Some reports that Johnson may declare 19th July a national holiday.
Just for England? What about Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland?
We get one if Italy win
*banter*
Apparently this European football competition is a recent creation in its present form. Until 1980 only 4 teams were involved in the final stages. Post 1980 it became 8 teams - and has now increased to 24! A lot of fuss and hysteria over an event with little real history behind it.
Yet I'd say the Euros today are bigger than the World Cup was in 1966.
Pension tax relief. For those (like me) who think it should be limited to 20%, it is worse than the 40% relief you think it is.
0% personal allowance is lost at rate of £1 for every £2 earned over £100k, so If someone earns a little over £100k then their marginal rate of tax is 60% and so they will get 60% tax relief on contributions which bring their income down towards 100k.
The fact that we can have a marginal rate of tax of 60% under a Conservative Government is what is shocking - who on earth wouldn’t try to mitigate that obscenity?
It's really 66.6%.
On a pay rise of £1,000 for a £100K earner:
Income tax £600 Employee's NI @2% £20 Employer's NI at 13.8% £138
Total tax: £758 Received by the employee: £380 True marginal rate = 758 / (758+380) = 66.6%
Which is an absurdity, as are the true marginal rates for various other situations (withdrawal of benefits etc).
Just getting rid of these absurd perverse incentives would help the economy and boost total tax receipts.
My current package comes to £100.5k, which is very good by any stretch, but I can confirm it's a huge disincentive on a promotion or even any pay rise.
I'm simply not that interested at those tax rates, unless it's a massive step up to £130-140k per year, so I'm basically treading water.
If our sole income were our two state pensions, triple locked or not, we would find life much more difficult.
Given the paltry amount I would say impossible.
2x basic state pension is around £1,000 per month. Assuming you have no mortgage to pay, that is a good amount of money.
"paltry amount" suggests "out of touch"
That folk living only on the state pension will have paid off a mortgage rather than continue paying rent is a bit of an assumption.
Aye but you get housing benefit or similar if you are renting and unemployed past retirement age, do you not?
Housing benefit was fairly comprehensively pithed by Osborne. In 2011 they cut the capped it at the 30% percentile of the market, then they froze it in *cash* terms four years from 2015. That's for the PRS, and its only the bits I can remember.
The weirdest thing was that when we had the HUGE campaign about "the bedroom tax", it was aiui basically bringing the Social Rented Sector into line with the PRS - you don't get HB for 2 bedrooms if you are a singleton - and Shelter et al had done precisely nothing for the people in the PRS they allege they campaign for on that particular question.
Poor Scotland, a eunuch nation, whose existence depends on England failing, yet voted to be a part of Greater England in 2014.
Just imagine how successful Scots would be if they weren't so bitter. This explains Malcolm doesn't it?
Pure Radio Scotland has swapped out its saltire logo for the red, white and green of Italy ahead of England’s World Cup Final game on Sunday.
The DC Thomson Group station has also changed its slogan to Italy’s Best Music and the jingles and voiceovers have been substituted for Italian ones and artists like The Proclaimers and Amy MacDonald, replaced by Black Box and Dean Martin.
Pure Radio socials and even the DAB scrolling text have been changed to show Pure Radio Italy.
Pure Radio breakfast host and DC Thomson Group Head Of Presentation, Robin Galloway explained to RadioToday: “We gave out Danish pastries to workplaces before the Denmark game which went down really well with our audience but the morning after the game, listeners bombarded Pure with complaints about over the top, bias TV commentary, so I thought, let’s flip the station name and go all Italian.
“We even deep fried lasagne in focaccia on our segment Deep FRYday.
Of course, you may well think this is just Scotland being bitter – and you’d be absolutely right.
Nothing bitter about it , if people prefer supporting Italy to England , what is your beef. WE get ripped off constantly and treated like crap but you cannot order our thoughts and that really upsets you. Perfectly reasonable to support Italy.
Well that's my retirement plans scuppered. I have just got a letter from my bank saying the interest rate on my cash ISAs has dropped from 0.05% to 0.01%.
Actually, this would be the exact right time for Sunak to end ISAs.
Pension tax relief. For those (like me) who think it should be limited to 20%, it is worse than the 40% relief you think it is.
0% personal allowance is lost at rate of £1 for every £2 earned over £100k, so If someone earns a little over £100k then their marginal rate of tax is 60% and so they will get 60% tax relief on contributions which bring their income down towards 100k.
The fact that we can have a marginal rate of tax of 60% under a Conservative Government is what is shocking - who on earth wouldn’t try to mitigate that obscenity?
It's really 66.6%.
On a pay rise of £1,000 for a £100K earner:
Income tax £600 Employee's NI @2% £20 Employer's NI at 13.8% £138
Total tax: £758 Received by the employee: £380 True marginal rate = 758 / (758+380) = 66.6%
Which is an absurdity, as are the true marginal rates for various other situations (withdrawal of benefits etc).
Just getting rid of these absurd perverse incentives would help the economy and boost total tax receipts.
My current package comes to £100.5k, which is very good by any stretch, but I can confirm it's a huge disincentive on a promotion or even any pay rise.
I'm simply not that interested at those tax rates, unless it's a massive step up to £130-140k per year, so I'm basically treading water.
It shouldn't be a disincentive given that you can pay anything earned over £100k (up to the annual allowance) into a pension scheme.
An 8% rise for the OAPs and a 1% rise for the NHS staff will look odd. Especially if the NHS have been keeping the old gits alive.
It won't happen.
The only saving grace is that the low-hanging fruit have become the excess deaths of 2020. A lower pension bill than it would have been otherwise.
PS I'm 71 and I've still got my own teeth.
In an ideal world pensioners would all be guaranteed a comfortable retirement at public expense. But when so many working age people, and especially, children, face poverty it does seem odd to be hosing one group with money while cutting spending elsewhere. Personally I would like to see the government switch its focus to children - they are the future of this country and ultimately will be paying everyone's pensions in the long run. Let's do everything we can for them to lead long, happy and productive lives.
Why can other countries , supposedly inferior to Greta Britain , even small ones pay significantly higher pensions. This country has the smallest pension in the developed world.
Mostly as they have not faced up to the true costs. They generally have no pension 'fund' as such so the pensions are paid out of general tax revenues - so there are many non-elderly losers. In Spain most other state benefits are poor cf the UK. They are trying to cut back on pensions here but the lobby is howling with rage. One thing I've noticed anecdotally in Spain is that youngsters murdering parents/grandparents, etc seems to be a thing here!
Pensions should rise in line with inflation not earnings but the Tories are bound by their manifesto commitment until the next general election
Why? Do you want people who rely on the state pension only to keep getting poorer compared to the rest of the population.
Only if they are also prepared to face a cut in the state pension too as there was a large fall in average earnings over the last year and a half state pensioners were protected from.
Inflation reflects rises in prices in the shops so is what pensions should be based on
So you would be happy if your current pay was equally to the pay for the same job in 1910 plus inflation would you?
Inflation by definition means it would not be the same as pay for a job in 1910
Sorry I have no idea what you are saying. I was giving you an analogy. You seem happy that one group in society should only have their pay increased by inflation only forever, so I was asking you if you would be happy with that for yourself by accepting the pay for your job based upon the 1910 pay for it plus inflation.
You do appreciate don't you that, that would almost certainly be a much lower figure than you get now? Yet you are happy to impose that on others in society.
That's right. The earnings link is key. Without that, in a society growing more prosperous, a pension linked only to inflation would condemn those relying on it to abject relative poverty - and relative is the only meaningful metric here - over the long run. Time would work its magic and in this case it would be of the black variety.
No it wouldn't, as most pensioners do not have to pay rent or a mortgage unlike those working and earning as they own their own properties outright.
The only non tax payments most pensioners have to pay on a monthly basis are for shopping and the odd meal or trip out, which can be linked to inflation and they get free bus passes and Freedom Passes for London travel anyway
It would over time. That's certain given growth. We're talking relativities. It's why the earnings link was introduced.
It wouldn't, provided the state pension increased with inflation there would be no impact on spending in the shops and cafes which is what most pensioners spend most of their money on, inflation also rises with energy costs anyway too
Bonkers, absolutely bonkers. Suggest you look at a few stats.
Also not only do you want to impose what funding a pensioner gets you seem to want to impose what they do with it which is limited to spending in shops and cafes. We are not all doddering old gits you know. Life doesn't stop at 65.
So you effectively want taxpayers who have rents or mortgages to pay to subsidise earnings linked state pensions for the 3/4 of pensioners who own their own home outright.
Plus pensioners get concessionary tickets to museums, cinemas etc too
Oh for goodness sake read my bloody posts.
A pension is not equivalent to a salary. It is always significantly less. This caters for your difference re mortgages.
Taxpayers are not being asked to subsidies pensions any more at all by linking pensions to earnings, because doh they are linked to earnings.
Status Quo is maintained, although many would argue the state pension should be a bigger percentage of average earning.
You on the other hand want to link the state pension to inflation which will reduce the percentage link to earnings every year making pensioners poorer and reducing the burden on the taxpayer year after year.
So thanks for confirming you want state pensions to continue to be linked to rises in earnings not inflation for the 3/4 of pensioners who own their own homes outright and for taxpayers who still have mortgages and rents to pay to fund it.
Not to mention most of those 3/4 will also have private pensions to call on too, indeed some will still have final salary pensions so no different to when they were earning.
Well that was clear from the beginning. Do you mean we didn't have to have this discussion?
Unlike you I have no desire to slowly put pensioners who rely on a state pension into poverty. The rest of us who have significant income have contributed generously to our state pension and will continue to do so through our taxes.
I have no desire to make those less fortunate than me worse off.
Re your comment about private and final salary schemes at the end of your post - You do realise don't you that when you retire you don't get the same amount as when you are working. This last post in particular and your other posts seem to imply you think you get the same money when retired as when working if you are in one of these schemes. You don't really believe that do you?
You are willing to put the burden on average earners with rents or mortgages to pay or even low earners struggling with rent to pay through taxation paying the earnings linked pensions of owner occupier pensioners often with substantial private pensions to call on too.
If you have worked for the same employer all your life and are on a final salary scheme, then that final salary will be very close to what you were earning when you retired.
Well that's my retirement plans scuppered. I have just got a letter from my bank saying the interest rate on my cash ISAs has dropped from 0.05% to 0.01%.
Actually, this would be the exact right time for Sunak to end ISAs.
Cash ISAs have been poor for ages. Stocks and shares ISA is the only way.
Mr. Eagles, wonderful that BBC bigwigs found the money for a sporting event within convenient reach but which failed to exceed targets to the same extent as F1 which they decided to throw away, not merely from their own coverage but free-to-air altogether (excepting the British Grand Prix).
Simple truth, Wimbledon is more popular than F1.
You can tell that by the fact no one else bid for F1 live FTA and ITV walked away from their contract 2 years early.
F1 have got themselves into a bit of a bind. The cars are evolutionary dead ends with little relevance to, and cruder is some ways than, road cars but are immensely expensive to develop and construct.
They need to go to a spec. chassis, let the teams just do the aero and have a choice of powertrains from two or three OEMs.
It is no surprise Southgate is more popular than Churchill.
Churchill was a fascist (keeping people under dominion of the UK against their will is fascism.)
Churchill was an Imperialist and quite definitely not a Fascist.
The fact that you can't detect the difference suggests that your terrible taste in clothes has caused structural damage - Long Fashion?
Imperialism is fascism.
Forcible suppression of opponents is a key characteristic of fascism, look at all the arrests of Indian independence figures.
Top tip:
To advance the cause of Fascism, Winston Churchill could have simply decided to say nothing about the rise of nazi Germany in the 1930s.
As it was, he was the loudest and most important voice warning about that rise.
Churchill was a hypocrite.
Occupation of Poland etc = Bad
Occupation of India etc = Good
The Indians could have easily revolted and overthrown us given there were millions of them and only a few thousand of us in India as the American colonists did to us in the 18th century and the Mexicans and Argentines and Venezualans and Colombians and Bolivians did to the Spanish in the 19th century.
The fact they did not suggests our rule was not that bad and certainly not as bad as the Nazi occupation of Poland.
Churchill was an Imperialist who correctly recognised that once we lost India we would cease to be a superpower, on that he was correct. Morally he may have been wrong to do so and it was right to give India independence but in terms of global power projection he was correct
Owen Jones 🌹 @OwenJones84 · 1h The government is planning to reject an 8% increase in the state pension. But our state pension is one of the lowest in the Western world - an 8% increase is too low, not too much.
Mental. If labour take this line then they're fucked.
I blame Thatcher for abandoning the link with earnings back in the early 1980s. It also remains a disgrace that Labour failed to restore the link during their 13 years in office.
Some reports that Johnson may declare 19th July a national holiday.
Just for England? What about Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland?
We get one if Italy win
*banter*
Pizza and Birra Moretti for you on Sunday night?
Well Birra Moretti is made in Scotland....these days a fake Italian beer, owned by Heineken in many markets. Like so many major beer brands, it is just branding.
It is no surprise Southgate is more popular than Churchill.
Churchill was a fascist (keeping people under dominion of the UK against their will is fascism.)
Churchill was an Imperialist and quite definitely not a Fascist.
The fact that you can't detect the difference suggests that your terrible taste in clothes has caused structural damage - Long Fashion?
Imperialism is fascism.
Forcible suppression of opponents is a key characteristic of fascism, look at all the arrests of Indian independence figures.
So you are saying that you believe that Scipio Africanus was a Fascist, for example? Or Darius The Great?
Come to think of it, was Indira Ghandi a fascist?
Forcible suppression of opponents was standard operating procedure for all types of regime until about an eye blink ago, in terms of human history.
"Fascist" does not just mean a person you think is bad. Making absurd claims that Churchill was a Fascist (Spoiler alert, he was an anti-Fascist), means you ignore the real injustices of the present day. Instead of chucking a statue in the Avon, you might want to consider that Putin, Lukashenka, Kim Jong Un, and even Xi Jinping preside over actual police states that sanction state-sponsored crime of all kinds, including murder and genocide, and that this is happening now. So your wilful misreading of history seems to mean that that you are perfectly OK with the crimes of the present. I dont have much sympathy for that view.
Pension tax relief. For those (like me) who think it should be limited to 20%, it is worse than the 40% relief you think it is.
