The Challenge for… Plaid Cymru – politicalbetting.com

wooliedyed said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

wooliedyed said:

IAEA declare Iran are very naughty and not playing ball on the day their time for a deal runs out.
Watch the skies over Persia tonight

Everyone is too frit to do anything about it.

They should have been bombed years ago, by the time anyone gets the balls to do it, it will be too late.

Shame on Bibi and Trump and Biden and everyone else who have failed here.

If its not tonight it might be the back end of the weekend /Monday. If not then I think its another fake out

wooliedyed said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Passenger plane heading for London crashes after take-off in Ahmedabad, India

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c8d1r3m8z92t

Into a residential area too, so concerning for people on the ground not just those in the air.

I hope people are OK.

There is video out I wont share. Im afraid it looks very unlikely.

BartholomewRoberts said:

scampi25 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

stodge said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

rkrkrk said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Foxy said:

DavidL said:

Yesterday's spending review commits the government to increasing current spending by £190bn a year more over the term of the Parliament. Public spending is committed to growing 2.3% in real terms.

These plans, in my view, condemn the UK to higher taxes and lower growth as well as spiralling ever nearer the plug hole of unsustainable debt. It is indicative of the complacency that is shared across the media and elsewhere, despite the lesson of Truss, that this disastrous course of action seems to engender so little comment with the focus being on the individual elements.

We are in serious trouble and yesterday made it worse.

The alternative is another decade of worsening austerity. Even yesterday's plans are significant cuts for many departments. We can't have both growth and the featherbedding of the Granny State.

I take no particular view on what the percentage of GDP spent by the government should be, just want a balanced budget and for the politicians to be honest about the trade offs. I am not expecting either any time soon.

We can't, so we need to choose growth and not the granny state.

Long past time to cut the NHS, Triple Lock etc and prioritise things other than the grey vote.

Even if you cut spending per old person, the numbers are going up a lot. 11m to 13m over 65s in 10 years. A 20% cut (unthinkable) in pensions would still leave the pension budget increasing.

In real terms its absolutely not unthinkable, just unpopular.

We need to have the same attitude to grey benefits that the older generation had to free tuition ... numbers have gone up so its just not viable

I don’t think any politician would ever stand up and propose a 20% cut in basic State pension. It might be logical or even desirable but it’s not going to happen.

We don’t do that kind of pay cut though I know as some of the post-Communist countries reverted to capitalist systems in the early 90s, they did cut wages and benefits for those in the State sector and even Greece and Spain cut public sector wages during the Eurozone crisis.

The British approach is to freeze wages which translates to a real term cut as you know.

Raising the age at which the State pension can be taken is one option and that will no doubt happen. To be fair, frozen thresholds mean many people are seeing their workplace pensions increasingly taxed (the State pension itself isn’t) so perhaps we need to rethink that to encourage more people to fund their own retirement from workplace schemes which means the private sector stepping up to offer the kind of pensions to their workers other sectors achieve.

Some form of sovereign pension fund into which all private companies would have to pay and increased contributions from workers, he says, thinking aloud.

The logical endpoint becomes the end of the State pension with everyone self financing their retirement (hopefully not via the American style 401 with everyone playing the stock market). Can’t see that happening anytime soon.

The current system is in trouble but the irony is a lot of older people are currently doing very well so it works - to a point.

That was the point, a real terms cut is viable.

Do to pensions the same as was done to many state employees over the past decade and a half "increases will be at 1% per year until the finances are sorted".

That's a nominal increase, but a real terms cut.

In real terms many people's salaries have been cut by over 20%, and that's people working for a living. Those who aren't working for their living deserve no more than those who are.

Wrong. Many pensioners don't have the option of working again to make up the difference. You're comparing apples and oranges.

I'm not wrong and many can.

Many people could work if they wanted to and even if they can't or don't is not an excuse to demand unaffordable money from those who are working.

Indeed pension conditions were changed in the 1980s multiple times, when the current generation of pensioners were working. There's no reason the same can't happen today when they're retired.

turbotubbs said:

JosiasJessop said:

A million Russian troops (and their allies...) killed, wounded, missing or captured.

https://x.com/GeneralStaffUA/status/1933021623499829513

What Putin unleashed his evil, he did so on his own country, as well as on Ukraine.

Tis but a scratch. The great patriotic war of 1941-45 saw around 30 million dead.

Andy_JS said:

algarkirk said:

Sean Thomas has not one but two articles in the Speccie this week. One on otter's pockets and lads mags and another on Luxembourg.

