I'm interested in why the George Cottrell ("Posh George") reporting is becoming prominent now - as far as I can tell he's a fairly normal minor aristocratic wide boy crook (he has a wire fraud conviction, and interesting questions about things like money laundering from the past, and other interesting questions now). of the sort who would be perhaps knocking around Aspinall's several decades ago.
He's been around Farage for years and years.
Is this a Murdoch thing?
If you were feeling conspiratorial then you could make a tenuous case that Farage was needed to undermine and depose Starmer and now he is gone it is time to dispose of Farage. The establishment is Team Burnham of course.
Actually I don't believe a word of it, particularly the establishment bit.
More likely the Times have been working on this for a very long time and finally feel that they have the evidence they need to make the case stick. Coming after the £5 million bung is an added bonus as they don't need to develop the narrative, just add fuel.
We should remember that The Times has not been an authentically right wing paper for quite some time, because that's not what News Corp is these days. Occasionally I pass the time listening to Times Radio, and the excitement over Burnham seems palpable. I feel the editorial line is pro-Labour with a modicum of toleration for the Finkelsteinite left of the Tory Party. Reform are largely detested.
The Times editorial line is clearly and consistently right of centre. You must be reading an imposter.
Remember, there are people for whom the Guardian is a hard right paper.
They sacked a proper lefty as a columnist and replaced them with Simon Jenkins. Does make them very firmly a centre-left paper, as opposed to anything else, though, as with the BBC, their bias is more to a particular liberal arts culture, rather than a coherent point on the political spectrum.
The Guardian is disgustingly nepotistic and would ideally like a Lib Dem govt, which makes them centre, probably leaning right. It's also rather stale, Jenkins has stock articles he recycles, Elliott, Pratley, Toynbee have been there for decades. Hyde and Crace are starting to phone it in. It used to have good humourous wring and investigative journalism.
Politics is extremely nepotistic.
I worked with someone who was a minor scion of a famous Labour family. He was rather appalled (as an Old School Labour type) to get asked to be a Labour candidate, just on the basis of the name.
I'm interested in why the George Cottrell ("Posh George") reporting is becoming prominent now - as far as I can tell he's a fairly normal minor aristocratic wide boy crook (he has a wire fraud conviction, and interesting questions about things like money laundering from the past, and other interesting questions now). of the sort who would be perhaps knocking around Aspinall's several decades ago.
He's been around Farage for years and years.
Is this a Murdoch thing?
If you were feeling conspiratorial then you could make a tenuous case that Farage was needed to undermine and depose Starmer and now he is gone it is time to dispose of Farage. The establishment is Team Burnham of course.
Actually I don't believe a word of it, particularly the establishment bit.
More likely the Times have been working on this for a very long time and finally feel that they have the evidence they need to make the case stick. Coming after the £5 million bung is an added bonus as they don't need to develop the narrative, just add fuel.
We should remember that The Times has not been an authentically right wing paper for quite some time, because that's not what News Corp is these days. Occasionally I pass the time listening to Times Radio, and the excitement over Burnham seems palpable. I feel the editorial line is pro-Labour with a modicum of toleration for the Finkelsteinite left of the Tory Party. Reform are largely detested.
The Times editorial line is clearly and consistently right of centre. You must be reading an imposter.
Remember, there are people for whom the Guardian is a hard right paper.
They sacked a proper lefty as a columnist and replaced them with Simon Jenkins. Does make them very firmly a centre-left paper, as opposed to anything else, though, as with the BBC, their bias is more to a particular liberal arts culture, rather than a coherent point on the political spectrum.
Jenkins is over the hill more than either left or right. Close to unreadable these days.
Sorry to be a bit negative but I do think some of the things on your list should be pursued. And appreciate you putting some meat on your initial thought.
They should all be implemented forthwith. The alternative is an ever-growing tax burden and an ever-shrinking private sector. Happy to hear any realistic proposals from you for avoiding that.
I do though wish you wouldn't use "freeloaders and parasites" to describe people, the vast majority of whom are nothing more than deeply unfortunate. Then again some of your savings ideas are directed at pensioners; are pensioners 'freeloaders and parasites'?
Yes if they haven't contributed enough in their working life to fund their pensions. That's the definition of a freeloader - somebody who takes out more than they contribute.
I know the truth can hurt. But read George Orwell on the distorting effects of inaccurate language on debate.