0% personal allowance is lost at rate of £1 for every £2 earned over £100k, so If someone earns a little over £100k then their marginal rate of tax is 60% and so they will get 60% tax relief on contributions which bring their income down towards 100k.
The fact that we can have a marginal rate of tax of 60% under a Conservative Government is what is shocking - who on earth wouldn’t try to mitigate that obscenity?
It's really 66.6%.
On a pay rise of £1,000 for a £100K earner:
Income tax £600 Employee's NI @2% £20 Employer's NI at 13.8% £138
Total tax: £758 Received by the employee: £380 True marginal rate = 758 / (758+380) = 66.6%
Which is an absurdity, as are the true marginal rates for various other situations (withdrawal of benefits etc).
Just getting rid of these absurd perverse incentives would help the economy and boost total tax receipts.
My current package comes to £100.5k, which is very good by any stretch, but I can confirm it's a huge disincentive on a promotion or even any pay rise.
I'm simply not that interested at those tax rates, unless it's a massive step up to £130-140k per year, so I'm basically treading water.
I don't get this attitude. If you are with the same employer, surely it is easier to justify smaller raises than it is one big one?
Pensions should rise in line with inflation not earnings but the Tories are bound by their manifesto commitment until the next general election
Why? Do you want people who rely on the state pension only to keep getting poorer compared to the rest of the population.
Only if they are also prepared to face a cut in the state pension too as there was a large fall in average earnings over the last year and a half state pensioners were protected from.
Inflation reflects rises in prices in the shops so is what pensions should be based on
So you would be happy if your current pay was equally to the pay for the same job in 1910 plus inflation would you?
Inflation by definition means it would not be the same as pay for a job in 1910
Sorry I have no idea what you are saying. I was giving you an analogy. You seem happy that one group in society should only have their pay increased by inflation only forever, so I was asking you if you would be happy with that for yourself by accepting the pay for your job based upon the 1910 pay for it plus inflation.
You do appreciate don't you that, that would almost certainly be a much lower figure than you get now? Yet you are happy to impose that on others in society.
That's right. The earnings link is key. Without that, in a society growing more prosperous, a pension linked only to inflation would condemn those relying on it to abject relative poverty - and relative is the only meaningful metric here - over the long run. Time would work its magic and in this case it would be of the black variety.
No it wouldn't, as most pensioners do not have to pay rent or a mortgage unlike those working and earning as they own their own properties outright.
The only non tax payments most pensioners have to pay on a monthly basis are for shopping and the odd meal or trip out, which can be linked to inflation and they get free bus passes and Freedom Passes for London travel anyway
It would over time. That's certain given growth. We're talking relativities. It's why the earnings link was introduced.
It wouldn't, provided the state pension increased with inflation there would be no impact on spending in the shops and cafes which is what most pensioners spend most of their money on, inflation also rises with energy costs anyway too
H, you are arguing with maths not me. Given growth and people getting better off, earnings beating inflation, if your income rises only by inflation you will sink - all else being equal and in the long run - into abject relative poverty.
Mr. Rook, HS2 is more popular the further north you go.
If the part connecting London to Birmingham is completed and the northern half cancelled that will not go down well.
MD , depends on where you stop, fact that Scotland is paying part of it and it will never ever reach here means it is far from popular here for certain.
So the Scottish Government is lieing?
The Scottish Government has not contributed any funds to the HS2 rail link budget; this is wholly funded by the UK Government.
An 8% rise for the OAPs and a 1% rise for the NHS staff will look odd. Especially if the NHS have been keeping the old gits alive.
It won't happen.
The only saving grace is that the low-hanging fruit have become the excess deaths of 2020. A lower pension bill than it would have been otherwise.
PS I'm 71 and I've still got my own teeth.
In an ideal world pensioners would all be guaranteed a comfortable retirement at public expense. But when so many working age people, and especially, children, face poverty it does seem odd to be hosing one group with money while cutting spending elsewhere. Personally I would like to see the government switch its focus to children - they are the future of this country and ultimately will be paying everyone's pensions in the long run. Let's do everything we can for them to lead long, happy and productive lives.
Why can other countries , supposedly inferior to Greta Britain , even small ones pay significantly higher pensions. This country has the smallest pension in the developed world.
Not once you include private pensions it doesn't and more and more are now included in contributory workplace pensions through compulsory enrolment
It is no surprise Southgate is more popular than Churchill.
Churchill was a fascist (keeping people under dominion of the UK against their will is fascism.)
Churchill was an Imperialist and quite definitely not a Fascist.
The fact that you can't detect the difference suggests that your terrible taste in clothes has caused structural damage - Long Fashion?
Imperialism is fascism.
Forcible suppression of opponents is a key characteristic of fascism, look at all the arrests of Indian independence figures.
So you are saying that you believe that Scipio Africanus was a Fascist, for example? Or Darius The Great?
Come to think of it, was Indira Ghandi a fascist?
Forcible suppression of opponents was standard operating procedure for all types of regime until about an eye blink ago, in terms of human history.
"Fascist" does not just mean a person you think is bad. Making absurd claims that Churchill was a Fascist (Spoiler alert, he was an anti-Fascist), means you ignore the real injustices of the present day. Instead of chucking a statue in the Avon, you might want to consider that Putin, Lukashenka, Kim Jong Un, and even Xi Jinping preside over actual police states that sanction state-sponsored crime of all kinds, including murder and genocide, and that this is happening now. So your wilful misreading of history seems to mean that that you are perfectly OK with the crimes of the present. I dont have much sympathy for that view.
I Would say that Putin is definitely into the Fascist spectrum - which ranges from Franco/Peron to Hitler. Probably Xi as well.
Lukashenka seems more of a crude strong man dictator and Kim Jong Un is a hereditary monarch presiding over a weird pastiche of religion and Communism.
Mr. Contrarian, it was a while ago that I saw it, but I think it's rather more useful than most war dramatisations because it lays bare the bureaucratic, almost everyday nature of the mechanics that can lie beneath genocide and totalitarianism.
Less fun than machineguns and Spitfires, but rather more menacing.
Indeed v. good point Mr Dancer. As you say, at times the participants get bored, frustrated, restless, crack jokes etc as at any normal business meeting.
And Branagh is utterly chilling as the charismatic and clubbable organizer of it all.
Branagh found the role very disturbing. He played Heydrich as a man who could have just browbeaten them all into implementing the extermination programme, but preferred instead to win them over through a mix of charm and menace.
It's a great play, although my understanding is that there was far less dissent then the play portrays, save for arguments over the fate of those of mixed blood. In reality, the key decisions had already been taken by Hitler, Goering, Himmler, and Heydrich, and the conference was held to discuss the details, not the principles.
We like to think we're brave and special but the reality is that most people go along with stuff.
It's at very high personal risk to do anything different.
Pensions should rise in line with inflation not earnings but the Tories are bound by their manifesto commitment until the next general election
Why? Do you want people who rely on the state pension only to keep getting poorer compared to the rest of the population.
Only if they are also prepared to face a cut in the state pension too as there was a large fall in average earnings over the last year and a half state pensioners were protected from.
Inflation reflects rises in prices in the shops so is what pensions should be based on
So you would be happy if your current pay was equally to the pay for the same job in 1910 plus inflation would you?
Inflation by definition means it would not be the same as pay for a job in 1910
Sorry I have no idea what you are saying. I was giving you an analogy. You seem happy that one group in society should only have their pay increased by inflation only forever, so I was asking you if you would be happy with that for yourself by accepting the pay for your job based upon the 1910 pay for it plus inflation.
You do appreciate don't you that, that would almost certainly be a much lower figure than you get now? Yet you are happy to impose that on others in society.
That's right. The earnings link is key. Without that, in a society growing more prosperous, a pension linked only to inflation would condemn those relying on it to abject relative poverty - and relative is the only meaningful metric here - over the long run. Time would work its magic and in this case it would be of the black variety.
No it wouldn't, as most pensioners do not have to pay rent or a mortgage unlike those working and earning as they own their own properties outright.
The only non tax payments most pensioners have to pay on a monthly basis are for shopping and the odd meal or trip out, which can be linked to inflation and they get free bus passes and Freedom Passes for London travel anyway
It would over time. That's certain given growth. We're talking relativities. It's why the earnings link was introduced.
It wouldn't, provided the state pension increased with inflation there would be no impact on spending in the shops and cafes which is what most pensioners spend most of their money on, inflation also rises with energy costs anyway too
H, you are arguing with maths not me. Given growth and people getting better off, earnings beating inflation, if your income rises only by inflation you will sink - all else being equal and in the long run - into abject relative poverty.
No you won't, given as a pensioner you will likely own your own home unlike those earning who will still have to pay mortgage or rent and you get free bus passes, cheap museum, cinema, theatre tickets, Freedom Passes in London etc too.
Pensions should rise in line with inflation not earnings but the Tories are bound by their manifesto commitment until the next general election
Why? Do you want people who rely on the state pension only to keep getting poorer compared to the rest of the population.
Only if they are also prepared to face a cut in the state pension too as there was a large fall in average earnings over the last year and a half state pensioners were protected from.
Inflation reflects rises in prices in the shops so is what pensions should be based on
So you would be happy if your current pay was equally to the pay for the same job in 1910 plus inflation would you?
Inflation by definition means it would not be the same as pay for a job in 1910
Sorry I have no idea what you are saying. I was giving you an analogy. You seem happy that one group in society should only have their pay increased by inflation only forever, so I was asking you if you would be happy with that for yourself by accepting the pay for your job based upon the 1910 pay for it plus inflation.
You do appreciate don't you that, that would almost certainly be a much lower figure than you get now? Yet you are happy to impose that on others in society.
That's right. The earnings link is key. Without that, in a society growing more prosperous, a pension linked only to inflation would condemn those relying on it to abject relative poverty - and relative is the only meaningful metric here - over the long run. Time would work its magic and in this case it would be of the black variety.
No it wouldn't, as most pensioners do not have to pay rent or a mortgage unlike those working and earning as they own their own properties outright.
The only non tax payments most pensioners have to pay on a monthly basis are for shopping and the odd meal or trip out, which can be linked to inflation and they get free bus passes and Freedom Passes for London travel anyway
It would over time. That's certain given growth. We're talking relativities. It's why the earnings link was introduced.
It wouldn't, provided the state pension increased with inflation there would be no impact on spending in the shops and cafes which is what most pensioners spend most of their money on, inflation also rises with energy costs anyway too
Bonkers, absolutely bonkers. Suggest you look at a few stats.
Also not only do you want to impose what funding a pensioner gets you seem to want to impose what they do with it which is limited to spending in shops and cafes. We are not all doddering old gits you know. Life doesn't stop at 65.
So you effectively want taxpayers who have rents or mortgages to pay to subsidise earnings linked state pensions for the 3/4 of pensioners who own their own home outright.
Plus pensioners get concessionary tickets to museums, cinemas etc too
Oh for goodness sake read my bloody posts.
A pension is not equivalent to a salary. It is always significantly less. This caters for your difference re mortgages.
Taxpayers are not being asked to subsidies pensions any more at all by linking pensions to earnings, because doh they are linked to earnings.
Status Quo is maintained, although many would argue the state pension should be a bigger percentage of average earning.
You on the other hand want to link the state pension to inflation which will reduce the percentage link to earnings every year making pensioners poorer and reducing the burden on the taxpayer year after year.
So thanks for confirming you want state pensions to continue to be linked to rises in earnings not inflation for the 3/4 of pensioners who own their own homes outright and for taxpayers who still have mortgages and rents to pay to fund it.
Not to mention most of those 3/4 will also have private pensions to call on too, indeed some will still have final salary pensions so no different to when they were earning.
Well that was clear from the beginning. Do you mean we didn't have to have this discussion?
Unlike you I have no desire to slowly put pensioners who rely on a state pension into poverty. The rest of us who have significant income have contributed generously to our state pension and will continue to do so through our taxes.
I have no desire to make those less fortunate than me worse off.
Re your comment about private and final salary schemes at the end of your post - You do realise don't you that when you retire you don't get the same amount as when you are working. This last post in particular and your other posts seem to imply you think you get the same money when retired as when working if you are in one of these schemes. You don't really believe that do you?
You are willing to put the burden on average earners with rents or mortgages to pay or even low earners struggling with rent to pay through taxation paying the earnings linked pensions of owner occupier pensioners often with substantial private pensions to call on too.
If you have worked for the same employer all your life and are on a final salary scheme, then that final salary will be very close to what you were earning when you retired.
First sentence: No I am not. Read my posts. The burden as a percentage is unchanged.
Second sentence: No it won't be. 2/3 at best and not many will be in that situation. What is more very few people outside of the public sector are on final salary schemes (and I think they are on 1/80 calculation, but I am no expert so that might be wrong) nor do most tend to work for the same employer for their whole life (except in public sector). However I won't disagree that the few that have this benefit are extremely lucky and probably more lucky than they deserve, but that doesn't mean that the rest should be penalised because of their good fortune.
It is no surprise Southgate is more popular than Churchill.
Churchill was a fascist (keeping people under dominion of the UK against their will is fascism.)
Churchill was an Imperialist and quite definitely not a Fascist.
The fact that you can't detect the difference suggests that your terrible taste in clothes has caused structural damage - Long Fashion?
Imperialism is fascism.
Forcible suppression of opponents is a key characteristic of fascism, look at all the arrests of Indian independence figures.
Churchill had promised India dominion status after the war but of course that fell short of independence.
The time for the former was post WW1 not WW2. India might still be a Commonwealth realm today, and you could enjoy toasting the Queen across the subcontinent.
Some reports that Johnson may declare 19th July a national holiday.
Just for England? What about Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland?
We get one if Italy win
*banter*
Pizza and Birra Moretti for you on Sunday night?
Quite keen on that combo anyway, though developed a taste for Menabrea lately.
Fairly copacetic on the match result. If Gareth and his band of culturally marxist brothers win through I’ll enjoy the hypocrisy of the twats who have whined about taking the knee all the way through, if the Azzuri pull it off the bellowing of the ‘Jock c*nts’ brigade on Twitter will be as music to my ears.
It is no surprise Southgate is more popular than Churchill.
Churchill was a fascist (keeping people under dominion of the UK against their will is fascism.)
Churchill was an Imperialist and quite definitely not a Fascist.
The fact that you can't detect the difference suggests that your terrible taste in clothes has caused structural damage - Long Fashion?
Imperialism is fascism.
Forcible suppression of opponents is a key characteristic of fascism, look at all the arrests of Indian independence figures.