He is stealing all his ideas from someone on PB. This young man will go far. (He's right about the golden age of lads mags).

The annoying thing is that the articles aren't always in the print version of the magazine.

malcolmg said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

malcolmg said:

algarkirk said:

AnthonyT said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

wooliedyed said:

Feb 0.7
Mar 0.2
Apr -0.3

Off a cliff. Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Even that is a lagging indicator. The real economy is in a hell of a mess.

Who could have ever thought that raising taxes on employment while leaving unearned incomes untaxed might not be the best way to manage an economy?

Savings are taxed. Dividends are taxed. The tax on dividends has been increased. Pensions are taxed. Assets when sold are taxed. Other than houses you live in. Are you suggesting CGT on the sale of houses?

True. but it's bad politics for workers to be taxed more heavily than the retired (like me). And the low tax/untaxed nature of residential property is a disaster distorting the market and giving all the wrong incentives.

Also distorting the market is the ludicrous IHT rules whereby the rate is far too high (40%) and the exemptions capricious (extra if you own a home etc) and the ways of avoiding it a series of open goals, keeping Lincoln's Inn in business.

Low rate (5-10%), no exemptions, CTT at the same rate on inter vivos transactions is the way forward.

What mince are you talking , the only tax (sic ) that can be different is NI for working pensioners. So unless you specifically mean that miniscule point then you are talking absolute bollox.

NI should apply to all pension income itself not just working.

Taxes should be no higher on working for a living than not working.

Don't like it? Get a job.

You halfwitted poltroon I have a job, can you actually read. I bet I pay more tax than you earn on benefits as well.

malcolmg said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

scampi25 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

stodge said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

rkrkrk said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Foxy said:

DavidL said:

Yesterday's spending review commits the government to increasing current spending by £190bn a year more over the term of the Parliament. Public spending is committed to growing 2.3% in real terms.

These plans, in my view, condemn the UK to higher taxes and lower growth as well as spiralling ever nearer the plug hole of unsustainable debt. It is indicative of the complacency that is shared across the media and elsewhere, despite the lesson of Truss, that this disastrous course of action seems to engender so little comment with the focus being on the individual elements.

We are in serious trouble and yesterday made it worse.

The alternative is another decade of worsening austerity. Even yesterday's plans are significant cuts for many departments. We can't have both growth and the featherbedding of the Granny State.

I take no particular view on what the percentage of GDP spent by the government should be, just want a balanced budget and for the politicians to be honest about the trade offs. I am not expecting either any time soon.

We can't, so we need to choose growth and not the granny state.

Long past time to cut the NHS, Triple Lock etc and prioritise things other than the grey vote.

Even if you cut spending per old person, the numbers are going up a lot. 11m to 13m over 65s in 10 years. A 20% cut (unthinkable) in pensions would still leave the pension budget increasing.

In real terms its absolutely not unthinkable, just unpopular.

We need to have the same attitude to grey benefits that the older generation had to free tuition ... numbers have gone up so its just not viable

I don’t think any politician would ever stand up and propose a 20% cut in basic State pension. It might be logical or even desirable but it’s not going to happen.

We don’t do that kind of pay cut though I know as some of the post-Communist countries reverted to capitalist systems in the early 90s, they did cut wages and benefits for those in the State sector and even Greece and Spain cut public sector wages during the Eurozone crisis.

The British approach is to freeze wages which translates to a real term cut as you know.

Raising the age at which the State pension can be taken is one option and that will no doubt happen. To be fair, frozen thresholds mean many people are seeing their workplace pensions increasingly taxed (the State pension itself isn’t) so perhaps we need to rethink that to encourage more people to fund their own retirement from workplace schemes which means the private sector stepping up to offer the kind of pensions to their workers other sectors achieve.

Some form of sovereign pension fund into which all private companies would have to pay and increased contributions from workers, he says, thinking aloud.

The logical endpoint becomes the end of the State pension with everyone self financing their retirement (hopefully not via the American style 401 with everyone playing the stock market). Can’t see that happening anytime soon.

The current system is in trouble but the irony is a lot of older people are currently doing very well so it works - to a point.

That was the point, a real terms cut is viable.

Do to pensions the same as was done to many state employees over the past decade and a half "increases will be at 1% per year until the finances are sorted".

That's a nominal increase, but a real terms cut.

In real terms many people's salaries have been cut by over 20%, and that's people working for a living. Those who aren't working for their living deserve no more than those who are.