I think that's less than 10% of all current pensioners. Possibly less than 5%. Not going to fly politically, but I respect your position - it's unusual for someone to apply this kind of thinking fairly across the population.
The disability benefit reforms you propose would hit men aged 50+ the hardest, being those most likely to be on them for a substantial period of time. Again, brave. Public sector pensions is the most attractive, but the sob stories from nurses and fire fighters...
If they haven't contributed enough in their life they get smaller State Pensions already, don't they?
but shedload of pension credits and all the brucie bonuses that brings on top.
Announcement here at Azteca Stadium says “team arrivals are on hold.” Another crack of thunder seconds later. Forecast is more of the same for the next two hours.
Announcement here at Azteca Stadium says “team arrivals are on hold.” Another crack of thunder seconds later. Forecast is more of the same for the next two hours.
Announcement here at Azteca Stadium says “team arrivals are on hold.” Another crack of thunder seconds later. Forecast is more of the same for the next two hours.
Sorry to be a bit negative but I do think some of the things on your list should be pursued. And appreciate you putting some meat on your initial thought.
They should all be implemented forthwith. The alternative is an ever-growing tax burden and an ever-shrinking private sector. Happy to hear any realistic proposals from you for avoiding that.
I do though wish you wouldn't use "freeloaders and parasites" to describe people, the vast majority of whom are nothing more than deeply unfortunate. Then again some of your savings ideas are directed at pensioners; are pensioners 'freeloaders and parasites'?
Yes if they haven't contributed enough in their working life to fund their pensions. That's the definition of a freeloader - somebody who takes out more than they contribute.
I know the truth can hurt. But read George Orwell on the distorting effects of inaccurate language on debate.
I think that's less than 10% of all current pensioners. Possibly less than 5%. Not going to fly politically, but I respect your position - it's unusual for someone to apply this kind of thinking fairly across the population.
The disability benefit reforms you propose would hit men aged 50+ the hardest, being those most likely to be on them for a substantial period of time. Again, brave. Public sector pensions is the most attractive, but the sob stories from nurses and fire fighters...
If they haven't contributed enough in their life they get smaller State Pensions already, don't they?
I was taking Fishing to mean from an actuarial basis, not per regulations. Basically the State Pension is so generous very few current pensioners will have paid enough NICs to have been able to replicate it via a private pension.
Is that correct? Employee NICs are 8% plus at least the same from the employer, which surely is comparable to most employees' private pension contributions, if not more, since the statutory minimum is a combined 8% from both sides.
Sorry to be a bit negative but I do think some of the things on your list should be pursued. And appreciate you putting some meat on your initial thought.
They should all be implemented forthwith. The alternative is an ever-growing tax burden and an ever-shrinking private sector. Happy to hear any realistic proposals from you for avoiding that.
I do though wish you wouldn't use "freeloaders and parasites" to describe people, the vast majority of whom are nothing more than deeply unfortunate. Then again some of your savings ideas are directed at pensioners; are pensioners 'freeloaders and parasites'?
Yes if they haven't contributed enough in their working life to fund their pensions. That's the definition of a freeloader - somebody who takes out more than they contribute.
I know the truth can hurt. But read George Orwell on the distorting effects of inaccurate language on debate.
I think that's less than 10% of all current pensioners. Possibly less than 5%. Not going to fly politically, but I respect your position - it's unusual for someone to apply this kind of thinking fairly across the population.
The disability benefit reforms you propose would hit men aged 50+ the hardest, being those most likely to be on them for a substantial period of time. Again, brave. Public sector pensions is the most attractive, but the sob stories from nurses and fire fighters...
If they haven't contributed enough in their life they get smaller State Pensions already, don't they?
I was taking Fishing to mean from an actuarial basis, not per regulations. Basically the State Pension is so generous very few current pensioners will have paid enough NICs to have been able to replicate it via a private pension.
Is that correct? Employee NICs are 8% plus at least the same from the employer, which surely is comparable to most employees' private pension contributions, if not more, since the statutory minimum is a combined 8% from both sides.
Yes but payments are not based on contributions actually made, it is a binary even if you've only paid a penny. Or even nothing at all since the threshold to actually make payments is higher than the threshold to be classed as having made "contributions".
Private pensions don't generally have a fixed defined benefit regardless of contributions actually made.
Sorry to be a bit negative but I do think some of the things on your list should be pursued. And appreciate you putting some meat on your initial thought.