So you are saying that you believe that Scipio Africanus was a Fascist, for example? Or Darius The Great?
Come to think of it, was Indira Ghandi a fascist?
Forcible suppression of opponents was standard operating procedure for all types of regime until about an eye blink ago, in terms of human history.
"Fascist" does not just mean a person you think is bad. Making absurd claims that Churchill was a Fascist (Spoiler alert, he was an anti-Fascist), means you ignore the real injustices of the present day. Instead of chucking a statue in the Avon, you might want to consider that Putin, Lukashenka, Kim Jong Un, and even Xi Jinping preside over actual police states that sanction state-sponsored crime of all kinds, including murder and genocide, and that this is happening now. So your wilful misreading of history seems to mean that that you are perfectly OK with the crimes of the present. I dont have much sympathy for that view.
I know my history, my antecedents had to deal with Churchill.
The Bengal Famine happened on Churchill’s watch, made worse by his policies.
Pension tax relief. For those (like me) who think it should be limited to 20%, it is worse than the 40% relief you think it is.
0% personal allowance is lost at rate of £1 for every £2 earned over £100k, so If someone earns a little over £100k then their marginal rate of tax is 60% and so they will get 60% tax relief on contributions which bring their income down towards 100k.
The fact that we can have a marginal rate of tax of 60% under a Conservative Government is what is shocking - who on earth wouldn’t try to mitigate that obscenity?
It's really 66.6%.
On a pay rise of £1,000 for a £100K earner:
Income tax £600 Employee's NI @2% £20 Employer's NI at 13.8% £138
Total tax: £758 Received by the employee: £380 True marginal rate = 758 / (758+380) = 66.6%
Which is an absurdity, as are the true marginal rates for various other situations (withdrawal of benefits etc).
Just getting rid of these absurd perverse incentives would help the economy and boost total tax receipts.
My current package comes to £100.5k, which is very good by any stretch, but I can confirm it's a huge disincentive on a promotion or even any pay rise.
I'm simply not that interested at those tax rates, unless it's a massive step up to £130-140k per year, so I'm basically treading water.
It shouldn't be a disincentive given that you can pay anything earned over £100k (up to the annual allowance) into a pension scheme.
Already doing that but there's only so much I want to put into a pension and I also need hard cash now.
Some reports that Johnson may declare 19th July a national holiday.
Just for England? What about Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland?
We get one if Italy win
*banter*
Apparently this European football competition is a recent creation in its present form. Until 1980 only 4 teams were involved in the final stages. Post 1980 it became 8 teams - and has now increased to 24! A lot of fuss and hysteria over an event with little real history behind it.
Yet I'd say the Euros today are bigger than the World Cup was in 1966.
Not in terms of general interest surely. Apparently well below 50% of the GB adult population watched the England v Denmark game.Yesterday morning I attended my weekly U3A Latin class, and was surprised by the revelation from a guy in attendance - who I knew to be a regular soccer fan - that he had avoided watching any of the tournament games. I expressed my surprise , and he simply stated that he cannot abide the fervent nationalism associated with International matches.I believe he is a Norwich City ticket holder.
It is no surprise Southgate is more popular than Churchill.
Churchill was a fascist (keeping people under dominion of the UK against their will is fascism.)
Churchill was an Imperialist and quite definitely not a Fascist.
The fact that you can't detect the difference suggests that your terrible taste in clothes has caused structural damage - Long Fashion?
Imperialism is fascism.
Forcible suppression of opponents is a key characteristic of fascism, look at all the arrests of Indian independence figures.
Churchill had promised India dominion status after the war but of course that fell short of independence.
The time for the former was post WW1 not WW2. India might still be a Commonwealth realm today, and you could enjoy toasting the Queen across the subcontinent.
Possibly though the reason I think Canada, Australia and New Zealand are the only non UK nations of any significant size which still have the Queen as Head of State is most of their population have ancestors who originally came from the British Isles.
Pensions should rise in line with inflation not earnings but the Tories are bound by their manifesto commitment until the next general election
Why? Do you want people who rely on the state pension only to keep getting poorer compared to the rest of the population.
Only if they are also prepared to face a cut in the state pension too as there was a large fall in average earnings over the last year and a half state pensioners were protected from.
Inflation reflects rises in prices in the shops so is what pensions should be based on
So you would be happy if your current pay was equally to the pay for the same job in 1910 plus inflation would you?
Inflation by definition means it would not be the same as pay for a job in 1910
Sorry I have no idea what you are saying. I was giving you an analogy. You seem happy that one group in society should only have their pay increased by inflation only forever, so I was asking you if you would be happy with that for yourself by accepting the pay for your job based upon the 1910 pay for it plus inflation.
You do appreciate don't you that, that would almost certainly be a much lower figure than you get now? Yet you are happy to impose that on others in society.
That's right. The earnings link is key. Without that, in a society growing more prosperous, a pension linked only to inflation would condemn those relying on it to abject relative poverty - and relative is the only meaningful metric here - over the long run. Time would work its magic and in this case it would be of the black variety.
No it wouldn't, as most pensioners do not have to pay rent or a mortgage unlike those working and earning as they own their own properties outright.
The only non tax payments most pensioners have to pay on a monthly basis are for shopping and the odd meal or trip out, which can be linked to inflation and they get free bus passes and Freedom Passes for London travel anyway
It would over time. That's certain given growth. We're talking relativities. It's why the earnings link was introduced.
It wouldn't, provided the state pension increased with inflation there would be no impact on spending in the shops and cafes which is what most pensioners spend most of their money on, inflation also rises with energy costs anyway too
H, you are arguing with maths not me. Given growth and people getting better off, earnings beating inflation, if your income rises only by inflation you will sink - all else being equal and in the long run - into abject relative poverty.
You will in comparison to a young earner but you won't with regard to what you can buy with your pension. The latter is what is relevant. I agree with HYUFD on this. I don't quite see why pensions should keep up with earnings - it is the basket of goods you need to buy that matters - and current earners will be pensioners one day.
The problem Sunak has is not whether to break the triple lock per se (it is obvious that it should be removed) - it is whether to break a manifesto pledge. The CP would be hammered for doing so, both within and outside of the party.
My view is that manifest pledges are for the birds in the Covid crisis. Set them aside. The CP should get a free pass on this. But this is logic speaking not political reality.
I think they will keep the lock but not make the pledge again in the next manifesto.
It is no surprise Southgate is more popular than Churchill.
Churchill was a fascist (keeping people under dominion of the UK against their will is fascism.)
Churchill was an Imperialist and quite definitely not a Fascist.
The fact that you can't detect the difference suggests that your terrible taste in clothes has caused structural damage - Long Fashion?
Imperialism is fascism.
Forcible suppression of opponents is a key characteristic of fascism, look at all the arrests of Indian independence figures.
Churchill had promised India dominion status after the war but of course that fell short of independence.
The time for the former was post WW1 not WW2. India might still be a Commonwealth realm today, and you could enjoy toasting the Queen across the subcontinent.
Well fully taking back control from unelected rulers was popular in India.
Who would want dominion status? It’s like being in the EU.
Pensions should rise in line with inflation not earnings but the Tories are bound by their manifesto commitment until the next general election
Why? Do you want people who rely on the state pension only to keep getting poorer compared to the rest of the population.
Only if they are also prepared to face a cut in the state pension too as there was a large fall in average earnings over the last year and a half state pensioners were protected from.
Inflation reflects rises in prices in the shops so is what pensions should be based on
So you would be happy if your current pay was equally to the pay for the same job in 1910 plus inflation would you?
Inflation by definition means it would not be the same as pay for a job in 1910
Sorry I have no idea what you are saying. I was giving you an analogy. You seem happy that one group in society should only have their pay increased by inflation only forever, so I was asking you if you would be happy with that for yourself by accepting the pay for your job based upon the 1910 pay for it plus inflation.
You do appreciate don't you that, that would almost certainly be a much lower figure than you get now? Yet you are happy to impose that on others in society.
That's right. The earnings link is key. Without that, in a society growing more prosperous, a pension linked only to inflation would condemn those relying on it to abject relative poverty - and relative is the only meaningful metric here - over the long run. Time would work its magic and in this case it would be of the black variety.
No it wouldn't, as most pensioners do not have to pay rent or a mortgage unlike those working and earning as they own their own properties outright.
The only non tax payments most pensioners have to pay on a monthly basis are for shopping and the odd meal or trip out, which can be linked to inflation and they get free bus passes and Freedom Passes for London travel anyway
It would over time. That's certain given growth. We're talking relativities. It's why the earnings link was introduced.
It wouldn't, provided the state pension increased with inflation there would be no impact on spending in the shops and cafes which is what most pensioners spend most of their money on, inflation also rises with energy costs anyway too
Bonkers, absolutely bonkers. Suggest you look at a few stats.
Also not only do you want to impose what funding a pensioner gets you seem to want to impose what they do with it which is limited to spending in shops and cafes. We are not all doddering old gits you know. Life doesn't stop at 65.
So you effectively want taxpayers who have rents or mortgages to pay to subsidise earnings linked state pensions for the 3/4 of pensioners who own their own home outright.
Plus pensioners get concessionary tickets to museums, cinemas etc too
Oh for goodness sake read my bloody posts.
A pension is not equivalent to a salary. It is always significantly less. This caters for your difference re mortgages.
Taxpayers are not being asked to subsidies pensions any more at all by linking pensions to earnings, because doh they are linked to earnings.
Status Quo is maintained, although many would argue the state pension should be a bigger percentage of average earning.
You on the other hand want to link the state pension to inflation which will reduce the percentage link to earnings every year making pensioners poorer and reducing the burden on the taxpayer year after year.
So thanks for confirming you want state pensions to continue to be linked to rises in earnings not inflation for the 3/4 of pensioners who own their own homes outright and for taxpayers who still have mortgages and rents to pay to fund it.
Not to mention most of those 3/4 will also have private pensions to call on too, indeed some will still have final salary pensions so no different to when they were earning.
Well that was clear from the beginning. Do you mean we didn't have to have this discussion?
Unlike you I have no desire to slowly put pensioners who rely on a state pension into poverty. The rest of us who have significant income have contributed generously to our state pension and will continue to do so through our taxes.
I have no desire to make those less fortunate than me worse off.
Re your comment about private and final salary schemes at the end of your post - You do realise don't you that when you retire you don't get the same amount as when you are working. This last post in particular and your other posts seem to imply you think you get the same money when retired as when working if you are in one of these schemes. You don't really believe that do you?
You are willing to put the burden on average earners with rents or mortgages to pay or even low earners struggling with rent to pay through taxation paying the earnings linked pensions of owner occupier pensioners often with substantial private pensions to call on too.
If you have worked for the same employer all your life and are on a final salary scheme, then that final salary will be very close to what you were earning when you retired.
First sentence: No I am not. Read my posts. The burden as a percentage is unchanged.
Second sentence: No it won't be. 2/3 at best and not many will be in that situation. What is more very few people outside of the public sector are on final salary schemes (and I think they are on 1/80 calculation, but I am no expert so that might be wrong) nor do most tend to work for the same employer for their whole life (except in public sector). However I won't disagree that the few that have this benefit are extremely lucky and probably more lucky than they deserve, but that doesn't mean that the rest should be penalised because of their good fortune.
It is still a burden the working rent and mortgage paying population have to continue to pay through their taxes to subsidise earnings related state pensions for owner occupying pensioners who often have substantial private pensions to call on too.
Linking the state pension to inflation would do fine for them and pensioners who do need the extra income as they are still paying rent can have that through increases in their housing benefit not a one size fits all state pension earnings related rise.
Owen Jones 🌹 @OwenJones84 · 1h The government is planning to reject an 8% increase in the state pension. But our state pension is one of the lowest in the Western world - an 8% increase is too low, not too much.
If the government was going to go through with it, he would be complaining the Tories just pork barrelling their own voters, what about those on benefits..
I don't think he necessarily would. He can be surprisingly untribal. For example, he supported the Con plan to hike Corp Tax and criticized Lab for opposing it.
Owen Jones 🌹 @OwenJones84 · 1h The government is planning to reject an 8% increase in the state pension. But our state pension is one of the lowest in the Western world - an 8% increase is too low, not too much.
Mental. If labour take this line then they're fucked.
I note that the well-heeled denizens of PB are on absolutely cracking form today.
Pensioners: £10K is plenty to live on assuming you're mortgage free and don't want to do anything at all; an 8% rise would be a total disgrace that the nation can't afford.
Workers: £100K+ salary: marginal tax rates are a total disgrace. Barely worth me getting out of bed to earn any more. May as well spend the day contributing to PB.
It is no surprise Southgate is more popular than Churchill.
Churchill was a fascist (keeping people under dominion of the UK against their will is fascism.)
Churchill was an Imperialist and quite definitely not a Fascist.
The fact that you can't detect the difference suggests that your terrible taste in clothes has caused structural damage - Long Fashion?
Imperialism is fascism.
Forcible suppression of opponents is a key characteristic of fascism, look at all the arrests of Indian independence figures.
Churchill had promised India dominion status after the war but of course that fell short of independence.
The time for the former was post WW1 not WW2. India might still be a Commonwealth realm today, and you could enjoy toasting the Queen across the subcontinent.
Possibly though the reason I think Canada, Australia and New Zealand are the only non UK nations of any significant size which still have the Queen as Head of State is most of their population have ancestors who originally came from the British Isles.
That does not apply to India
Lots of Carribbean and Pacific islanders do too and India had lots of Maharajas and a similar culture of monarchy.
At the end of the day if you devolve the substance of democracy and self-government you are far more likely to keep the cultural and symbolic links out of affection too.
It is no surprise Southgate is more popular than Churchill.
Churchill was a fascist (keeping people under dominion of the UK against their will is fascism.)
Churchill was an Imperialist and quite definitely not a Fascist.
The fact that you can't detect the difference suggests that your terrible taste in clothes has caused structural damage - Long Fashion?
Imperialism is fascism.
Forcible suppression of opponents is a key characteristic of fascism, look at all the arrests of Indian independence figures.
Churchill had promised India dominion status after the war but of course that fell short of independence.
The time for the former was post WW1 not WW2. India might still be a Commonwealth realm today, and you could enjoy toasting the Queen across the subcontinent.
Possibly though the reason I think Canada, Australia and New Zealand are the only non UK nations of any significant size which still have the Queen as Head of State is most of their population have ancestors who originally came from the British Isles.