Wrong. Many pensioners don't have the option of working again to make up the difference. You're comparing apples and oranges.

I'm not wrong and many can.

Many people could work if they wanted to and even if they can't or don't is not an excuse to demand unaffordable money from those who are working.

Indeed pension conditions were changed in the 1980s multiple times, when the current generation of pensioners were working. There's no reason the same can't happen today when they're retired.

What a creep, you would rob poor pensioners and force them into the workhouse just to line your sorry arse. Hopefully you have no parents or grandparents as you will be like a vulture picking their bones.

malcolmg said:

algarkirk said:

AnthonyT said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

wooliedyed said:

Feb 0.7
Mar 0.2
Apr -0.3

Off a cliff. Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Even that is a lagging indicator. The real economy is in a hell of a mess.

Who could have ever thought that raising taxes on employment while leaving unearned incomes untaxed might not be the best way to manage an economy?

Savings are taxed. Dividends are taxed. The tax on dividends has been increased. Pensions are taxed. Assets when sold are taxed. Other than houses you live in. Are you suggesting CGT on the sale of houses?

True. but it's bad politics for workers to be taxed more heavily than the retired (like me). And the low tax/untaxed nature of residential property is a disaster distorting the market and giving all the wrong incentives.

Also distorting the market is the ludicrous IHT rules whereby the rate is far too high (40%) and the exemptions capricious (extra if you own a home etc) and the ways of avoiding it a series of open goals, keeping Lincoln's Inn in business.

Low rate (5-10%), no exemptions, CTT at the same rate on inter vivos transactions is the way forward.

What mince are you talking , the only tax (sic ) that can be different is NI for working pensioners. So unless you specifically mean that miniscule point then you are talking absolute bollox.

Eabhal said:

Gallowgate said:

malcolmg said:

Battlebus said:

"State pension itself isn’t"

It is ....

Exactly and at going tax rate so 43% in Scotland. People on here live in dreamland thinking pensioners earn gazillions and pay no taxes. FFS they pay the same taxes as any other person once above the paltry 12K allowance.

I mean they objectively don’t. They don’t pay National Insurance for one

And I'm not about shed any tears for pensioners with incomes over £43k per annum, particularly as they are unlikely to have housing costs or dependents.

IanB2 said:

Andy_JS said:

algarkirk said:

Sean Thomas has not one but two articles in the Speccie this week. One on otter's pockets and lads mags and another on Luxembourg.

He is stealing all his ideas from someone on PB. This young man will go far. (He's right about the golden age of lads mags).

The annoying thing is that the articles aren't always in the print version of the magazine.

The web content is after clicks, whereas the hard copy will focus on more the more thoughtful stuff.

algarkirk said:

malcolmg said:

algarkirk said:

AnthonyT said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

wooliedyed said:

Feb 0.7
Mar 0.2
Apr -0.3

Off a cliff. Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Even that is a lagging indicator. The real economy is in a hell of a mess.

Who could have ever thought that raising taxes on employment while leaving unearned incomes untaxed might not be the best way to manage an economy?

Savings are taxed. Dividends are taxed. The tax on dividends has been increased. Pensions are taxed. Assets when sold are taxed. Other than houses you live in. Are you suggesting CGT on the sale of houses?

True. but it's bad politics for workers to be taxed more heavily than the retired (like me). And the low tax/untaxed nature of residential property is a disaster distorting the market and giving all the wrong incentives.

Also distorting the market is the ludicrous IHT rules whereby the rate is far too high (40%) and the exemptions capricious (extra if you own a home etc) and the ways of avoiding it a series of open goals, keeping Lincoln's Inn in business.

Low rate (5-10%), no exemptions, CTT at the same rate on inter vivos transactions is the way forward.

What mince are you talking , the only tax (sic ) that can be different is NI for working pensioners. So unless you specifically mean that miniscule point then you are talking absolute bollox.

Thanks. Not trivial if you see NI as simply a futher tax - which it is, as money is money.

For someone receiving say £50,000 pa gross from earned income the NI would be roughly £3k. This is not trivial. I suggest combining IT and NI at around 30% for income generally so that the person with an income of £50,000 gross from whatever source pays the same as the bloke who gets up at 6am to go to work on an overpriced season ticket to feed his starving children and pay the mortgage on an overpriced house.

Pensioners like me are extremely privileged, and I think as a group they are asking too much of others. I decline to join their number.

DavidL said:

wooliedyed said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

wooliedyed said:

IAEA declare Iran are very naughty and not playing ball on the day their time for a deal runs out.
Watch the skies over Persia tonight

Everyone is too frit to do anything about it.