They should all be implemented forthwith. The alternative is an ever-growing tax burden and an ever-shrinking private sector. Happy to hear any realistic proposals from you for avoiding that.
I do though wish you wouldn't use "freeloaders and parasites" to describe people, the vast majority of whom are nothing more than deeply unfortunate. Then again some of your savings ideas are directed at pensioners; are pensioners 'freeloaders and parasites'?
Yes if they haven't contributed enough in their working life to fund their pensions. That's the definition of a freeloader - somebody who takes out more than they contribute.
I know the truth can hurt. But read George Orwell on the distorting effects of inaccurate language on debate.
I think that's less than 10% of all current pensioners. Possibly less than 5%. Not going to fly politically, but I respect your position - it's unusual for someone to apply this kind of thinking fairly across the population.
The disability benefit reforms you propose would hit men aged 50+ the hardest, being those most likely to be on them for a substantial period of time. Again, brave. Public sector pensions is the most attractive, but the sob stories from nurses and fire fighters...
If they haven't contributed enough in their life they get smaller State Pensions already, don't they?
I was taking Fishing to mean from an actuarial basis, not per regulations. Basically the State Pension is so generous very few current pensioners will have paid enough NICs to have been able to replicate it via a private pension.
Is that correct? Employee NICs are 8% plus at least the same from the employer, which surely is comparable to most employees' private pension contributions, if not more, since the statutory minimum is a combined 8% from both sides.
Yes but payments are not based on contributions actually made, it is a binary even if you've only paid a penny. Or even nothing at all since the threshold to actually make payments is higher than the threshold to be classed as having made "contributions".
Private pensions don't generally have a fixed defined benefit regardless of contributions actually made.
I've seen calculation that, for 40 years of contributions, you would need to pay in 220 a month to get the equivalent of the state pension, privately.
Sorry to be a bit negative but I do think some of the things on your list should be pursued. And appreciate you putting some meat on your initial thought.
They should all be implemented forthwith. The alternative is an ever-growing tax burden and an ever-shrinking private sector. Happy to hear any realistic proposals from you for avoiding that.
I do though wish you wouldn't use "freeloaders and parasites" to describe people, the vast majority of whom are nothing more than deeply unfortunate. Then again some of your savings ideas are directed at pensioners; are pensioners 'freeloaders and parasites'?
Yes if they haven't contributed enough in their working life to fund their pensions. That's the definition of a freeloader - somebody who takes out more than they contribute.
I know the truth can hurt. But read George Orwell on the distorting effects of inaccurate language on debate.
I think that's less than 10% of all current pensioners. Possibly less than 5%. Not going to fly politically, but I respect your position - it's unusual for someone to apply this kind of thinking fairly across the population.
The disability benefit reforms you propose would hit men aged 50+ the hardest, being those most likely to be on them for a substantial period of time. Again, brave. Public sector pensions is the most attractive, but the sob stories from nurses and fire fighters...
If they haven't contributed enough in their life they get smaller State Pensions already, don't they?
I was taking Fishing to mean from an actuarial basis, not per regulations. Basically the State Pension is so generous very few current pensioners will have paid enough NICs to have been able to replicate it via a private pension.
Is that correct? Employee NICs are 8% plus at least the same from the employer, which surely is comparable to most employees' private pension contributions, if not more, since the statutory minimum is a combined 8% from both sides.
Yes but payments are not based on contributions actually made, it is a binary even if you've only paid a penny. Or even nothing at all since the threshold to actually make payments is higher than the threshold to be classed as having made "contributions".
Private pensions don't generally have a fixed defined benefit regardless of contributions actually made.
I've seen calculation that, for 40 years of contributions, you would need to pay in 220 a month to get the equivalent of the state pension, privately.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 12m After this Trump will probably revoke Haaland’s visa.
They would not meet until the final, where FIFA will mysteriously ensure he retrospectively gets a red card in the semi-final and it can't be suspended.
Sorry to be a bit negative but I do think some of the things on your list should be pursued. And appreciate you putting some meat on your initial thought.
They should all be implemented forthwith. The alternative is an ever-growing tax burden and an ever-shrinking private sector. Happy to hear any realistic proposals from you for avoiding that.
I do though wish you wouldn't use "freeloaders and parasites" to describe people, the vast majority of whom are nothing more than deeply unfortunate. Then again some of your savings ideas are directed at pensioners; are pensioners 'freeloaders and parasites'?