That does not apply to India
I'm mildly surprised that J❤️cinda hasn't held a referendum on becoming a republic. She's probably got enough popularity and political heft to get it done at the moment. Perhaps, like Australia, they are waiting for Brenda to drop off the twig.
It is no surprise Southgate is more popular than Churchill.
Churchill was a fascist (keeping people under dominion of the UK against their will is fascism.)
Churchill was an Imperialist and quite definitely not a Fascist.
The fact that you can't detect the difference suggests that your terrible taste in clothes has caused structural damage - Long Fashion?
Imperialism is fascism.
Forcible suppression of opponents is a key characteristic of fascism, look at all the arrests of Indian independence figures.
Churchill had promised India dominion status after the war but of course that fell short of independence.
The time for the former was post WW1 not WW2. India might still be a Commonwealth realm today, and you could enjoy toasting the Queen across the subcontinent.
Well fully taking back control from unelected rulers was popular in India.
Who would want dominion status? It’s like being in the EU.
So you'd support Vote Leave in India but not in the UK?
And you call Churchill inconsistent. You're like a conflicted Scotsman on Sunday.
It is no surprise Southgate is more popular than Churchill.
Churchill was a fascist (keeping people under dominion of the UK against their will is fascism.)
Churchill was an Imperialist and quite definitely not a Fascist.
The fact that you can't detect the difference suggests that your terrible taste in clothes has caused structural damage - Long Fashion?
Imperialism is fascism.
Forcible suppression of opponents is a key characteristic of fascism, look at all the arrests of Indian independence figures.
Churchill had promised India dominion status after the war but of course that fell short of independence.
The time for the former was post WW1 not WW2. India might still be a Commonwealth realm today, and you could enjoy toasting the Queen across the subcontinent.
Possibly though the reason I think Canada, Australia and New Zealand are the only non UK nations of any significant size which still have the Queen as Head of State is most of their population have ancestors who originally came from the British Isles.
That does not apply to India
Lots of Carribbean and Pacific islanders do too and India had lots of Maharajas and a similar culture of monarchy.
At the end of the day if you devolve the substance of democracy and self-government you are far more likely to keep the cultural and symbolic links out of affection too.
Not all, Trinidad and Tobago is already a republic for example and Barbados will soon be a republic.
There is a difference between Indians having native hereditary monarchs and foreign hereditary monarchs, especially when most of them did not come from that country originally as was the case with the ancestors of Australians or New Zealanders for instance.
It is no surprise Southgate is more popular than Churchill.
Churchill was a fascist (keeping people under dominion of the UK against their will is fascism.)
Churchill was an Imperialist and quite definitely not a Fascist.
The fact that you can't detect the difference suggests that your terrible taste in clothes has caused structural damage - Long Fashion?
Imperialism is fascism.
Forcible suppression of opponents is a key characteristic of fascism, look at all the arrests of Indian independence figures.
Churchill had promised India dominion status after the war but of course that fell short of independence.
The time for the former was post WW1 not WW2. India might still be a Commonwealth realm today, and you could enjoy toasting the Queen across the subcontinent.
Possibly though the reason I think Canada, Australia and New Zealand are the only non UK nations of any significant size which still have the Queen as Head of State is most of their population have ancestors who originally came from the British Isles.
That does not apply to India
I'm mildly surprised that J❤️cinda hasn't held a referendum on becoming a republic. She's probably got enough popularity and political heft to get it done at the moment. Perhaps, like Australia, they are waiting for Brenda to drop off the twig.
I think the Aussies are waiting for a year of King Charles III.
I note that the well-heeled denizens of PB are on absolutely cracking form today.
Pensioners: £10K is plenty to live on assuming you're mortgage free and don't want to do anything at all; an 8% rise would be a total disgrace that the nation can't afford.
Workers: £100K+ salary: marginal tax rates are a total disgrace. Barely worth me getting out of bed to earn any more. May as well spend the day contributing to PB.
I don't think anyone is saying we can't afford an 8% increase in pensions, the comments relate to the fact it will look bad and create a whole set of other problems elsewhere. For example, I would love to see a minister justify a 1% payrise after that scale of increase
or 8% for pensioners and a £20 cut for UC claimants...
I note that the well-heeled denizens of PB are on absolutely cracking form today.
Pensioners: £10K is plenty to live on assuming you're mortgage free and don't want to do anything at all; an 8% rise would be a total disgrace that the nation can't afford.
Workers: £100K+ salary: marginal tax rates are a total disgrace. Barely worth me getting out of bed to earn any more. May as well spend the day contributing to PB.
Are those separate conversations with different people?
Owen Jones 🌹 @OwenJones84 · 1h The government is planning to reject an 8% increase in the state pension. But our state pension is one of the lowest in the Western world - an 8% increase is too low, not too much.
Mental. If labour take this line then they're fucked.
Some reports that Johnson may declare 19th July a national holiday.
Just for England? What about Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland?
We get one if Italy win
*banter*
Pizza and Birra Moretti for you on Sunday night?
Well Birra Moretti is made in Scotland....these days a fake Italian beer, owned by Heineken in many markets. Like so many major beer brands, it is just branding.
I had a friend who used to do PR for Highland Spring. About the only unbreakable rule was that no one mentioned anywhere, least of all on the bottle, that it had an Arab owner.
It is no surprise Southgate is more popular than Churchill.
Churchill was a fascist (keeping people under dominion of the UK against their will is fascism.)
Churchill was an Imperialist and quite definitely not a Fascist.
The fact that you can't detect the difference suggests that your terrible taste in clothes has caused structural damage - Long Fashion?
Imperialism is fascism.
Forcible suppression of opponents is a key characteristic of fascism, look at all the arrests of Indian independence figures.
Churchill had promised India dominion status after the war but of course that fell short of independence.
The time for the former was post WW1 not WW2. India might still be a Commonwealth realm today, and you could enjoy toasting the Queen across the subcontinent.
Well fully taking back control from unelected rulers was popular in India.
Who would want dominion status? It’s like being in the EU.
If the British Empire had continued, I think it's safe to assume that Britain would have voted to leave it by now, over free movement.
It is no surprise Southgate is more popular than Churchill.
Churchill was a fascist (keeping people under dominion of the UK against their will is fascism.)
Churchill was an Imperialist and quite definitely not a Fascist.
The fact that you can't detect the difference suggests that your terrible taste in clothes has caused structural damage - Long Fashion?
Imperialism is fascism.
Forcible suppression of opponents is a key characteristic of fascism, look at all the arrests of Indian independence figures.
Churchill had promised India dominion status after the war but of course that fell short of independence.
The time for the former was post WW1 not WW2. India might still be a Commonwealth realm today, and you could enjoy toasting the Queen across the subcontinent.
Possibly though the reason I think Canada, Australia and New Zealand are the only non UK nations of any significant size which still have the Queen as Head of State is most of their population have ancestors who originally came from the British Isles.
That does not apply to India
I'm mildly surprised that J❤️cinda hasn't held a referendum on becoming a republic. She's probably got enough popularity and political heft to get it done at the moment. Perhaps, like Australia, they are waiting for Brenda to drop off the twig.
She is a republican but has said it is not a priority though it could happen in her lifetime.
Morrison in Australia however is a monarchist so there will be no referendum in Australia unless Labor get back in. Remember too 55% of Australians voted to keep the monarchy in 1999.
Pensions should rise in line with inflation not earnings but the Tories are bound by their manifesto commitment until the next general election
Why? Do you want people who rely on the state pension only to keep getting poorer compared to the rest of the population.
Only if they are also prepared to face a cut in the state pension too as there was a large fall in average earnings over the last year and a half state pensioners were protected from.
Inflation reflects rises in prices in the shops so is what pensions should be based on
So you would be happy if your current pay was equally to the pay for the same job in 1910 plus inflation would you?
Inflation by definition means it would not be the same as pay for a job in 1910
Sorry I have no idea what you are saying. I was giving you an analogy. You seem happy that one group in society should only have their pay increased by inflation only forever, so I was asking you if you would be happy with that for yourself by accepting the pay for your job based upon the 1910 pay for it plus inflation.
You do appreciate don't you that, that would almost certainly be a much lower figure than you get now? Yet you are happy to impose that on others in society.
That's right. The earnings link is key. Without that, in a society growing more prosperous, a pension linked only to inflation would condemn those relying on it to abject relative poverty - and relative is the only meaningful metric here - over the long run. Time would work its magic and in this case it would be of the black variety.
No it wouldn't, as most pensioners do not have to pay rent or a mortgage unlike those working and earning as they own their own properties outright.
The only non tax payments most pensioners have to pay on a monthly basis are for shopping and the odd meal or trip out, which can be linked to inflation and they get free bus passes and Freedom Passes for London travel anyway
It would over time. That's certain given growth. We're talking relativities. It's why the earnings link was introduced.
It wouldn't, provided the state pension increased with inflation there would be no impact on spending in the shops and cafes which is what most pensioners spend most of their money on, inflation also rises with energy costs anyway too
H, you are arguing with maths not me. Given growth and people getting better off, earnings beating inflation, if your income rises only by inflation you will sink - all else being equal and in the long run - into abject relative poverty.
No you won't, given as a pensioner you will likely own your own home unlike those earning who will still have to pay mortgage or rent and you get free bus passes, cheap museum, cinema, theatre tickets, Freedom Passes in London etc too.
Good god you keep saying the same thing over and over again.
Do the maths. The actual value of the pension will diminish relative to earnings every year. Its maths!!! Eventually in many many years time it will be worthless if you do what you want.
All these freebies you mention: Do you want to know how many I have used since being retired - Zero, not one. Don't live in London, don't use a bus, rare as hens teeth here, never got a freebie or discount at a cinema or theatre cos I don't want to go to the matinee. You live in cloud cuckooland as far as pensioners are concerned. My life is no different to before I retired other than I have given up dangerous sports like skiing and catamaran sailing and squash, but I gave those up well before 65 and wish I could do them again but I might die if I did. other than that I lead a proper life and I'm not tucked up with my Ovaltine at 9 pm.
It is no surprise Southgate is more popular than Churchill.
Churchill was a fascist (keeping people under dominion of the UK against their will is fascism.)
Churchill was an Imperialist and quite definitely not a Fascist.
The fact that you can't detect the difference suggests that your terrible taste in clothes has caused structural damage - Long Fashion?
Imperialism is fascism.
Forcible suppression of opponents is a key characteristic of fascism, look at all the arrests of Indian independence figures.
Churchill had promised India dominion status after the war but of course that fell short of independence.
The time for the former was post WW1 not WW2. India might still be a Commonwealth realm today, and you could enjoy toasting the Queen across the subcontinent.
Possibly though the reason I think Canada, Australia and New Zealand are the only non UK nations of any significant size which still have the Queen as Head of State is most of their population have ancestors who originally came from the British Isles.
That does not apply to India
I'm mildly surprised that J❤️cinda hasn't held a referendum on becoming a republic. She's probably got enough popularity and political heft to get it done at the moment. Perhaps, like Australia, they are waiting for Brenda to drop off the twig.
I think the Aussies are waiting for a year of King Charles III.
Mr. Rook, HS2 is more popular the further north you go.
If the part connecting London to Birmingham is completed and the northern half cancelled that will not go down well.
MD , depends on where you stop, fact that Scotland is paying part of it and it will never ever reach here means it is far from popular here for certain.
So the Scottish Government is lieing?
The Scottish Government has not contributed any funds to the HS2 rail link budget; this is wholly funded by the UK Government.
Well, it's not the English Government that pays for it. So it presumably comes out of UK taxation - ergo our Scottish pockets (rather more than the CI pockets, no douby).
It is no surprise Southgate is more popular than Churchill.
Churchill was a fascist (keeping people under dominion of the UK against their will is fascism.)
Churchill was an Imperialist and quite definitely not a Fascist.
The fact that you can't detect the difference suggests that your terrible taste in clothes has caused structural damage - Long Fashion?
Imperialism is fascism.
Forcible suppression of opponents is a key characteristic of fascism, look at all the arrests of Indian independence figures.
Churchill had promised India dominion status after the war but of course that fell short of independence.
The time for the former was post WW1 not WW2. India might still be a Commonwealth realm today, and you could enjoy toasting the Queen across the subcontinent.
Well fully taking back control from unelected rulers was popular in India.
Who would want dominion status? It’s like being in the EU.
If the British Empire had continued, I think it's safe to assume that Britain would have voted to leave it by now, over free movement.
Not necessarily, I would expect most Britons would now live in Australia if we still had an Empire with free movement
It is no surprise Southgate is more popular than Churchill.
Churchill was a fascist (keeping people under dominion of the UK against their will is fascism.)
Churchill was an Imperialist and quite definitely not a Fascist.
The fact that you can't detect the difference suggests that your terrible taste in clothes has caused structural damage - Long Fashion?
Imperialism is fascism.
Forcible suppression of opponents is a key characteristic of fascism, look at all the arrests of Indian independence figures.
Churchill had promised India dominion status after the war but of course that fell short of independence.
The time for the former was post WW1 not WW2. India might still be a Commonwealth realm today, and you could enjoy toasting the Queen across the subcontinent.
Well fully taking back control from unelected rulers was popular in India.
Who would want dominion status? It’s like being in the EU.
If the British Empire had continued, I think it's safe to assume that Britain would have voted to leave it by now, over free movement.
That already happened in the 1960s and it was done by amending the British nationality laws.
I note that the well-heeled denizens of PB are on absolutely cracking form today.
Pensioners: £10K is plenty to live on assuming you're mortgage free and don't want to do anything at all; an 8% rise would be a total disgrace that the nation can't afford.
Workers: £100K+ salary: marginal tax rates are a total disgrace. Barely worth me getting out of bed to earn any more. May as well spend the day contributing to PB.
If you want us to increase your pension, allow us the chance to create the wealth to do it.
or in other words, stop supporting lockdowns and mask mandates, you stupid crusties.
Mr. Rook, HS2 is more popular the further north you go.
If the part connecting London to Birmingham is completed and the northern half cancelled that will not go down well.
MD , depends on where you stop, fact that Scotland is paying part of it and it will never ever reach here means it is far from popular here for certain.
So the Scottish Government is lieing?
The Scottish Government has not contributed any funds to the HS2 rail link budget; this is wholly funded by the UK Government.