They should have been bombed years ago, by the time anyone gets the balls to do it, it will be too late.

Shame on Bibi and Trump and Biden and everyone else who have failed here.

If its not tonight it might be the back end of the weekend /Monday. If not then I think its another fake out

TACO. Its the golden rule.

BartholomewRoberts said:

malcolmg said:

algarkirk said:

AnthonyT said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

wooliedyed said:

Feb 0.7
Mar 0.2
Apr -0.3

Off a cliff. Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Even that is a lagging indicator. The real economy is in a hell of a mess.

Who could have ever thought that raising taxes on employment while leaving unearned incomes untaxed might not be the best way to manage an economy?

Savings are taxed. Dividends are taxed. The tax on dividends has been increased. Pensions are taxed. Assets when sold are taxed. Other than houses you live in. Are you suggesting CGT on the sale of houses?

True. but it's bad politics for workers to be taxed more heavily than the retired (like me). And the low tax/untaxed nature of residential property is a disaster distorting the market and giving all the wrong incentives.

Also distorting the market is the ludicrous IHT rules whereby the rate is far too high (40%) and the exemptions capricious (extra if you own a home etc) and the ways of avoiding it a series of open goals, keeping Lincoln's Inn in business.

Low rate (5-10%), no exemptions, CTT at the same rate on inter vivos transactions is the way forward.

What mince are you talking , the only tax (sic ) that can be different is NI for working pensioners. So unless you specifically mean that miniscule point then you are talking absolute bollox.

NI should apply to all pension income itself not just working.

Taxes should be no higher on working for a living than not working.

Don't like it? Get a job.

Leon said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Economic insight from Sainsbury's carpark:-

Deserted yesterday. What we may be seeing is families without children taking their holidays early before the schools break up and prices skyrocket. And in light of recent years, also before August heatwaves make France and points south unbearable. (Or, who knows, they might just be following the Gazette's travel writer.)

All of which means less spending in Blighty and more invisible imports wrecking our balance of trade.

They should come to the Faroes. Rhubarb juice with Faroese smoked salmon and scrambled free range Faroes eggs is a terrific breakfast. Who knew?

Also last night the Danish king and queen stayed in my hotel. True story. Much jollity was had. Whole thing surrounded by police. I think they were hoping to grab some beer time with me but I was off eating pilot whale blubber

Big_G_NorthWales said:

wooliedyed said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

stodge said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

rkrkrk said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Foxy said:

DavidL said:

Yesterday's spending review commits the government to increasing current spending by £190bn a year more over the term of the Parliament. Public spending is committed to growing 2.3% in real terms.

These plans, in my view, condemn the UK to higher taxes and lower growth as well as spiralling ever nearer the plug hole of unsustainable debt. It is indicative of the complacency that is shared across the media and elsewhere, despite the lesson of Truss, that this disastrous course of action seems to engender so little comment with the focus being on the individual elements.

We are in serious trouble and yesterday made it worse.

The alternative is another decade of worsening austerity. Even yesterday's plans are significant cuts for many departments. We can't have both growth and the featherbedding of the Granny State.

I take no particular view on what the percentage of GDP spent by the government should be, just want a balanced budget and for the politicians to be honest about the trade offs. I am not expecting either any time soon.

We can't, so we need to choose growth and not the granny state.

Long past time to cut the NHS, Triple Lock etc and prioritise things other than the grey vote.

Even if you cut spending per old person, the numbers are going up a lot. 11m to 13m over 65s in 10 years. A 20% cut (unthinkable) in pensions would still leave the pension budget increasing.

In real terms its absolutely not unthinkable, just unpopular.

We need to have the same attitude to grey benefits that the older generation had to free tuition ... numbers have gone up so its just not viable

I don’t think any politician would ever stand up and propose a 20% cut in basic State pension. It might be logical or even desirable but it’s not going to happen.

We don’t do that kind of pay cut though I know as some of the post-Communist countries reverted to capitalist systems in the early 90s, they did cut wages and benefits for those in the State sector and even Greece and Spain cut public sector wages during the Eurozone crisis.

The British approach is to freeze wages which translates to a real term cut as you know.

Raising the age at which the State pension can be taken is one option and that will no doubt happen. To be fair, frozen thresholds mean many people are seeing their workplace pensions increasingly taxed (the State pension itself isn’t) so perhaps we need to rethink that to encourage more people to fund their own retirement from workplace schemes which means the private sector stepping up to offer the kind of pensions to their workers other sectors achieve.