Yes if they haven't contributed enough in their working life to fund their pensions. That's the definition of a freeloader - somebody who takes out more than they contribute.
I know the truth can hurt. But read George Orwell on the distorting effects of inaccurate language on debate.
I think that's less than 10% of all current pensioners. Possibly less than 5%. Not going to fly politically, but I respect your position - it's unusual for someone to apply this kind of thinking fairly across the population.
The disability benefit reforms you propose would hit men aged 50+ the hardest, being those most likely to be on them for a substantial period of time. Again, brave. Public sector pensions is the most attractive, but the sob stories from nurses and fire fighters...
If they haven't contributed enough in their life they get smaller State Pensions already, don't they?
I was taking Fishing to mean from an actuarial basis, not per regulations. Basically the State Pension is so generous very few current pensioners will have paid enough NICs to have been able to replicate it via a private pension.
Is that correct? Employee NICs are 8% plus at least the same from the employer, which surely is comparable to most employees' private pension contributions, if not more, since the statutory minimum is a combined 8% from both sides.
Yes but payments are not based on contributions actually made, it is a binary even if you've only paid a penny. Or even nothing at all since the threshold to actually make payments is higher than the threshold to be classed as having made "contributions".
Private pensions don't generally have a fixed defined benefit regardless of contributions actually made.
I've seen calculation that, for 40 years of contributions, you would need to pay in 220 a month to get the equivalent of the state pension, privately.
I have been robbed then
The problem is all your contributions were spent by the government of the day at the time, who consistently ran deficits and never set aside any cash for anyone's retirement.
Sorry to be a bit negative but I do think some of the things on your list should be pursued. And appreciate you putting some meat on your initial thought.
They should all be implemented forthwith. The alternative is an ever-growing tax burden and an ever-shrinking private sector. Happy to hear any realistic proposals from you for avoiding that.
I do though wish you wouldn't use "freeloaders and parasites" to describe people, the vast majority of whom are nothing more than deeply unfortunate. Then again some of your savings ideas are directed at pensioners; are pensioners 'freeloaders and parasites'?
Yes if they haven't contributed enough in their working life to fund their pensions. That's the definition of a freeloader - somebody who takes out more than they contribute.
I know the truth can hurt. But read George Orwell on the distorting effects of inaccurate language on debate.
I think that's less than 10% of all current pensioners. Possibly less than 5%. Not going to fly politically, but I respect your position - it's unusual for someone to apply this kind of thinking fairly across the population.
The disability benefit reforms you propose would hit men aged 50+ the hardest, being those most likely to be on them for a substantial period of time. Again, brave. Public sector pensions is the most attractive, but the sob stories from nurses and fire fighters...
If they haven't contributed enough in their life they get smaller State Pensions already, don't they?
I was taking Fishing to mean from an actuarial basis, not per regulations. Basically the State Pension is so generous very few current pensioners will have paid enough NICs to have been able to replicate it via a private pension.
Is that correct? Employee NICs are 8% plus at least the same from the employer, which surely is comparable to most employees' private pension contributions, if not more, since the statutory minimum is a combined 8% from both sides.
Yes but payments are not based on contributions actually made, it is a binary even if you've only paid a penny. Or even nothing at all since the threshold to actually make payments is higher than the threshold to be classed as having made "contributions".
Private pensions don't generally have a fixed defined benefit regardless of contributions actually made.
I've seen calculation that, for 40 years of contributions, you would need to pay in 220 a month to get the equivalent of the state pension, privately.
Yes but £220 a month in combined employee and employer NICs means a salary of around the NMW.
Sorry to be a bit negative but I do think some of the things on your list should be pursued. And appreciate you putting some meat on your initial thought.
They should all be implemented forthwith. The alternative is an ever-growing tax burden and an ever-shrinking private sector. Happy to hear any realistic proposals from you for avoiding that.
I do though wish you wouldn't use "freeloaders and parasites" to describe people, the vast majority of whom are nothing more than deeply unfortunate. Then again some of your savings ideas are directed at pensioners; are pensioners 'freeloaders and parasites'?
Yes if they haven't contributed enough in their working life to fund their pensions. That's the definition of a freeloader - somebody who takes out more than they contribute.
I know the truth can hurt. But read George Orwell on the distorting effects of inaccurate language on debate.