Owen Jones 🌹 @OwenJones84 · 1h The government is planning to reject an 8% increase in the state pension. But our state pension is one of the lowest in the Western world - an 8% increase is too low, not too much.
Mental. If labour take this line then they're fucked.
Pensioners vote. They want that vote.
But they don't vote Labour. Younger people who work do, or might be persuaded to. Labour needs to project a radical vision of a different way to do things post-pandemic. Keeping everything the same isn't the obvious route.
Mr. Rook, HS2 is more popular the further north you go.
If the part connecting London to Birmingham is completed and the northern half cancelled that will not go down well.
MD , depends on where you stop, fact that Scotland is paying part of it and it will never ever reach here means it is far from popular here for certain.
So the Scottish Government is lieing?
The Scottish Government has not contributed any funds to the HS2 rail link budget; this is wholly funded by the UK Government.
Well, it's not the English Government that pays for it. So it presumably comes out of UK taxation - ergo our Scottish pockets (rather more than the CI pockets, no douby).
So nothing different wrt infrastructure spending in Scotland then, or any other part of the country.
It is no surprise Southgate is more popular than Churchill.
Churchill was a fascist (keeping people under dominion of the UK against their will is fascism.)
Churchill was an Imperialist and quite definitely not a Fascist.
The fact that you can't detect the difference suggests that your terrible taste in clothes has caused structural damage - Long Fashion?
Imperialism is fascism.
Forcible suppression of opponents is a key characteristic of fascism, look at all the arrests of Indian independence figures.
Churchill had promised India dominion status after the war but of course that fell short of independence.
The time for the former was post WW1 not WW2. India might still be a Commonwealth realm today, and you could enjoy toasting the Queen across the subcontinent.
Well fully taking back control from unelected rulers was popular in India.
Who would want dominion status? It’s like being in the EU.
If the British Empire had continued, I think it's safe to assume that Britain would have voted to leave it by now, over free movement.
Not necessarily, I would expect most Britons would now live in Australia if we still had an Empire with free movement
I note that the well-heeled denizens of PB are on absolutely cracking form today.
Pensioners: £10K is plenty to live on assuming you're mortgage free and don't want to do anything at all; an 8% rise would be a total disgrace that the nation can't afford.
Workers: £100K+ salary: marginal tax rates are a total disgrace. Barely worth me getting out of bed to earn any more. May as well spend the day contributing to PB.
Are those separate conversations with different people?
No, more a comment on how clueless several posters are on how difficult it is to live a decent life if you exist just on the state pension, as many do. About £800 a month really doesn't go far; about half of it is eaten up in unavoidable bills. The state pension should be significantly higher for those who have no other source of income. For wealthy pensioners, the rise could be clawed back through tweaks to tax/NI.
Owen Jones 🌹 @OwenJones84 · 1h The government is planning to reject an 8% increase in the state pension. But our state pension is one of the lowest in the Western world - an 8% increase is too low, not too much.
Mental. If labour take this line then they're fucked.
Pensioners vote. They want that vote.
Nor such you can equate Owen Jones twitter with Labour policy like that. Reeves is running economics now.
Some reports that Johnson may declare 19th July a national holiday.
Just for England? What about Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland?
We get one if Italy win
*banter*
Pizza and Birra Moretti for you on Sunday night?
Well Birra Moretti is made in Scotland....these days a fake Italian beer, owned by Heineken in many markets. Like so many major beer brands, it is just branding.
I had a friend who used to do PR for Highland Spring. About the only unbreakable rule was that no one mentioned anywhere, least of all on the bottle, that it had an Arab owner.
At least the chap would have a real sense of the value of good plain water.
An 8% rise for the OAPs and a 1% rise for the NHS staff will look odd. Especially if the NHS have been keeping the old gits alive.
It won't happen.
The only saving grace is that the low-hanging fruit have become the excess deaths of 2020. A lower pension bill than it would have been otherwise.
PS I'm 71 and I've still got my own teeth.
In an ideal world pensioners would all be guaranteed a comfortable retirement at public expense. But when so many working age people, and especially, children, face poverty it does seem odd to be hosing one group with money while cutting spending elsewhere. Personally I would like to see the government switch its focus to children - they are the future of this country and ultimately will be paying everyone's pensions in the long run. Let's do everything we can for them to lead long, happy and productive lives.
Why can other countries , supposedly inferior to Greta Britain , even small ones pay significantly higher pensions. This country has the smallest pension in the developed world.
Mostly as they have not faced up to the true costs. They generally have no pension 'fund' as such so the pensions are paid out of general tax revenues - so there are many non-elderly losers. In Spain most other state benefits are poor cf the UK. They are trying to cut back on pensions here but the lobby is howling with rage. One thing I've noticed anecdotally in Spain is that youngsters murdering parents/grandparents, etc seems to be a thing here!
Pensions should rise in line with inflation not earnings but the Tories are bound by their manifesto commitment until the next general election
Why? Do you want people who rely on the state pension only to keep getting poorer compared to the rest of the population.
Only if they are also prepared to face a cut in the state pension too as there was a large fall in average earnings over the last year and a half state pensioners were protected from.
Inflation reflects rises in prices in the shops so is what pensions should be based on
So you would be happy if your current pay was equally to the pay for the same job in 1910 plus inflation would you?
Inflation by definition means it would not be the same as pay for a job in 1910
Sorry I have no idea what you are saying. I was giving you an analogy. You seem happy that one group in society should only have their pay increased by inflation only forever, so I was asking you if you would be happy with that for yourself by accepting the pay for your job based upon the 1910 pay for it plus inflation.
You do appreciate don't you that, that would almost certainly be a much lower figure than you get now? Yet you are happy to impose that on others in society.
That's right. The earnings link is key. Without that, in a society growing more prosperous, a pension linked only to inflation would condemn those relying on it to abject relative poverty - and relative is the only meaningful metric here - over the long run. Time would work its magic and in this case it would be of the black variety.
No it wouldn't, as most pensioners do not have to pay rent or a mortgage unlike those working and earning as they own their own properties outright.
The only non tax payments most pensioners have to pay on a monthly basis are for shopping and the odd meal or trip out, which can be linked to inflation and they get free bus passes and Freedom Passes for London travel anyway
It would over time. That's certain given growth. We're talking relativities. It's why the earnings link was introduced.
It wouldn't, provided the state pension increased with inflation there would be no impact on spending in the shops and cafes which is what most pensioners spend most of their money on, inflation also rises with energy costs anyway too
H, you are arguing with maths not me. Given growth and people getting better off, earnings beating inflation, if your income rises only by inflation you will sink - all else being equal and in the long run - into abject relative poverty.
No you won't, given as a pensioner you will likely own your own home unlike those earning who will still have to pay mortgage or rent and you get free bus passes, cheap museum, cinema, theatre tickets, Freedom Passes in London etc too.
Good god you keep saying the same thing over and over again.
Do the maths. The actual value of the pension will diminish relative to earnings every year. Its maths!!! Eventually in many many years time it will be worthless if you do what you want.
All these freebies you mention: Do you want to know how many I have used since being retired - Zero, not one. Don't live in London, don't use a bus, rare as hens teeth here, never got a freebie or discount at a cinema or theatre cos I don't want to go to the matinee. You live in cloud cuckooland as far as pensioners are concerned. My life is no different to before I retired other than I have given up dangerous sports like skiing and catamaran sailing and squash, but I gave those up well before 65 and wish I could do them again but I might die if I did. other than that I lead a proper life and I'm not tucked up with my Ovaltine at 9 pm.
So what, most pensioners do not have mortgages or rents to pay which is the main outgoing cost earners in the workforce have to pay. It is the inflation rate in the shops pensioners need to worry about and the inflation link would be kept.
So you don't go to the cinema, theatre or museum and you don't use the bus and never travel to London and benefit from a Freedom pass, does not seem like you are living as full a life as a pensioner as you could.
Pensioners also get free sessions at the swimming pool and concessions for classes at the gym too if sport is your thing.
Some golf courses also offer discounted membership for over 65s too
I note that the well-heeled denizens of PB are on absolutely cracking form today.
Pensioners: £10K is plenty to live on assuming you're mortgage free and don't want to do anything at all; an 8% rise would be a total disgrace that the nation can't afford.
Workers: £100K+ salary: marginal tax rates are a total disgrace. Barely worth me getting out of bed to earn any more. May as well spend the day contributing to PB.
Are those separate conversations with different people?
No, more a comment on how clueless several posters are on how difficult it is to live a decent life if you exist just on the state pension, as many do. About £800 a month really doesn't go far; about half of it is eaten up in unavoidable bills. The state pension should be significantly higher for those who have no other source of income. For wealthy pensioners, the rise could be clawed back through tweaks to tax/NI.
I agree with that, and ending the triple lock would only harm those at the bottom.
I note that the well-heeled denizens of PB are on absolutely cracking form today.
Pensioners: £10K is plenty to live on assuming you're mortgage free and don't want to do anything at all; an 8% rise would be a total disgrace that the nation can't afford.
Workers: £100K+ salary: marginal tax rates are a total disgrace. Barely worth me getting out of bed to earn any more. May as well spend the day contributing to PB.
I don't think anyone is saying we can't afford an 8% increase in pensions, the comments relate to the fact it will look bad and create a whole set of other problems elsewhere. For example, I would love to see a minister justify a 1% payrise after that scale of increase
or 8% for pensioners and a £20 cut for UC claimants...
It just doesn't look good.
I agree about the £20 uplift to UC: it should be retained permanently. Of course, it only happened in the first place because of the pandemic, with the realisation that a lot more people would see how unspeakably low benefits are.
Some reports that Johnson may declare 19th July a national holiday.
Just for England? What about Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland?
We get one if Italy win
*banter*
Pizza and Birra Moretti for you on Sunday night?
Quite keen on that combo anyway, though developed a taste for Menabrea lately.
Fairly copacetic on the match result. If Gareth and his band of culturally marxist brothers win through I’ll enjoy the hypocrisy of the twats who have whined about taking the knee all the way through, if the Azzuri pull it off the bellowing of the ‘Jock c*nts’ brigade on Twitter will be as music to my ears.
That's a nice new word for me, copacetic. I'm not quite win/win like that but the biggest thing for me was at long last making the final rather than going out in a deeply harrowing semi.
"Truly Farty Brew" - Mmm. Yes indeed. I see her sometimes in Waitrose.
Pensions should rise in line with inflation not earnings but the Tories are bound by their manifesto commitment until the next general election
Why? Do you want people who rely on the state pension only to keep getting poorer compared to the rest of the population.
Only if they are also prepared to face a cut in the state pension too as there was a large fall in average earnings over the last year and a half state pensioners were protected from.
Inflation reflects rises in prices in the shops so is what pensions should be based on
So you would be happy if your current pay was equally to the pay for the same job in 1910 plus inflation would you?
Inflation by definition means it would not be the same as pay for a job in 1910
Sorry I have no idea what you are saying. I was giving you an analogy. You seem happy that one group in society should only have their pay increased by inflation only forever, so I was asking you if you would be happy with that for yourself by accepting the pay for your job based upon the 1910 pay for it plus inflation.
You do appreciate don't you that, that would almost certainly be a much lower figure than you get now? Yet you are happy to impose that on others in society.
That's right. The earnings link is key. Without that, in a society growing more prosperous, a pension linked only to inflation would condemn those relying on it to abject relative poverty - and relative is the only meaningful metric here - over the long run. Time would work its magic and in this case it would be of the black variety.
No it wouldn't, as most pensioners do not have to pay rent or a mortgage unlike those working and earning as they own their own properties outright.
The only non tax payments most pensioners have to pay on a monthly basis are for shopping and the odd meal or trip out, which can be linked to inflation and they get free bus passes and Freedom Passes for London travel anyway
It would over time. That's certain given growth. We're talking relativities. It's why the earnings link was introduced.
It wouldn't, provided the state pension increased with inflation there would be no impact on spending in the shops and cafes which is what most pensioners spend most of their money on, inflation also rises with energy costs anyway too
Bonkers, absolutely bonkers. Suggest you look at a few stats.
Also not only do you want to impose what funding a pensioner gets you seem to want to impose what they do with it which is limited to spending in shops and cafes. We are not all doddering old gits you know. Life doesn't stop at 65.
So you effectively want taxpayers who have rents or mortgages to pay to subsidise earnings linked state pensions for the 3/4 of pensioners who own their own home outright.
Plus pensioners get concessionary tickets to museums, cinemas etc too
Oh for goodness sake read my bloody posts.
A pension is not equivalent to a salary. It is always significantly less. This caters for your difference re mortgages.
Taxpayers are not being asked to subsidies pensions any more at all by linking pensions to earnings, because doh they are linked to earnings.
Status Quo is maintained, although many would argue the state pension should be a bigger percentage of average earning.
You on the other hand want to link the state pension to inflation which will reduce the percentage link to earnings every year making pensioners poorer and reducing the burden on the taxpayer year after year.
So thanks for confirming you want state pensions to continue to be linked to rises in earnings not inflation for the 3/4 of pensioners who own their own homes outright and for taxpayers who still have mortgages and rents to pay to fund it.
Not to mention most of those 3/4 will also have private pensions to call on too, indeed some will still have final salary pensions so no different to when they were earning.
Well that was clear from the beginning. Do you mean we didn't have to have this discussion?
Unlike you I have no desire to slowly put pensioners who rely on a state pension into poverty. The rest of us who have significant income have contributed generously to our state pension and will continue to do so through our taxes.
I have no desire to make those less fortunate than me worse off.
Re your comment about private and final salary schemes at the end of your post - You do realise don't you that when you retire you don't get the same amount as when you are working. This last post in particular and your other posts seem to imply you think you get the same money when retired as when working if you are in one of these schemes. You don't really believe that do you?
You are willing to put the burden on average earners with rents or mortgages to pay or even low earners struggling with rent to pay through taxation paying the earnings linked pensions of owner occupier pensioners often with substantial private pensions to call on too.
If you have worked for the same employer all your life and are on a final salary scheme, then that final salary will be very close to what you were earning when you retired.
First sentence: No I am not. Read my posts. The burden as a percentage is unchanged.
Second sentence: No it won't be. 2/3 at best and not many will be in that situation. What is more very few people outside of the public sector are on final salary schemes (and I think they are on 1/80 calculation, but I am no expert so that might be wrong) nor do most tend to work for the same employer for their whole life (except in public sector). However I won't disagree that the few that have this benefit are extremely lucky and probably more lucky than they deserve, but that doesn't mean that the rest should be penalised because of their good fortune.