Some form of sovereign pension fund into which all private companies would have to pay and increased contributions from workers, he says, thinking aloud.

The logical endpoint becomes the end of the State pension with everyone self financing their retirement (hopefully not via the American style 401 with everyone playing the stock market). Can’t see that happening anytime soon.

The current system is in trouble but the irony is a lot of older people are currently doing very well so it works - to a point.

That was the point, a real terms cut is viable.

Do to pensions the same as was done to many state employees over the past decade and a half "increases will be at 1% per year until the finances are sorted".

That's a nominal increase, but a real terms cut.

In real terms many people's salaries have been cut by over 20%, and that's people working for a living. Those who aren't working for their living deserve no more than those who are.

The only answer to pensions is mean testing the high earners and the asset rich plus increase to 70

Similarly with the NHS

Of course this is blasphemy to many, but reality can at times be difficult to accept and new hard thinking is required

But then you have to pay benefits to all those aged 67 to 70 who can't find work (or those younger who can't take the jobs they leave) we don't have the jobs to support work till 70

Im all for means testing the NHS though

I would just say any increase in the retirement age takes years to implement, otherwise we have WASPI's again

algarkirk said:

Taz said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Passenger plane heading for London crashes after take-off in Ahmedabad, India

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c8d1r3m8z92t

Crashed in a residential area too. One can only hope the casualties are minimal.

There is video on X (BBC have mentioned it too), if genuine doesn't look good at all.

JosiasJessop said:

Bad plane crash in India, on a flight to London.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c8d1r3m8z92t

Malmesbury said:

HYUFD said:

Eabhal said:

IanB2 said:

Spot the almost subliminal flash of Rachel Reeves towards the end of Clarkson's Farm S4 E8!

I like Clarkson's Farm but that stuff really winds me up. Whatever you think of the IHT change, the motivation for it was to prevent people like Clarkson inflating land prices by using it as a tax dodge. Part of the reason someone like Kaleb struggles to buy a farm is because the agricultural returns are so small, so the breakeven point is sometimes centuries in the future.

I'd forgive him if at the end of the next season he sells the land to Kaleb for a fair price for use as a farm (e.g. something like £0).

Labour should have just exempted family farms and small businesses held for 2 generations or more from the IHT tax changes, that way tax dodgers would still have been hit and not been competing with the likes of Kaleb to buy farmland but traditional farming families wouldn't

Simpler - the IHT would be due when the land is sold. If the land is inherited again, then the IHT is replaced with the latest value, not doubled up.

So if you keep the family farm in the family - no tax. If you make money from selling it, you pay the IHT out of that.

algarkirk said:

IanB2 said:

Andy_JS said:

algarkirk said:

Sean Thomas has not one but two articles in the Speccie this week. One on otter's pockets and lads mags and another on Luxembourg.

He is stealing all his ideas from someone on PB. This young man will go far. (He's right about the golden age of lads mags).

The annoying thing is that the articles aren't always in the print version of the magazine.

The web content is after clicks, whereas the hard copy will focus on more the more thoughtful stuff.

I wish that last bit was true. The Speccie is far to much like a sort of Telegraph using longer words, sharper writers but still full of unmeritorious tripe.

turbotubbs said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

wooliedyed said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

stodge said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

rkrkrk said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Foxy said:

DavidL said:

Yesterday's spending review commits the government to increasing current spending by £190bn a year more over the term of the Parliament. Public spending is committed to growing 2.3% in real terms.

These plans, in my view, condemn the UK to higher taxes and lower growth as well as spiralling ever nearer the plug hole of unsustainable debt. It is indicative of the complacency that is shared across the media and elsewhere, despite the lesson of Truss, that this disastrous course of action seems to engender so little comment with the focus being on the individual elements.

We are in serious trouble and yesterday made it worse.

The alternative is another decade of worsening austerity. Even yesterday's plans are significant cuts for many departments. We can't have both growth and the featherbedding of the Granny State.

I take no particular view on what the percentage of GDP spent by the government should be, just want a balanced budget and for the politicians to be honest about the trade offs. I am not expecting either any time soon.

We can't, so we need to choose growth and not the granny state.

Long past time to cut the NHS, Triple Lock etc and prioritise things other than the grey vote.

Even if you cut spending per old person, the numbers are going up a lot. 11m to 13m over 65s in 10 years. A 20% cut (unthinkable) in pensions would still leave the pension budget increasing.

