the moment. It's far easier and more pleasant to skip past his posts if you don't like them.
He only becomes the centre of attention if people reply to him*; those that enjoy his posts will do
so.
This place benefits from all sorts, and we're all humans behind the usernames.
*Or if he spams us all with his latest craze, but the mods are good at dealing with that.
Hamas can end the conflict immediately by releasing all hostages and laying down all arms unconditionally - why hasn't it?
I am not. I am looking at the River Plate. It’s a river. I’ve never seen a river like this. It’s freaking enormous
Some weirdos say it’s a bay or a “marginal sea” but they’re a disregarded fringe, in reality
“for those who regard it as a river, it is the widest in the world, with a maximum width of about 220 kilometres (140 mi) and a total surface area of about 35,000 square kilometres (14,000 sq mi).”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Río_de_la_Plata
Blimey
https://www.statista.com/statistics/800658/wage-growth-uk-by-industry-sector/
Is it that Brexit dividend?
John Bolton
@AmbJohnBolton
·
37s
During the Cold War, it was the Soviet objective to split the West. By Trump bringing Russia out of isolation and favoring it over Ukraine, and European NATO members saying they want independence from the U.S., we are heading toward achieving Moscow's long-standing objective.
https://x.com/AmbJohnBolton/status/1902441325833941198
It has THREE UNESCO sites and one of them is a derelict corned beef factory
I wonder if this is why their army is so keen on peacekeeping. It’s the only way of having dangerous fun. I definitely got that vibe from my brilliant guide
Also he kept saying how amazingly safe Uruguay is, compared to the rest of Latin America (and it is) but then he admitted he missed the adrenaline rush of his prior job and when he went on again about how safe Uruguay is I did wonder if he slightly yearned for some urban danger. Anything to liven up the day
But this time he went too far. And oddly not because it was offensive, because it wasn't. But it was the sad obvious sight of the desperate attempt to again become the centre of attention in the middle of a civilised discussion and when that failed to try and take over the thread again by bringing up the banning issue (which he again failed on) or trying to get us all talking about Uruguay.
It looked pathetic and was very annoying because the existing discussion was very lively and interesting and with no insults or rancour.
"This measure was apparently taken by the American authorities because the researcher's phone contained exchanges with colleagues and friends in which he expressed a personal opinion on the Trump administration's research policy"
When do we start to call this by its name? A French researcher has his phone and laptop confiscated and is refused entry because of personal messages found in a "random search" at the border criticizing Trump.
https://x.com/shashj/status/1902446261824807412
You see your statement sounds as ridiculous as mine.
Not a single woman was at the White House meeting on women’s health!
https://x.com/mhdksafa/status/1902443232723632580
But are surprised when it happens to people.
Far more common than living-in-a-carboard-box poverty is working poverty. Where each year, you have less and less.
One guy I knew broke out of the cycle by emigrating to Australia. His partner had opened his eyes to a world beyond grinding away in jobs that became dead ends. There, they can trivially afford a nice 3 bed house - even on him working a warehouse job and his wife doing some part time consultancy. Here, they were in a tiny one bedroom.
He has cash to spare for the first time. Not vast amounts, but enough to afford some new bits for his bike - loves long club rides. His social media shows a cloud has lifted. He's enjoying living again.
Perhaps because of the optimism, he's got a supervisor job now and is actually happy at work.
How many in that rut, here?
Going to be a low turnout.
'Q: What's the difference between a lentil and a chickpea?
A: Donald Trump's hasn't had a lentil on his face.'
I'm going to Gitmo for that one.
I wonder what their reaction will be when they find out I refer to Trump as the Ayrshire hotelier?
Interesting focus groups in Grimsby on C4 News, of both Labour voters and non-voters. Mostly leaning Reform, but complaints about Labour mostly about cutting benefits.
I know the Face Eating Leopards meme is getting a bit tired, but is there another way to describe this?
Israel is the victim of attacks from Hamas continuing decades of harassment and seeking to annihilate Israel from the map right from the start.
We should support Ukraine and Israel to win their wars and defeat their enemies.
The next time I hear “ leader of the free world “ I might do a Linda Blair . I just realized that younger folk won’t have a clue what I mean so basically chuck my guts up as my head spins around !
That doesn’t justify Hamas’s 2023 attack, but to paint Israel as entirely the innocent victim is balderdash.
Will reform voters fall for it ?
Naah, screw it. Trump can go do himself up the wrong’un
It does sound as if Constable Savage is alive and well, and working for ICE.
https://youtu.be/xGxjnD42iw0?feature=shared
https://x.com/bigbillmoon/status/1902365622622695640?s=61
I wonder what her 00 number was.
There's already discussion on academic social media about whether it is "safe" to go there for a conference with all this going on.
Trumpski is depth charging everything America stood for and the whirlwind economically and geopolitically they reap will be truly awful.
But hey they voted for this shit because of eggs and so here you go...
My flights are non-returnable, so I am going out. I may be some time.
Asking for a friend.
Unless you were a soldier.
If I go silent here for a bit, I would be most grateful if the PB mods could bust me out of the El Salvadorian Gulag. Much thanks in anticipation.
Dodgy Donald is a DANGEROUSLY UNHINGED doddery old fool.
@LeftieStats
🔵 CON 25% (-)
🔴 LAB 25% (-4)
🟣 REF 23% (+1)
🟠 LD 11% (-)
🟢 GRN 9% (+1)
Via @DeltapollUK, 14-17 Mar (+/- vs 17-20 Jan)"
https://x.com/LeftieStats/status/1902448125190496346
1) Never drink straight from a bottle. Insist on a glass.
2) Never wear sportswear except when participating in sport.
3) At social events, always spend some time talking to the oldest person in the room.
That pretty much covers it really.
OOOF
Honestly Morgan McSweeney, if you read PB, please do the bloody maths, yes?
DOGE illegally occupied a private building by coercing the security guards
Marisa Kabas
Wow. Judge Howell is worried that if she orders DOGE to leave the USIP building it could turn into an “armed standoff” over unwillingness to vacate, and points out law enforcement has shown willingness to help DOGE. Asks if we’ll need foreign mediators to come in.
https://bsky.app/profile/marisakabas.bsky.social/post/3lkqyjeozok2x
*By a remarkable effort of will, this even includes Amanda Spielman.
and social functions
such as you walk into an alley to find five guys gang raping a girl
I suspect that your principles work for the former but not the latter