I think that's less than 10% of all current pensioners. Possibly less than 5%. Not going to fly politically, but I respect your position - it's unusual for someone to apply this kind of thinking fairly across the population.
The disability benefit reforms you propose would hit men aged 50+ the hardest, being those most likely to be on them for a substantial period of time. Again, brave. Public sector pensions is the most attractive, but the sob stories from nurses and fire fighters...
If they haven't contributed enough in their life they get smaller State Pensions already, don't they?
I was taking Fishing to mean from an actuarial basis, not per regulations. Basically the State Pension is so generous very few current pensioners will have paid enough NICs to have been able to replicate it via a private pension.
Is that correct? Employee NICs are 8% plus at least the same from the employer, which surely is comparable to most employees' private pension contributions, if not more, since the statutory minimum is a combined 8% from both sides.
Yes but payments are not based on contributions actually made, it is a binary even if you've only paid a penny. Or even nothing at all since the threshold to actually make payments is higher than the threshold to be classed as having made "contributions".
Private pensions don't generally have a fixed defined benefit regardless of contributions actually made.
I've seen calculation that, for 40 years of contributions, you would need to pay in 220 a month to get the equivalent of the state pension, privately.
Yes but £220 a month in combined employee and employer NICs means a salary of around the NMW.
While you get NI "contributions" at a fraction of that.
Preparations have begun for a by-election in Clacton
Assuming Farage is found to be a naughty boy, I'd think it will be fairly easy to get 10% of his constituents to sign a recall petition (there must be that many who hate his guts, even in Clacton). Presumably he then romps home fairly effortlessly in the by-election, and we all ask what was the point of the whole saga, other than burning a load of taxpayers money.
Personally, I'm unconvinced any of this stuff will stick to him. My reasoning is simple - Farage's appeal is what he says he will *do*, not his personal probity.
Voters have worked out long ago that pretty much all politicians are bent as a nine bob note. It's still a problem for the left, because their politicans inevitably come claiming to have the moral high ground, then are revealed to be grubby little oiks like all the others. That's why the whole Lord Ali thing was so damaging to Starmer - instead of being pure as the driven snow, he was revealed as just another sanctimonious prig with his hand in the till (yes, it was technically within the rules, but the moral high ground it was not).
It's much less a problem for the right, because voters on the right are inclined to say - who cares if he's a bounder, it's what he *does* that matters. That's how Johnson got elected - not because anyone thought Johnson was anything other than a shit, but because Brexit had to happen, and he was the only plausible path to making it happen.
Reform need to be elected because the government needs radical change. The post Blair settlement does not work, and cannot work, as has been proven over the last 20 years. The only party which can rip it up and start again is Reform. The fact that they are led by a shit doesn't matter, providing it gets done and the human rights/quangos/equalities industry which is smothering the country gets smashed to smithereens. That's what the country needs, that's what voters want.
I can't see why Farage being funded by some crypto scoundrels is likely to make any difference to that. At least it's better than him sucking on the teat of the taxpayer. It's not *corruption* either, for the simple reason that they were funding him at a time when he had no political power, nor any obvious prospect of getting any - ergo, there was no corrupt benefit to be gained. For good or ill, these people actually just *agree* with Farage, and have been chucking him money, probably more in the hope that he might move the Overton Window a bit than anything else - I doubt at then time of these donation any of them thought he was ever likely to be a serious contender for Prime Minister.
Sorry to be a bit negative but I do think some of the things on your list should be pursued. And appreciate you putting some meat on your initial thought.
They should all be implemented forthwith. The alternative is an ever-growing tax burden and an ever-shrinking private sector. Happy to hear any realistic proposals from you for avoiding that.
I do though wish you wouldn't use "freeloaders and parasites" to describe people, the vast majority of whom are nothing more than deeply unfortunate. Then again some of your savings ideas are directed at pensioners; are pensioners 'freeloaders and parasites'?
Yes if they haven't contributed enough in their working life to fund their pensions. That's the definition of a freeloader - somebody who takes out more than they contribute.
I know the truth can hurt. But read George Orwell on the distorting effects of inaccurate language on debate.
I think that's less than 10% of all current pensioners. Possibly less than 5%. Not going to fly politically, but I respect your position - it's unusual for someone to apply this kind of thinking fairly across the population.
The disability benefit reforms you propose would hit men aged 50+ the hardest, being those most likely to be on them for a substantial period of time. Again, brave. Public sector pensions is the most attractive, but the sob stories from nurses and fire fighters...