In real terms its absolutely not unthinkable, just unpopular.

We need to have the same attitude to grey benefits that the older generation had to free tuition ... numbers have gone up so its just not viable

I don’t think any politician would ever stand up and propose a 20% cut in basic State pension. It might be logical or even desirable but it’s not going to happen.

We don’t do that kind of pay cut though I know as some of the post-Communist countries reverted to capitalist systems in the early 90s, they did cut wages and benefits for those in the State sector and even Greece and Spain cut public sector wages during the Eurozone crisis.

The British approach is to freeze wages which translates to a real term cut as you know.

Raising the age at which the State pension can be taken is one option and that will no doubt happen. To be fair, frozen thresholds mean many people are seeing their workplace pensions increasingly taxed (the State pension itself isn’t) so perhaps we need to rethink that to encourage more people to fund their own retirement from workplace schemes which means the private sector stepping up to offer the kind of pensions to their workers other sectors achieve.

Some form of sovereign pension fund into which all private companies would have to pay and increased contributions from workers, he says, thinking aloud.

The logical endpoint becomes the end of the State pension with everyone self financing their retirement (hopefully not via the American style 401 with everyone playing the stock market). Can’t see that happening anytime soon.

The current system is in trouble but the irony is a lot of older people are currently doing very well so it works - to a point.

That was the point, a real terms cut is viable.

Do to pensions the same as was done to many state employees over the past decade and a half "increases will be at 1% per year until the finances are sorted".

That's a nominal increase, but a real terms cut.

In real terms many people's salaries have been cut by over 20%, and that's people working for a living. Those who aren't working for their living deserve no more than those who are.

The only answer to pensions is mean testing the high earners and the asset rich plus increase to 70

Similarly with the NHS

Of course this is blasphemy to many, but reality can at times be difficult to accept and new hard thinking is required

But then you have to pay benefits to all those aged 67 to 70 who can't find work (or those younger who can't take the jobs they leave) we don't have the jobs to support work till 70

Im all for means testing the NHS though

I would just say any increase in the retirement age takes years to implement, otherwise we have WASPI's again

Don't fall for their nonsense Big G - the Waspi changes also took a long time to roll out. Its just a claim based on the government not coming round to each and every person affected with a a cup a tea and a bar chart in the lounge...

algarkirk said:

IanB2 said:

Andy_JS said:

algarkirk said:

Sean Thomas has not one but two articles in the Speccie this week. One on otter's pockets and lads mags and another on Luxembourg.

He is stealing all his ideas from someone on PB. This young man will go far. (He's right about the golden age of lads mags).

The annoying thing is that the articles aren't always in the print version of the magazine.

The web content is after clicks, whereas the hard copy will focus on more the more thoughtful stuff.

I wish that last bit was true. The Speccie is far to much like a sort of Telegraph using longer words, sharper writers but still full of unmeritorious tripe.

malcolmg said:

Gallowgate said:

malcolmg said:

Battlebus said:

"State pension itself isn’t"

It is ....

Exactly and at going tax rate so 43% in Scotland. People on here live in dreamland thinking pensioners earn gazillions and pay no taxes. FFS they pay the same taxes as any other person once above the paltry 12K allowance.

I mean they objectively don’t. They don’t pay National Insurance for one

Name any other thing , NI is for pension etc and debatable to be called income tax but ignoring that they do pay income tax on their wages and liek other taxes levels are dependent on several things , name any income that is NOT taxed, and to boot majority of pensioners are NOT employed. Those that do work pay taxes on their wages, all taxes as demanded by law, you would have imagined a lawyer would know that. I expect such tripe from Dumbo Bart , you have joined the club.

wooliedyed said:

A lot of the anti pensioners vitriol seems to stem from them sitting on equity. What on earth would be the point in working for 50 years, paying off a mortgage and then 'downsizing' to some soulless shoebox? And all to support 'young people' to work 50 years, pay off a mortgage and......
People aren't battery hens.

turbotubbs said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

wooliedyed said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

stodge said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

rkrkrk said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Foxy said:

DavidL said:

Yesterday's spending review commits the government to increasing current spending by £190bn a year more over the term of the Parliament. Public spending is committed to growing 2.3% in real terms.

These plans, in my view, condemn the UK to higher taxes and lower growth as well as spiralling ever nearer the plug hole of unsustainable debt. It is indicative of the complacency that is shared across the media and elsewhere, despite the lesson of Truss, that this disastrous course of action seems to engender so little comment with the focus being on the individual elements.