It is still a burden the working rent and mortgage paying population have to continue to pay through their taxes to subsidise earnings related state pensions for owner occupying pensioners who often have substantial private pensions to call on too.
Linking the state pension to inflation would do fine for them and pensioners who do need the extra income as they are still paying rent can have that through increases in their housing benefit not a one size fits all state pension earnings related rise.
HYUFD I give up. You just keep saying the same thing over and over again.
re your 1st sentence - All tax is a burden. It is a judgement call. Do you want to get rid of the state pension? if so, say so. It is a valid position to take, but be honest about it. If not what you are proposing is bonkers.
Re your 2nd sentence - How many times have you said that and how many times have I responded?
It is no surprise Southgate is more popular than Churchill.
Churchill was a fascist (keeping people under dominion of the UK against their will is fascism.)
Churchill was an Imperialist and quite definitely not a Fascist.
The fact that you can't detect the difference suggests that your terrible taste in clothes has caused structural damage - Long Fashion?
Imperialism is fascism.
Forcible suppression of opponents is a key characteristic of fascism, look at all the arrests of Indian independence figures.
Churchill had promised India dominion status after the war but of course that fell short of independence.
The time for the former was post WW1 not WW2. India might still be a Commonwealth realm today, and you could enjoy toasting the Queen across the subcontinent.
Well fully taking back control from unelected rulers was popular in India.
Who would want dominion status? It’s like being in the EU.
If the British Empire had continued, I think it's safe to assume that Britain would have voted to leave it by now, over free movement.
Not necessarily, I would expect most Britons would now live in Australia if we still had an Empire with free movement
Then the Aussies would have left!
Unlikely given Australia has one of the lowest population densities in the world unlike us and a higher average income and better weather
It is no surprise Southgate is more popular than Churchill.
Churchill was a fascist (keeping people under dominion of the UK against their will is fascism.)
Churchill was an Imperialist and quite definitely not a Fascist.
The fact that you can't detect the difference suggests that your terrible taste in clothes has caused structural damage - Long Fashion?
Imperialism is fascism.
Forcible suppression of opponents is a key characteristic of fascism, look at all the arrests of Indian independence figures.
Churchill had promised India dominion status after the war but of course that fell short of independence.
The time for the former was post WW1 not WW2. India might still be a Commonwealth realm today, and you could enjoy toasting the Queen across the subcontinent.
Well fully taking back control from unelected rulers was popular in India.
Who would want dominion status? It’s like being in the EU.
If the British Empire had continued, I think it's safe to assume that Britain would have voted to leave it by now, over free movement.
That already happened in the 1960s and it was done by amending the British nationality laws.
Yes but by then the Empire was mostly over. When we had the Empire, there was free movement. It only became viewed as a problem when the direction of flow reversed after the war.
Pensions should rise in line with inflation not earnings but the Tories are bound by their manifesto commitment until the next general election
Why? Do you want people who rely on the state pension only to keep getting poorer compared to the rest of the population.
Only if they are also prepared to face a cut in the state pension too as there was a large fall in average earnings over the last year and a half state pensioners were protected from.
Inflation reflects rises in prices in the shops so is what pensions should be based on
So you would be happy if your current pay was equally to the pay for the same job in 1910 plus inflation would you?
Inflation by definition means it would not be the same as pay for a job in 1910
Sorry I have no idea what you are saying. I was giving you an analogy. You seem happy that one group in society should only have their pay increased by inflation only forever, so I was asking you if you would be happy with that for yourself by accepting the pay for your job based upon the 1910 pay for it plus inflation.
You do appreciate don't you that, that would almost certainly be a much lower figure than you get now? Yet you are happy to impose that on others in society.
That's right. The earnings link is key. Without that, in a society growing more prosperous, a pension linked only to inflation would condemn those relying on it to abject relative poverty - and relative is the only meaningful metric here - over the long run. Time would work its magic and in this case it would be of the black variety.
No it wouldn't, as most pensioners do not have to pay rent or a mortgage unlike those working and earning as they own their own properties outright.
The only non tax payments most pensioners have to pay on a monthly basis are for shopping and the odd meal or trip out, which can be linked to inflation and they get free bus passes and Freedom Passes for London travel anyway
It would over time. That's certain given growth. We're talking relativities. It's why the earnings link was introduced.
It wouldn't, provided the state pension increased with inflation there would be no impact on spending in the shops and cafes which is what most pensioners spend most of their money on, inflation also rises with energy costs anyway too
Bonkers, absolutely bonkers. Suggest you look at a few stats.
Also not only do you want to impose what funding a pensioner gets you seem to want to impose what they do with it which is limited to spending in shops and cafes. We are not all doddering old gits you know. Life doesn't stop at 65.
So you effectively want taxpayers who have rents or mortgages to pay to subsidise earnings linked state pensions for the 3/4 of pensioners who own their own home outright.
Plus pensioners get concessionary tickets to museums, cinemas etc too
Oh for goodness sake read my bloody posts.
A pension is not equivalent to a salary. It is always significantly less. This caters for your difference re mortgages.
Taxpayers are not being asked to subsidies pensions any more at all by linking pensions to earnings, because doh they are linked to earnings.
Status Quo is maintained, although many would argue the state pension should be a bigger percentage of average earning.
You on the other hand want to link the state pension to inflation which will reduce the percentage link to earnings every year making pensioners poorer and reducing the burden on the taxpayer year after year.
So thanks for confirming you want state pensions to continue to be linked to rises in earnings not inflation for the 3/4 of pensioners who own their own homes outright and for taxpayers who still have mortgages and rents to pay to fund it.
Not to mention most of those 3/4 will also have private pensions to call on too, indeed some will still have final salary pensions so no different to when they were earning.
Well that was clear from the beginning. Do you mean we didn't have to have this discussion?
Unlike you I have no desire to slowly put pensioners who rely on a state pension into poverty. The rest of us who have significant income have contributed generously to our state pension and will continue to do so through our taxes.
I have no desire to make those less fortunate than me worse off.
Re your comment about private and final salary schemes at the end of your post - You do realise don't you that when you retire you don't get the same amount as when you are working. This last post in particular and your other posts seem to imply you think you get the same money when retired as when working if you are in one of these schemes. You don't really believe that do you?
You are willing to put the burden on average earners with rents or mortgages to pay or even low earners struggling with rent to pay through taxation paying the earnings linked pensions of owner occupier pensioners often with substantial private pensions to call on too.
If you have worked for the same employer all your life and are on a final salary scheme, then that final salary will be very close to what you were earning when you retired.
First sentence: No I am not. Read my posts. The burden as a percentage is unchanged.
Second sentence: No it won't be. 2/3 at best and not many will be in that situation. What is more very few people outside of the public sector are on final salary schemes (and I think they are on 1/80 calculation, but I am no expert so that might be wrong) nor do most tend to work for the same employer for their whole life (except in public sector). However I won't disagree that the few that have this benefit are extremely lucky and probably more lucky than they deserve, but that doesn't mean that the rest should be penalised because of their good fortune.
It is still a burden the working rent and mortgage paying population have to continue to pay through their taxes to subsidise earnings related state pensions for owner occupying pensioners who often have substantial private pensions to call on too.
Linking the state pension to inflation would do fine for them and pensioners who do need the extra income as they are still paying rent can have that through increases in their housing benefit not a one size fits all state pension earnings related rise.
HYUFD I give up. You just keep saying the same thing over and over again.
re your 1st sentence - All tax is a burden. It is a judgement call. Do you want to get rid of the state pension? if so, say so. It is a valid position to take, but be honest about it. If not what you are proposing is bonkers.
Re your 2nd sentence - How many times have you said that and how many times have I responded?
No I don't want to get rid of the state pension, I just want to link it to inflation not require taxpayers to pay to link it to earnings.
Mr. Rook, HS2 is more popular the further north you go.
If the part connecting London to Birmingham is completed and the northern half cancelled that will not go down well.
MD , depends on where you stop, fact that Scotland is paying part of it and it will never ever reach here means it is far from popular here for certain.
So the Scottish Government is lieing?
The Scottish Government has not contributed any funds to the HS2 rail link budget; this is wholly funded by the UK Government.
Well, it's not the English Government that pays for it. So it presumably comes out of UK taxation - ergo our Scottish pockets (rather more than the CI pockets, no douby).
Carlotta thinks UK taxation = England, she finds it hard to get past that.
Some reports that Johnson may declare 19th July a national holiday.
Just for England? What about Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland?
We get one if Italy win
*banter*
Apparently this European football competition is a recent creation in its present form. Until 1980 only 4 teams were involved in the final stages. Post 1980 it became 8 teams - and has now increased to 24! A lot of fuss and hysteria over an event with little real history behind it.
Almost like lots of new countries came under the aegis of UEFA after the break up of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia and they had to expand the tournament from 8 to 16 then 24.
Pity it did not remain at 4 teams.
Wouldn't exactly be fair if the UEFA membership was many times that number.
The other aspect to remember is that many international associations couldn't afford the cost of participating in a tournament.
As football grew richer, it became less of an issue.
IIRC only 4 European countries participated in the first world cup because of the cost of travelling to Uruguay.
In 1930, it would have taken three or four weeks to get to Uruguay from Europe. Then three or four weeks more, to get home again.
reported earlier that Pfizer and partner BioNTech plan to seek authorisation for a third booster dose of coronavirus vaccine in Europe, the US and Asia.
But the EU's regulator body says it is too early to determine whether any more than two jabs would be called for.
The European Medicines Agency says it is confident for now that two doses are "sufficient".
I note that the well-heeled denizens of PB are on absolutely cracking form today.
Pensioners: £10K is plenty to live on assuming you're mortgage free and don't want to do anything at all; an 8% rise would be a total disgrace that the nation can't afford.
Workers: £100K+ salary: marginal tax rates are a total disgrace. Barely worth me getting out of bed to earn any more. May as well spend the day contributing to PB.
If you want us to increase your pension, allow us the chance to create the wealth to do it.
or in other words, stop supporting lockdowns and mask mandates, you stupid crusties.
You're clueless, as well as rude. I have no skin in the game - I'm not old enough for a state pension.
Mr. Rook, HS2 is more popular the further north you go.
If the part connecting London to Birmingham is completed and the northern half cancelled that will not go down well.
MD , depends on where you stop, fact that Scotland is paying part of it and it will never ever reach here means it is far from popular here for certain.
So the Scottish Government is lieing?
The Scottish Government has not contributed any funds to the HS2 rail link budget; this is wholly funded by the UK Government.
Well, it's not the English Government that pays for it. So it presumably comes out of UK taxation - ergo our Scottish pockets (rather more than the CI pockets, no douby).
So nothing different wrt infrastructure spending in Scotland then, or any other part of the country.
So the fact that the Scottish Government had to fully fund the Forth Crossing was just the same then.
Pensions should rise in line with inflation not earnings but the Tories are bound by their manifesto commitment until the next general election
Why? Do you want people who rely on the state pension only to keep getting poorer compared to the rest of the population.
Only if they are also prepared to face a cut in the state pension too as there was a large fall in average earnings over the last year and a half state pensioners were protected from.
Inflation reflects rises in prices in the shops so is what pensions should be based on
So you would be happy if your current pay was equally to the pay for the same job in 1910 plus inflation would you?
Inflation by definition means it would not be the same as pay for a job in 1910
Sorry I have no idea what you are saying. I was giving you an analogy. You seem happy that one group in society should only have their pay increased by inflation only forever, so I was asking you if you would be happy with that for yourself by accepting the pay for your job based upon the 1910 pay for it plus inflation.
You do appreciate don't you that, that would almost certainly be a much lower figure than you get now? Yet you are happy to impose that on others in society.
That's right. The earnings link is key. Without that, in a society growing more prosperous, a pension linked only to inflation would condemn those relying on it to abject relative poverty - and relative is the only meaningful metric here - over the long run. Time would work its magic and in this case it would be of the black variety.
No it wouldn't, as most pensioners do not have to pay rent or a mortgage unlike those working and earning as they own their own properties outright.
The only non tax payments most pensioners have to pay on a monthly basis are for shopping and the odd meal or trip out, which can be linked to inflation and they get free bus passes and Freedom Passes for London travel anyway
It would over time. That's certain given growth. We're talking relativities. It's why the earnings link was introduced.
It wouldn't, provided the state pension increased with inflation there would be no impact on spending in the shops and cafes which is what most pensioners spend most of their money on, inflation also rises with energy costs anyway too
Bonkers, absolutely bonkers. Suggest you look at a few stats.
Also not only do you want to impose what funding a pensioner gets you seem to want to impose what they do with it which is limited to spending in shops and cafes. We are not all doddering old gits you know. Life doesn't stop at 65.
So you effectively want taxpayers who have rents or mortgages to pay to subsidise earnings linked state pensions for the 3/4 of pensioners who own their own home outright.
Plus pensioners get concessionary tickets to museums, cinemas etc too
Oh for goodness sake read my bloody posts.
A pension is not equivalent to a salary. It is always significantly less. This caters for your difference re mortgages.
Taxpayers are not being asked to subsidies pensions any more at all by linking pensions to earnings, because doh they are linked to earnings.
Status Quo is maintained, although many would argue the state pension should be a bigger percentage of average earning.
You on the other hand want to link the state pension to inflation which will reduce the percentage link to earnings every year making pensioners poorer and reducing the burden on the taxpayer year after year.
So thanks for confirming you want state pensions to continue to be linked to rises in earnings not inflation for the 3/4 of pensioners who own their own homes outright and for taxpayers who still have mortgages and rents to pay to fund it.
Not to mention most of those 3/4 will also have private pensions to call on too, indeed some will still have final salary pensions so no different to when they were earning.
Well that was clear from the beginning. Do you mean we didn't have to have this discussion?
Unlike you I have no desire to slowly put pensioners who rely on a state pension into poverty. The rest of us who have significant income have contributed generously to our state pension and will continue to do so through our taxes.
I have no desire to make those less fortunate than me worse off.
Re your comment about private and final salary schemes at the end of your post - You do realise don't you that when you retire you don't get the same amount as when you are working. This last post in particular and your other posts seem to imply you think you get the same money when retired as when working if you are in one of these schemes. You don't really believe that do you?