If they haven't contributed enough in their life they get smaller State Pensions already, don't they?
I was taking Fishing to mean from an actuarial basis, not per regulations. Basically the State Pension is so generous very few current pensioners will have paid enough NICs to have been able to replicate it via a private pension.
Is that correct? Employee NICs are 8% plus at least the same from the employer, which surely is comparable to most employees' private pension contributions, if not more, since the statutory minimum is a combined 8% from both sides.
Yes but payments are not based on contributions actually made, it is a binary even if you've only paid a penny. Or even nothing at all since the threshold to actually make payments is higher than the threshold to be classed as having made "contributions".
Private pensions don't generally have a fixed defined benefit regardless of contributions actually made.
I've seen calculation that, for 40 years of contributions, you would need to pay in 220 a month to get the equivalent of the state pension, privately.
Yes but £220 a month in combined employee and employer NICs means a salary of around the NMW.
While you get NI "contributions" at a fraction of that.
The difference is pretty substantial these days. To qualify for full NI contributions for your state pension you need to earn £129 a week. That is just over 10 hours a week at NMW.
You don't actually start paying NI until you are earning £242 a week - although for employers it is much lower. £96 a week after which they pay NI for you.
I just seen you mentioned me in your quest for a temporary style slack solution. You know there is a thing called Mattermost ( https://github.com/mattermost/ ) , which is kinda of open source slack that could be tweaked.
Sorry to be a bit negative but I do think some of the things on your list should be pursued. And appreciate you putting some meat on your initial thought.
They should all be implemented forthwith. The alternative is an ever-growing tax burden and an ever-shrinking private sector. Happy to hear any realistic proposals from you for avoiding that.
I do though wish you wouldn't use "freeloaders and parasites" to describe people, the vast majority of whom are nothing more than deeply unfortunate. Then again some of your savings ideas are directed at pensioners; are pensioners 'freeloaders and parasites'?
Yes if they haven't contributed enough in their working life to fund their pensions. That's the definition of a freeloader - somebody who takes out more than they contribute.
I know the truth can hurt. But read George Orwell on the distorting effects of inaccurate language on debate.
I think that's less than 10% of all current pensioners. Possibly less than 5%. Not going to fly politically, but I respect your position - it's unusual for someone to apply this kind of thinking fairly across the population.
The disability benefit reforms you propose would hit men aged 50+ the hardest, being those most likely to be on them for a substantial period of time. Again, brave. Public sector pensions is the most attractive, but the sob stories from nurses and fire fighters...
If they haven't contributed enough in their life they get smaller State Pensions already, don't they?
I was taking Fishing to mean from an actuarial basis, not per regulations. Basically the State Pension is so generous very few current pensioners will have paid enough NICs to have been able to replicate it via a private pension.
Is that correct? Employee NICs are 8% plus at least the same from the employer, which surely is comparable to most employees' private pension contributions, if not more, since the statutory minimum is a combined 8% from both sides.
Yes but payments are not based on contributions actually made, it is a binary even if you've only paid a penny. Or even nothing at all since the threshold to actually make payments is higher than the threshold to be classed as having made "contributions".
Private pensions don't generally have a fixed defined benefit regardless of contributions actually made.
I've seen calculation that, for 40 years of contributions, you would need to pay in 220 a month to get the equivalent of the state pension, privately.
Yes but £220 a month in combined employee and employer NICs means a salary of around the NMW.
While you get NI "contributions" at a fraction of that.
The difference is pretty substantial these days. To qualify for full NI contributions for your state pension you need to earn £129 a week. That is just over 10 hours a week at NMW.
You don't actually start paying NI until you are earning £242 a week - although for employers it is much lower. £96 a week after which they pay NI for you.
Also the big difference between defined contribution private pensions and NI is that the contributions are generally in a private scheme actually set aside and invested in something in order to save for when the pension needs paying out.
NI was spent the moment it was received. It was all spent decades ago.
Sorry to be a bit negative but I do think some of the things on your list should be pursued. And appreciate you putting some meat on your initial thought.
They should all be implemented forthwith. The alternative is an ever-growing tax burden and an ever-shrinking private sector. Happy to hear any realistic proposals from you for avoiding that.
I do though wish you wouldn't use "freeloaders and parasites" to describe people, the vast majority of whom are nothing more than deeply unfortunate. Then again some of your savings ideas are directed at pensioners; are pensioners 'freeloaders and parasites'?