We are in serious trouble and yesterday made it worse.

The alternative is another decade of worsening austerity. Even yesterday's plans are significant cuts for many departments. We can't have both growth and the featherbedding of the Granny State.

I take no particular view on what the percentage of GDP spent by the government should be, just want a balanced budget and for the politicians to be honest about the trade offs. I am not expecting either any time soon.

We can't, so we need to choose growth and not the granny state.

Long past time to cut the NHS, Triple Lock etc and prioritise things other than the grey vote.

Even if you cut spending per old person, the numbers are going up a lot. 11m to 13m over 65s in 10 years. A 20% cut (unthinkable) in pensions would still leave the pension budget increasing.

In real terms its absolutely not unthinkable, just unpopular.

We need to have the same attitude to grey benefits that the older generation had to free tuition ... numbers have gone up so its just not viable

I don’t think any politician would ever stand up and propose a 20% cut in basic State pension. It might be logical or even desirable but it’s not going to happen.

We don’t do that kind of pay cut though I know as some of the post-Communist countries reverted to capitalist systems in the early 90s, they did cut wages and benefits for those in the State sector and even Greece and Spain cut public sector wages during the Eurozone crisis.

The British approach is to freeze wages which translates to a real term cut as you know.

Raising the age at which the State pension can be taken is one option and that will no doubt happen. To be fair, frozen thresholds mean many people are seeing their workplace pensions increasingly taxed (the State pension itself isn’t) so perhaps we need to rethink that to encourage more people to fund their own retirement from workplace schemes which means the private sector stepping up to offer the kind of pensions to their workers other sectors achieve.

Some form of sovereign pension fund into which all private companies would have to pay and increased contributions from workers, he says, thinking aloud.

The logical endpoint becomes the end of the State pension with everyone self financing their retirement (hopefully not via the American style 401 with everyone playing the stock market). Can’t see that happening anytime soon.

The current system is in trouble but the irony is a lot of older people are currently doing very well so it works - to a point.

That was the point, a real terms cut is viable.

Do to pensions the same as was done to many state employees over the past decade and a half "increases will be at 1% per year until the finances are sorted".

That's a nominal increase, but a real terms cut.

In real terms many people's salaries have been cut by over 20%, and that's people working for a living. Those who aren't working for their living deserve no more than those who are.

The only answer to pensions is mean testing the high earners and the asset rich plus increase to 70

Similarly with the NHS

Of course this is blasphemy to many, but reality can at times be difficult to accept and new hard thinking is required

But then you have to pay benefits to all those aged 67 to 70 who can't find work (or those younger who can't take the jobs they leave) we don't have the jobs to support work till 70

Im all for means testing the NHS though

I would just say any increase in the retirement age takes years to implement, otherwise we have WASPI's again

Don't fall for their nonsense Big G - the Waspi changes also took a long time to roll out. Its just a claim based on the government not coming round to each and every person affected with a a cup a tea and a bar chart in the lounge...

turbotubbs said:

IanB2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

IanB2 said:

Eabhal said:

IanB2 said:

Spot the almost subliminal flash of Rachel Reeves towards the end of Clarkson's Farm S4 E8!

I like Clarkson's Farm but that stuff really winds me up. Whatever you think of the IHT change, the motivation for it was to prevent people like Clarkson inflating land prices by using it as a tax dodge. Part of the reason someone like Kaleb struggles to buy a farm is because the agricultural returns are so small, so the breakeven point is sometimes centuries in the future.

I'd forgive him if at the end of the next season he sells the land to Kaleb for a fair price for use as a farm (e.g. something like £0).

All true. That Clarkson emerged as the public face of the farm IHT campaign is ironic.

True but misleading. As Clarkson said, there are other tax shelters available.

The financial reality of the show is that Amazon more than subsidises any losses Clarkson makes on farming. So far as I can make out, everyone watches it, except for me.

It is good TV, and Clarkson manages to put himself across as quite likeable, even though I suspect he actually isn’t. He does concede that he doesn’t need the income from his farm to live on - just as well, as he isn’t making any.

Buying the farm as a tax dodge and then realising the possibility of milking a whole TV series out of it is genius, though. On Amazon it’s right at the top of the most viewed.

Why do you suspect he isn't likeable? I know there is the classic getting stroppy late at night/punching the member of the crew (not acceptable), but my impression of him is that is genuinely likeable, but probably prone to getting pissed off at times. Like a lot of people.