You are willing to put the burden on average earners with rents or mortgages to pay or even low earners struggling with rent to pay through taxation paying the earnings linked pensions of owner occupier pensioners often with substantial private pensions to call on too.
If you have worked for the same employer all your life and are on a final salary scheme, then that final salary will be very close to what you were earning when you retired.
First sentence: No I am not. Read my posts. The burden as a percentage is unchanged.
Second sentence: No it won't be. 2/3 at best and not many will be in that situation. What is more very few people outside of the public sector are on final salary schemes (and I think they are on 1/80 calculation, but I am no expert so that might be wrong) nor do most tend to work for the same employer for their whole life (except in public sector). However I won't disagree that the few that have this benefit are extremely lucky and probably more lucky than they deserve, but that doesn't mean that the rest should be penalised because of their good fortune.
It is still a burden the working rent and mortgage paying population have to continue to pay through their taxes to subsidise earnings related state pensions for owner occupying pensioners who often have substantial private pensions to call on too.
Linking the state pension to inflation would do fine for them and pensioners who do need the extra income as they are still paying rent can have that through increases in their housing benefit not a one size fits all state pension earnings related rise.
HYUFD I give up. You just keep saying the same thing over and over again.
re your 1st sentence - All tax is a burden. It is a judgement call. Do you want to get rid of the state pension? if so, say so. It is a valid position to take, but be honest about it. If not what you are proposing is bonkers.
Re your 2nd sentence - How many times have you said that and how many times have I responded?
No I don't want to get rid of the state pension, I just want to link it to inflation not require taxpayers to pay to link it to earnings.
What's wrong with the good old Henry VIII approach? Make the buggers beg outside the local C of E on Sundays at noon. No taxation, automatic indexation with what the parishioners had to spare, problem solved.
Pensions should rise in line with inflation not earnings but the Tories are bound by their manifesto commitment until the next general election
Why? Do you want people who rely on the state pension only to keep getting poorer compared to the rest of the population.
Only if they are also prepared to face a cut in the state pension too as there was a large fall in average earnings over the last year and a half state pensioners were protected from.
Inflation reflects rises in prices in the shops so is what pensions should be based on
So you would be happy if your current pay was equally to the pay for the same job in 1910 plus inflation would you?
Inflation by definition means it would not be the same as pay for a job in 1910
Sorry I have no idea what you are saying. I was giving you an analogy. You seem happy that one group in society should only have their pay increased by inflation only forever, so I was asking you if you would be happy with that for yourself by accepting the pay for your job based upon the 1910 pay for it plus inflation.
You do appreciate don't you that, that would almost certainly be a much lower figure than you get now? Yet you are happy to impose that on others in society.
That's right. The earnings link is key. Without that, in a society growing more prosperous, a pension linked only to inflation would condemn those relying on it to abject relative poverty - and relative is the only meaningful metric here - over the long run. Time would work its magic and in this case it would be of the black variety.
No it wouldn't, as most pensioners do not have to pay rent or a mortgage unlike those working and earning as they own their own properties outright.
The only non tax payments most pensioners have to pay on a monthly basis are for shopping and the odd meal or trip out, which can be linked to inflation and they get free bus passes and Freedom Passes for London travel anyway
It would over time. That's certain given growth. We're talking relativities. It's why the earnings link was introduced.
It wouldn't, provided the state pension increased with inflation there would be no impact on spending in the shops and cafes which is what most pensioners spend most of their money on, inflation also rises with energy costs anyway too
Bonkers, absolutely bonkers. Suggest you look at a few stats.
Also not only do you want to impose what funding a pensioner gets you seem to want to impose what they do with it which is limited to spending in shops and cafes. We are not all doddering old gits you know. Life doesn't stop at 65.
So you effectively want taxpayers who have rents or mortgages to pay to subsidise earnings linked state pensions for the 3/4 of pensioners who own their own home outright.
Plus pensioners get concessionary tickets to museums, cinemas etc too
Oh for goodness sake read my bloody posts.
A pension is not equivalent to a salary. It is always significantly less. This caters for your difference re mortgages.
Taxpayers are not being asked to subsidies pensions any more at all by linking pensions to earnings, because doh they are linked to earnings.
Status Quo is maintained, although many would argue the state pension should be a bigger percentage of average earning.
You on the other hand want to link the state pension to inflation which will reduce the percentage link to earnings every year making pensioners poorer and reducing the burden on the taxpayer year after year.
So thanks for confirming you want state pensions to continue to be linked to rises in earnings not inflation for the 3/4 of pensioners who own their own homes outright and for taxpayers who still have mortgages and rents to pay to fund it.
Not to mention most of those 3/4 will also have private pensions to call on too, indeed some will still have final salary pensions so no different to when they were earning.
Well that was clear from the beginning. Do you mean we didn't have to have this discussion?
Unlike you I have no desire to slowly put pensioners who rely on a state pension into poverty. The rest of us who have significant income have contributed generously to our state pension and will continue to do so through our taxes.
I have no desire to make those less fortunate than me worse off.
Re your comment about private and final salary schemes at the end of your post - You do realise don't you that when you retire you don't get the same amount as when you are working. This last post in particular and your other posts seem to imply you think you get the same money when retired as when working if you are in one of these schemes. You don't really believe that do you?
You are willing to put the burden on average earners with rents or mortgages to pay or even low earners struggling with rent to pay through taxation paying the earnings linked pensions of owner occupier pensioners often with substantial private pensions to call on too.
If you have worked for the same employer all your life and are on a final salary scheme, then that final salary will be very close to what you were earning when you retired.
First sentence: No I am not. Read my posts. The burden as a percentage is unchanged.
Second sentence: No it won't be. 2/3 at best and not many will be in that situation. What is more very few people outside of the public sector are on final salary schemes (and I think they are on 1/80 calculation, but I am no expert so that might be wrong) nor do most tend to work for the same employer for their whole life (except in public sector). However I won't disagree that the few that have this benefit are extremely lucky and probably more lucky than they deserve, but that doesn't mean that the rest should be penalised because of their good fortune.
It is still a burden the working rent and mortgage paying population have to continue to pay through their taxes to subsidise earnings related state pensions for owner occupying pensioners who often have substantial private pensions to call on too.
Linking the state pension to inflation would do fine for them and pensioners who do need the extra income as they are still paying rent can have that through increases in their housing benefit not a one size fits all state pension earnings related rise.
HYUFD I give up. You just keep saying the same thing over and over again.
re your 1st sentence - All tax is a burden. It is a judgement call. Do you want to get rid of the state pension? if so, say so. It is a valid position to take, but be honest about it. If not what you are proposing is bonkers.
Re your 2nd sentence - How many times have you said that and how many times have I responded?
No I don't want to get rid of the state pension, I just want to link it to inflation not require taxpayers to pay to link it to earnings.
Were you opposed to the triple lock when it was brought in?
Pensions should rise in line with inflation not earnings but the Tories are bound by their manifesto commitment until the next general election
Why? Do you want people who rely on the state pension only to keep getting poorer compared to the rest of the population.
Only if they are also prepared to face a cut in the state pension too as there was a large fall in average earnings over the last year and a half state pensioners were protected from.
Inflation reflects rises in prices in the shops so is what pensions should be based on
So you would be happy if your current pay was equally to the pay for the same job in 1910 plus inflation would you?
Inflation by definition means it would not be the same as pay for a job in 1910
Sorry I have no idea what you are saying. I was giving you an analogy. You seem happy that one group in society should only have their pay increased by inflation only forever, so I was asking you if you would be happy with that for yourself by accepting the pay for your job based upon the 1910 pay for it plus inflation.
You do appreciate don't you that, that would almost certainly be a much lower figure than you get now? Yet you are happy to impose that on others in society.
That's right. The earnings link is key. Without that, in a society growing more prosperous, a pension linked only to inflation would condemn those relying on it to abject relative poverty - and relative is the only meaningful metric here - over the long run. Time would work its magic and in this case it would be of the black variety.
No it wouldn't, as most pensioners do not have to pay rent or a mortgage unlike those working and earning as they own their own properties outright.
The only non tax payments most pensioners have to pay on a monthly basis are for shopping and the odd meal or trip out, which can be linked to inflation and they get free bus passes and Freedom Passes for London travel anyway
It would over time. That's certain given growth. We're talking relativities. It's why the earnings link was introduced.
It wouldn't, provided the state pension increased with inflation there would be no impact on spending in the shops and cafes which is what most pensioners spend most of their money on, inflation also rises with energy costs anyway too
Bonkers, absolutely bonkers. Suggest you look at a few stats.
Also not only do you want to impose what funding a pensioner gets you seem to want to impose what they do with it which is limited to spending in shops and cafes. We are not all doddering old gits you know. Life doesn't stop at 65.
So you effectively want taxpayers who have rents or mortgages to pay to subsidise earnings linked state pensions for the 3/4 of pensioners who own their own home outright.
Plus pensioners get concessionary tickets to museums, cinemas etc too
Oh for goodness sake read my bloody posts.
A pension is not equivalent to a salary. It is always significantly less. This caters for your difference re mortgages.
Taxpayers are not being asked to subsidies pensions any more at all by linking pensions to earnings, because doh they are linked to earnings.
Status Quo is maintained, although many would argue the state pension should be a bigger percentage of average earning.
You on the other hand want to link the state pension to inflation which will reduce the percentage link to earnings every year making pensioners poorer and reducing the burden on the taxpayer year after year.
So thanks for confirming you want state pensions to continue to be linked to rises in earnings not inflation for the 3/4 of pensioners who own their own homes outright and for taxpayers who still have mortgages and rents to pay to fund it.
Not to mention most of those 3/4 will also have private pensions to call on too, indeed some will still have final salary pensions so no different to when they were earning.
Well that was clear from the beginning. Do you mean we didn't have to have this discussion?
Unlike you I have no desire to slowly put pensioners who rely on a state pension into poverty. The rest of us who have significant income have contributed generously to our state pension and will continue to do so through our taxes.
I have no desire to make those less fortunate than me worse off.
Re your comment about private and final salary schemes at the end of your post - You do realise don't you that when you retire you don't get the same amount as when you are working. This last post in particular and your other posts seem to imply you think you get the same money when retired as when working if you are in one of these schemes. You don't really believe that do you?
You are willing to put the burden on average earners with rents or mortgages to pay or even low earners struggling with rent to pay through taxation paying the earnings linked pensions of owner occupier pensioners often with substantial private pensions to call on too.
If you have worked for the same employer all your life and are on a final salary scheme, then that final salary will be very close to what you were earning when you retired.
First sentence: No I am not. Read my posts. The burden as a percentage is unchanged.
Second sentence: No it won't be. 2/3 at best and not many will be in that situation. What is more very few people outside of the public sector are on final salary schemes (and I think they are on 1/80 calculation, but I am no expert so that might be wrong) nor do most tend to work for the same employer for their whole life (except in public sector). However I won't disagree that the few that have this benefit are extremely lucky and probably more lucky than they deserve, but that doesn't mean that the rest should be penalised because of their good fortune.
It is still a burden the working rent and mortgage paying population have to continue to pay through their taxes to subsidise earnings related state pensions for owner occupying pensioners who often have substantial private pensions to call on too.
Linking the state pension to inflation would do fine for them and pensioners who do need the extra income as they are still paying rent can have that through increases in their housing benefit not a one size fits all state pension earnings related rise.
HYUFD I give up. You just keep saying the same thing over and over again.
re your 1st sentence - All tax is a burden. It is a judgement call. Do you want to get rid of the state pension? if so, say so. It is a valid position to take, but be honest about it. If not what you are proposing is bonkers.
Re your 2nd sentence - How many times have you said that and how many times have I responded?
No I don't want to get rid of the state pension, I just want to link it to inflation not require taxpayers to pay to link it to earnings.
Were you opposed to the triple lock when it was brought in?
Mr. Rook, HS2 is more popular the further north you go.
If the part connecting London to Birmingham is completed and the northern half cancelled that will not go down well.
MD , depends on where you stop, fact that Scotland is paying part of it and it will never ever reach here means it is far from popular here for certain.
So the Scottish Government is lieing?
The Scottish Government has not contributed any funds to the HS2 rail link budget; this is wholly funded by the UK Government.
Well, it's not the English Government that pays for it. So it presumably comes out of UK taxation - ergo our Scottish pockets (rather more than the CI pockets, no douby).
when the UK government increases spending which doesn't affect a devolved nation, that devolved nation receives money, equivalent to its population share, back to spend itself. This is the case with HS2 and Scotland which means that, in effect, all money spent on HS2 which is raised by Scottish taxes will be returned via something called the Barnett formula.
Some reports that Johnson may declare 19th July a national holiday.
Just for England? What about Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland?
We get one if Italy win
*banter*
Pizza and Birra Moretti for you on Sunday night?
Well Birra Moretti is made in Scotland....these days a fake Italian beer, owned by Heineken in many markets. Like so many major beer brands, it is just branding.
I had a friend who used to do PR for Highland Spring. About the only unbreakable rule was that no one mentioned anywhere, least of all on the bottle, that it had an Arab owner.
At least the chap would have a real sense of the value of good plain water.
Just browsed this minute through the HS website - good to see they have the mandatory Modern Slavery Act info. I wonder what and where the applicability of that is.
It is no surprise Southgate is more popular than Churchill.
Churchill was a fascist (keeping people under dominion of the UK against their will is fascism.)
Churchill was an Imperialist and quite definitely not a Fascist.
The fact that you can't detect the difference suggests that your terrible taste in clothes has caused structural damage - Long Fashion?
Imperialism is fascism.
Forcible suppression of opponents is a key characteristic of fascism, look at all the arrests of Indian independence figures.
Churchill had promised India dominion status after the war but of course that fell short of independence.
The time for the former was post WW1 not WW2. India might still be a Commonwealth realm today, and you could enjoy toasting the Queen across the subcontinent.
Well fully taking back control from unelected rulers was popular in India.
Who would want dominion status? It’s like being in the EU.
If the British Empire had continued, I think it's safe to assume that Britain would have voted to leave it by now, over free movement.
Not necessarily, I would expect most Britons would now live in Australia if we still had an Empire with free movement
Then the Aussies would have left!
Unlikely given Australia has one of the lowest population densities in the world unlike us and a higher average income and better weather
We have a higher average income than Poland. That didn't stop people moaning when they showed up over here. We've just negotiated a trade deal with Australia, I am sure if they had any appetite to open their borders to us it would have been on the table. I'm not totally sure about this, but I believe they have a points based immigration system, and I am sure any Brits who meet the criteria are welcome in.