Yes if they haven't contributed enough in their working life to fund their pensions. That's the definition of a freeloader - somebody who takes out more than they contribute.
I know the truth can hurt. But read George Orwell on the distorting effects of inaccurate language on debate.
I think that's less than 10% of all current pensioners. Possibly less than 5%. Not going to fly politically, but I respect your position - it's unusual for someone to apply this kind of thinking fairly across the population.
The disability benefit reforms you propose would hit men aged 50+ the hardest, being those most likely to be on them for a substantial period of time. Again, brave. Public sector pensions is the most attractive, but the sob stories from nurses and fire fighters...
If they haven't contributed enough in their life they get smaller State Pensions already, don't they?
I was taking Fishing to mean from an actuarial basis, not per regulations. Basically the State Pension is so generous very few current pensioners will have paid enough NICs to have been able to replicate it via a private pension.
Is that correct? Employee NICs are 8% plus at least the same from the employer, which surely is comparable to most employees' private pension contributions, if not more, since the statutory minimum is a combined 8% from both sides.
Yes but payments are not based on contributions actually made, it is a binary even if you've only paid a penny. Or even nothing at all since the threshold to actually make payments is higher than the threshold to be classed as having made "contributions".
Private pensions don't generally have a fixed defined benefit regardless of contributions actually made.
I've seen calculation that, for 40 years of contributions, you would need to pay in 220 a month to get the equivalent of the state pension, privately.
Yes but £220 a month in combined employee and employer NICs means a salary of around the NMW.
While you get NI "contributions" at a fraction of that.
The difference is pretty substantial these days. To qualify for full NI contributions for your state pension you need to earn £129 a week. That is just over 10 hours a week at NMW.
You don't actually start paying NI until you are earning £242 a week - although for employers it is much lower. £96 a week after which they pay NI for you.
Also the big difference between defined contribution private pensions and NI is that the contributions are generally in a private scheme actually set aside and invested in something in order to save for when the pension needs paying out.
NI was spent the moment it was received. It was all spent decades ago.
It also is spent on more than just pensions.
It is just another tax.
You should only be able to get state pension or JSA with sufficient NI contributions and the NI contributions ringfenced to fund only that, NI credits should be scrapped
Sorry to be a bit negative but I do think some of the things on your list should be pursued. And appreciate you putting some meat on your initial thought.
They should all be implemented forthwith. The alternative is an ever-growing tax burden and an ever-shrinking private sector. Happy to hear any realistic proposals from you for avoiding that.
I do though wish you wouldn't use "freeloaders and parasites" to describe people, the vast majority of whom are nothing more than deeply unfortunate. Then again some of your savings ideas are directed at pensioners; are pensioners 'freeloaders and parasites'?
Yes if they haven't contributed enough in their working life to fund their pensions. That's the definition of a freeloader - somebody who takes out more than they contribute.
I know the truth can hurt. But read George Orwell on the distorting effects of inaccurate language on debate.
I think that's less than 10% of all current pensioners. Possibly less than 5%. Not going to fly politically, but I respect your position - it's unusual for someone to apply this kind of thinking fairly across the population.
The disability benefit reforms you propose would hit men aged 50+ the hardest, being those most likely to be on them for a substantial period of time. Again, brave. Public sector pensions is the most attractive, but the sob stories from nurses and fire fighters...
If they haven't contributed enough in their life they get smaller State Pensions already, don't they?
I was taking Fishing to mean from an actuarial basis, not per regulations. Basically the State Pension is so generous very few current pensioners will have paid enough NICs to have been able to replicate it via a private pension.
Is that correct? Employee NICs are 8% plus at least the same from the employer, which surely is comparable to most employees' private pension contributions, if not more, since the statutory minimum is a combined 8% from both sides.
Yes but payments are not based on contributions actually made, it is a binary even if you've only paid a penny. Or even nothing at all since the threshold to actually make payments is higher than the threshold to be classed as having made "contributions".
Private pensions don't generally have a fixed defined benefit regardless of contributions actually made.
I've seen calculation that, for 40 years of contributions, you would need to pay in 220 a month to get the equivalent of the state pension, privately.
Yes but £220 a month in combined employee and employer NICs means a salary of around the NMW.
While you get NI "contributions" at a fraction of that.
The difference is pretty substantial these days. To qualify for full NI contributions for your state pension you need to earn £129 a week. That is just over 10 hours a week at NMW.