Pensions should rise in line with inflation not earnings but the Tories are bound by their manifesto commitment until the next general election
Why? Do you want people who rely on the state pension only to keep getting poorer compared to the rest of the population.
Only if they are also prepared to face a cut in the state pension too as there was a large fall in average earnings over the last year and a half state pensioners were protected from.
Inflation reflects rises in prices in the shops so is what pensions should be based on
So you would be happy if your current pay was equally to the pay for the same job in 1910 plus inflation would you?
Inflation by definition means it would not be the same as pay for a job in 1910
Sorry I have no idea what you are saying. I was giving you an analogy. You seem happy that one group in society should only have their pay increased by inflation only forever, so I was asking you if you would be happy with that for yourself by accepting the pay for your job based upon the 1910 pay for it plus inflation.
You do appreciate don't you that, that would almost certainly be a much lower figure than you get now? Yet you are happy to impose that on others in society.
That's right. The earnings link is key. Without that, in a society growing more prosperous, a pension linked only to inflation would condemn those relying on it to abject relative poverty - and relative is the only meaningful metric here - over the long run. Time would work its magic and in this case it would be of the black variety.
No it wouldn't, as most pensioners do not have to pay rent or a mortgage unlike those working and earning as they own their own properties outright.
The only non tax payments most pensioners have to pay on a monthly basis are for shopping and the odd meal or trip out, which can be linked to inflation and they get free bus passes and Freedom Passes for London travel anyway
It would over time. That's certain given growth. We're talking relativities. It's why the earnings link was introduced.
It wouldn't, provided the state pension increased with inflation there would be no impact on spending in the shops and cafes which is what most pensioners spend most of their money on, inflation also rises with energy costs anyway too
H, you are arguing with maths not me. Given growth and people getting better off, earnings beating inflation, if your income rises only by inflation you will sink - all else being equal and in the long run - into abject relative poverty.
No you won't, given as a pensioner you will likely own your own home unlike those earning who will still have to pay mortgage or rent and you get free bus passes, cheap museum, cinema, theatre tickets, Freedom Passes in London etc too.
Good god you keep saying the same thing over and over again.
Do the maths. The actual value of the pension will diminish relative to earnings every year. Its maths!!! Eventually in many many years time it will be worthless if you do what you want.
All these freebies you mention: Do you want to know how many I have used since being retired - Zero, not one. Don't live in London, don't use a bus, rare as hens teeth here, never got a freebie or discount at a cinema or theatre cos I don't want to go to the matinee. You live in cloud cuckooland as far as pensioners are concerned. My life is no different to before I retired other than I have given up dangerous sports like skiing and catamaran sailing and squash, but I gave those up well before 65 and wish I could do them again but I might die if I did. other than that I lead a proper life and I'm not tucked up with my Ovaltine at 9 pm.
So what, most pensioners do not have mortgages or rents to pay which is the main outgoing cost earners in the workforce have to pay. It is the inflation rate in the shops pensioners need to worry about and the inflation link would be kept.
So you don't go to the cinema, theatre or museum and you don't use the bus and never travel to London and benefit from a Freedom pass, does not seem like you are living as full a life as a pensioner as you could.
Pensioners also get free sessions at the swimming pool and concessions for classes at the gym too if sport is your thing.
Some golf courses also offer discounted membership for over 65s too
You really don't read my posts do you? Did I say I didn't go to the theatre and cinema? Did I? No I didn't.
And I don't live in London so I am not entitled to the freedom pass either.
Mr. Rook, HS2 is more popular the further north you go.
If the part connecting London to Birmingham is completed and the northern half cancelled that will not go down well.
MD , depends on where you stop, fact that Scotland is paying part of it and it will never ever reach here means it is far from popular here for certain.
So the Scottish Government is lieing?
The Scottish Government has not contributed any funds to the HS2 rail link budget; this is wholly funded by the UK Government.
Well, it's not the English Government that pays for it. So it presumably comes out of UK taxation - ergo our Scottish pockets (rather more than the CI pockets, no douby).
HS2 is paid for from the common pot; however, a population proportionate share of the cost is returned to Scotland under Barnett, so Scottish taxpayers effectively contribute nothing to it. Ditto the Northern Irish.
However, if what I've read is correct, HS2 counts as a project benefitting England and Wales rather than England alone, so the Welsh Government doesn't get any extra money. Cardiff gets the shit end of the stick once again.
Mr. Rook, HS2 is more popular the further north you go.
If the part connecting London to Birmingham is completed and the northern half cancelled that will not go down well.
MD , depends on where you stop, fact that Scotland is paying part of it and it will never ever reach here means it is far from popular here for certain.
So the Scottish Government is lieing?
The Scottish Government has not contributed any funds to the HS2 rail link budget; this is wholly funded by the UK Government.
Well, it's not the English Government that pays for it. So it presumably comes out of UK taxation - ergo our Scottish pockets (rather more than the CI pockets, no douby).
So nothing different wrt infrastructure spending in Scotland then, or any other part of the country.
So the fact that the Scottish Government had to fully fund the Forth Crossing was just the same then.
'A poll in French paper L'Equipe - in English, The Team - revealed that of 80,000 respondents, 69 per cent said they would support Italy while 11 per cent said they would support neither side.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen threwhas also thrown her support behind the Italian team on Friday.
Her spokesperson told reporters: 'Her heart is with the Squadra Azzurra so she will be supporting Italy on Sunday.'
Yes but by then the Empire was mostly over. When we had the Empire, there was free movement. It only became viewed as a problem when the direction of flow reversed after the war.
If given the opportunity instead of being crushed under the heel of imperialism India would certainly have voted against FoM from GB to India in the 18th and 19th centuries.
'A poll in French paper L'Equipe - in English, The Team - revealed that of 80,000 respondents, 69 per cent said they would support Italy while 11 per cent said they would support neither side.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen threwhas also thrown her support behind the Italian team on Friday.
Her spokesperson told reporters: 'Her heart is with the Squadra Azzurra so she will be supporting Italy on Sunday.'
Mr. Rook, HS2 is more popular the further north you go.
If the part connecting London to Birmingham is completed and the northern half cancelled that will not go down well.
MD , depends on where you stop, fact that Scotland is paying part of it and it will never ever reach here means it is far from popular here for certain.
So the Scottish Government is lieing?
The Scottish Government has not contributed any funds to the HS2 rail link budget; this is wholly funded by the UK Government.
Well, it's not the English Government that pays for it. So it presumably comes out of UK taxation - ergo our Scottish pockets (rather more than the CI pockets, no douby).
when the UK government increases spending which doesn't affect a devolved nation, that devolved nation receives money, equivalent to its population share, back to spend itself. This is the case with HS2 and Scotland which means that, in effect, all money spent on HS2 which is raised by Scottish taxes will be returned via something called the Barnett formula.
Comments
Sources said that coach Roberto Mancini and the entire squad had all received their vaccinations.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/15542111/italy-coronavirus-journalists-positive-euros/
Occupation of Poland etc = Bad
Occupation of India etc = Good
I'm simply not that interested at those tax rates, unless it's a massive step up to £130-140k per year, so I'm basically treading water.
The weirdest thing was that when we had the HUGE campaign about "the bedroom tax", it was aiui basically bringing the Social Rented Sector into line with the PRS - you don't get HB for 2 bedrooms if you are a singleton - and Shelter et al had done precisely nothing for the people in the PRS they allege they campaign for on that particular question.
Perfectly reasonable to support Italy.
I have just got a letter from my bank saying the interest rate on my cash ISAs has dropped from 0.05% to 0.01%.
Actually, this would be the exact right time for Sunak to end ISAs.
It's the same reason why me getting promoted is good news but my colleague getting the promotion is bad news.
If you have worked for the same employer all your life and are on a final salary scheme, then that final salary will be very close to what you were earning when you retired.
They need to go to a spec. chassis, let the teams just do the aero and have a choice of powertrains from two or three OEMs.
The fact they did not suggests our rule was not that bad and certainly not as bad as the Nazi occupation of Poland.
Churchill was an Imperialist who correctly recognised that once we lost India we would cease to be a superpower, on that he was correct. Morally he may have been wrong to do so and it was right to give India independence but in terms of global power projection he was correct
The Scottish Government has not contributed any funds to the HS2 rail link budget; this is wholly funded by the UK Government.
https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202000015934/
Lukashenka seems more of a crude strong man dictator and Kim Jong Un is a hereditary monarch presiding over a weird pastiche of religion and Communism.
It's at very high personal risk to do anything different.
Second sentence: No it won't be. 2/3 at best and not many will be in that situation. What is more very few people outside of the public sector are on final salary schemes (and I think they are on 1/80 calculation, but I am no expert so that might be wrong) nor do most tend to work for the same employer for their whole life (except in public sector). However I won't disagree that the few that have this benefit are extremely lucky and probably more lucky than they deserve, but that doesn't mean that the rest should be penalised because of their good fortune.
Not good at all.
The time for the former was post WW1 not WW2. India might still be a Commonwealth realm today, and you could enjoy toasting the Queen across the subcontinent.
Fairly copacetic on the match result. If Gareth and his band of culturally marxist brothers win through I’ll enjoy the hypocrisy of the twats who have whined about taking the knee all the way through, if the Azzuri pull it off the bellowing of the ‘Jock c*nts’ brigade on Twitter will be as music to my ears.
On the former..
https://twitter.com/mikegove12/status/1413219175150112772?s=21
The Bengal Famine happened on Churchill’s watch, made worse by his policies.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/29/winston-churchill-policies-contributed-to-1943-bengal-famine-study?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Or like Commie defenders will you say like The Great Leap Forward, there was no ignoble motive and we should give Churchill a pass?
That does not apply to India
The problem Sunak has is not whether to break the triple lock per se (it is obvious that it should be removed) - it is whether to break a manifesto pledge. The CP would be hammered for doing so, both within and outside of the party.
My view is that manifest pledges are for the birds in the Covid crisis. Set them aside. The CP should get a free pass on this. But this is logic speaking not political reality.
I think they will keep the lock but not make the pledge again in the next manifesto.
Who would want dominion status? It’s like being in the EU.
Linking the state pension to inflation would do fine for them and pensioners who do need the extra income as they are still paying rent can have that through increases in their housing benefit not a one size fits all state pension earnings related rise.
Pensioners: £10K is plenty to live on assuming you're mortgage free and don't want to do anything at all; an 8% rise would be a total disgrace that the nation can't afford.
Workers: £100K+ salary: marginal tax rates are a total disgrace. Barely worth me getting out of bed to earn any more. May as well spend the day contributing to PB.
At the end of the day if you devolve the substance of democracy and self-government you are far more likely to keep the cultural and symbolic links out of affection too.
Which, I guess is why we are hearing about this now.
*Edit. To murder. He confessed to rape and kidnap earlier.
And you call Churchill inconsistent. You're like a conflicted Scotsman on Sunday.
Andrew Lilico
@andrew_lilico
·
1h
0.61%. Up well over 50% on the week.
There is a difference between Indians having native hereditary monarchs and foreign hereditary monarchs, especially when most of them did not come from that country originally as was the case with the ancestors of Australians or New Zealanders for instance.
I agree on the devolve point
or 8% for pensioners and a £20 cut for UC claimants...
It just doesn't look good.
Morrison in Australia however is a monarchist so there will be no referendum in Australia unless Labor get back in. Remember too 55% of Australians voted to keep the monarchy in 1999.
Do the maths. The actual value of the pension will diminish relative to earnings every year. Its maths!!! Eventually in many many years time it will be worthless if you do what you want.
All these freebies you mention: Do you want to know how many I have used since being retired - Zero, not one. Don't live in London, don't use a bus, rare as hens teeth here, never got a freebie or discount at a cinema or theatre cos I don't want to go to the matinee. You live in cloud cuckooland as far as pensioners are concerned. My life is no different to before I retired other than I have given up dangerous sports like skiing and catamaran sailing and squash, but I gave those up well before 65 and wish I could do them again but I might die if I did. other than that I lead a proper life and I'm not tucked up with my Ovaltine at 9 pm.
or in other words, stop supporting lockdowns and mask mandates, you stupid crusties.
Is it another one of those pesky days with D in it?
Labour needs to project a radical vision of a different way to do things post-pandemic. Keeping everything the same isn't the obvious route.
So you don't go to the cinema, theatre or museum and you don't use the bus and never travel to London and benefit from a Freedom pass, does not seem like you are living as full a life as a pensioner as you could.
Pensioners also get free sessions at the swimming pool and concessions for classes at the gym too if sport is your thing.
Some golf courses also offer discounted membership for over 65s too
"Truly Farty Brew" - Mmm. Yes indeed. I see her sometimes in Waitrose.
re your 1st sentence - All tax is a burden. It is a judgement call. Do you want to get rid of the state pension? if so, say so. It is a valid position to take, but be honest about it. If not what you are proposing is bonkers.
Re your 2nd sentence - How many times have you said that and how many times have I responded?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-9771965/Bitter-TV-presenters-Spain-claim-pathetic-Euro-2020-conditioned-England-win.html
But the EU's regulator body says it is too early to determine whether any more than two jabs would be called for.
The European Medicines Agency says it is confident for now that two doses are "sufficient".
"EU ditches car insurance green cards for UK drivers":
https://forbes.com/uk/advisor/personal-finance/2021/06/30/eu-ditches-car-insurance-green-cards-for-uk-drivers/
https://fullfact.org/online/hs2-scotland/
We've just negotiated a trade deal with Australia, I am sure if they had any appetite to open their borders to us it would have been on the table. I'm not totally sure about this, but I believe they have a points based immigration system, and I am sure any Brits who meet the criteria are welcome in.
And I don't live in London so I am not entitled to the freedom pass either.
And I don't use a bus, cos they don't exist here.
Try actually reading what I post.
However, if what I've read is correct, HS2 counts as a project benefitting England and Wales rather than England alone, so the Welsh Government doesn't get any extra money. Cardiff gets the shit end of the stick once again.
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen threwhas also thrown her support behind the Italian team on Friday.
Her spokesperson told reporters: 'Her heart is with the Squadra Azzurra so she will be supporting Italy on Sunday.'
No surprise there the EU and the French and Spanish want Italy to win
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-9771965/Bitter-TV-presenters-Spain-claim-pathetic-Euro-2020-conditioned-England-win.html