You don't actually start paying NI until you are earning £242 a week - although for employers it is much lower. £96 a week after which they pay NI for you.
Also the big difference between defined contribution private pensions and NI is that the contributions are generally in a private scheme actually set aside and invested in something in order to save for when the pension needs paying out.
NI was spent the moment it was received. It was all spent decades ago.
It also is spent on more than just pensions.
It is just another tax.
You should only be able to get state pension or JSA with sufficient NI contributions and the NI contributions ringfenced to fund only that, NI credits should be scrapped
Ringfenced does not mean what you have repeatedly shown you think it does.
If someone works 12 hours NMW and gets NI "credits" then how much is getting ringfenced towards the pension?
Why do politicians do this? I know the public likes punchier politics, they love their leaders to attack their enemies, but even if it was meant to be a light hearted jibe it's at best lame, and at worse pathetic.
Amongst those pointing out the British hadn't been invaded when the US joined the war and the British origins of the founding fathers was this rather unexpected response by the far right New England White Network 'Everyone would be much better off if it was written in German, you Shabbos got piece of shit.'
Comments
I worked with someone who was a minor scion of a famous Labour family. He was rather appalled (as an Old School Labour type) to get asked to be a Labour candidate, just on the basis of the name.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXJcsBunpQg
Close to unreadable these days.
With the storm happening, no idea when kick off might be for our game.
https://x.com/JamesOlley/status/2073888961076883950
From another. If it was deliberate, it was very well disguised.
/conspiracy
https://x.com/albertolati/status/2073873054451527817?s=20
https://x.com/RobDorsettSky/status/2073878630472548513?s=20
Grrrrr...
@DPJHodges
·
12m
After this Trump will probably revoke Haaland’s visa.
Private pensions don't generally have a fixed defined benefit regardless of contributions actually made.
https://www.lightningmaps.org/?lang=gb#google_vignette;z=7;t=3;y=17.7522;x=-98.0157;d=2;dl=2;dc=0;b=0.00;m=oss;
The Telegraph
@Telegraph
Preparations have begun for a by-election in Clacton
Presumably he then romps home fairly effortlessly in the by-election, and we all ask what was the point of the whole saga, other than burning a load of taxpayers money.
Personally, I'm unconvinced any of this stuff will stick to him. My reasoning is simple - Farage's appeal is what he says he will *do*, not his personal probity.
Voters have worked out long ago that pretty much all politicians are bent as a nine bob note. It's still a problem for the left, because their politicans inevitably come claiming to have the moral high ground, then are revealed to be grubby little oiks like all the others. That's why the whole Lord Ali thing was so damaging to Starmer - instead of being pure as the driven snow, he was revealed as just another sanctimonious prig with his hand in the till (yes, it was technically within the rules, but the moral high ground it was not).
It's much less a problem for the right, because voters on the right are inclined to say - who cares if he's a bounder, it's what he *does* that matters. That's how Johnson got elected - not because anyone thought Johnson was anything other than a shit, but because Brexit had to happen, and he was the only plausible path to making it happen.
Reform need to be elected because the government needs radical change. The post Blair settlement does not work, and cannot work, as has been proven over the last 20 years. The only party which can rip it up and start again is Reform. The fact that they are led by a shit doesn't matter, providing it gets done and the human rights/quangos/equalities industry which is smothering the country gets smashed to smithereens. That's what the country needs, that's what voters want.
I can't see why Farage being funded by some crypto scoundrels is likely to make any difference to that. At least it's better than him sucking on the teat of the taxpayer. It's not *corruption* either, for the simple reason that they were funding him at a time when he had no political power, nor any obvious prospect of getting any - ergo, there was no corrupt benefit to be gained. For good or ill, these people actually just *agree* with Farage, and have been chucking him money, probably more in the hope that he might move the Overton Window a bit than anything else - I doubt at then time of these donation any of them thought he was ever likely to be a serious contender for Prime Minister.
You don't actually start paying NI until you are earning £242 a week - although for employers it is much lower. £96 a week after which they pay NI for you.
NI was spent the moment it was received. It was all spent decades ago.
It also is spent on more than just pensions.
It is just another tax.
If someone works 12 hours NMW and gets NI "credits" then how much is getting ringfenced towards the pension?
"You don't deserve me..."
https://x.com/Nspne603/status/2073801526007758848?s=20