OldKingCole said:

turbotubbs said:

JosiasJessop said:

A million Russian troops (and their allies...) killed, wounded, missing or captured.

https://x.com/GeneralStaffUA/status/1933021623499829513

What Putin unleashed his evil, he did so on his own country, as well as on Ukraine.

Tis but a scratch. The great patriotic war of 1941-45 saw around 30 million dead.

That included people from Baltic States Belorussians and Ukrainians of course.

LostPassword said:

wooliedyed said:

A lot of the anti pensioners vitriol seems to stem from them sitting on equity. What on earth would be the point in working for 50 years, paying off a mortgage and then 'downsizing' to some soulless shoebox? And all to support 'young people' to work 50 years, pay off a mortgage and......
People aren't battery hens.

It wouldn't be a problem if there were enough houses built for the next generation. Rationing of anything is only a factor when there's a shortage, but why should there be a shortage of housing in Britain? It's not like the country has been involved in a war recently which has seen millions of houses destroyed.

Britain simply hasn't built enough houses.

OldKingCole said:

algarkirk said:

malcolmg said:

algarkirk said:

AnthonyT said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

wooliedyed said:

Feb 0.7
Mar 0.2
Apr -0.3

Off a cliff. Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Even that is a lagging indicator. The real economy is in a hell of a mess.

Who could have ever thought that raising taxes on employment while leaving unearned incomes untaxed might not be the best way to manage an economy?

Savings are taxed. Dividends are taxed. The tax on dividends has been increased. Pensions are taxed. Assets when sold are taxed. Other than houses you live in. Are you suggesting CGT on the sale of houses?

True. but it's bad politics for workers to be taxed more heavily than the retired (like me). And the low tax/untaxed nature of residential property is a disaster distorting the market and giving all the wrong incentives.

Also distorting the market is the ludicrous IHT rules whereby the rate is far too high (40%) and the exemptions capricious (extra if you own a home etc) and the ways of avoiding it a series of open goals, keeping Lincoln's Inn in business.

Low rate (5-10%), no exemptions, CTT at the same rate on inter vivos transactions is the way forward.

What mince are you talking , the only tax (sic ) that can be different is NI for working pensioners. So unless you specifically mean that miniscule point then you are talking absolute bollox.

Thanks. Not trivial if you see NI as simply a futher tax - which it is, as money is money.

For someone receiving say £50,000 pa gross from earned income the NI would be roughly £3k. This is not trivial. I suggest combining IT and NI at around 30% for income generally so that the person with an income of £50,000 gross from whatever source pays the same as the bloke who gets up at 6am to go to work on an overpriced season ticket to feed his starving children and pay the mortgage on an overpriced house.

Pensioners like me are extremely privileged, and I think as a group they are asking too much of others. I decline to join their number.

As another pensioner quite honestly I don't think I've ever been as well off as I am now. I've paid for my house, I've no debts (which I had when working due to a combination of misfortune and incompetence) I'm not paying into savings accounts for pensions and I'm not paying NI.

Taz said:

Gallowgate said:

Taz said:

turbotubbs said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

wooliedyed said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

stodge said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

rkrkrk said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Foxy said:

DavidL said:

Yesterday's spending review commits the government to increasing current spending by £190bn a year more over the term of the Parliament. Public spending is committed to growing 2.3% in real terms.

These plans, in my view, condemn the UK to higher taxes and lower growth as well as spiralling ever nearer the plug hole of unsustainable debt. It is indicative of the complacency that is shared across the media and elsewhere, despite the lesson of Truss, that this disastrous course of action seems to engender so little comment with the focus being on the individual elements.

We are in serious trouble and yesterday made it worse.

The alternative is another decade of worsening austerity. Even yesterday's plans are significant cuts for many departments. We can't have both growth and the featherbedding of the Granny State.

I take no particular view on what the percentage of GDP spent by the government should be, just want a balanced budget and for the politicians to be honest about the trade offs. I am not expecting either any time soon.

We can't, so we need to choose growth and not the granny state.

Long past time to cut the NHS, Triple Lock etc and prioritise things other than the grey vote.

Even if you cut spending per old person, the numbers are going up a lot. 11m to 13m over 65s in 10 years. A 20% cut (unthinkable) in pensions would still leave the pension budget increasing.

In real terms its absolutely not unthinkable, just unpopular.

We need to have the same attitude to grey benefits that the older generation had to free tuition ... numbers have gone up so its just not viable

I don’t think any politician would ever stand up and propose a 20% cut in basic State pension. It might be logical or even desirable but it’s not going to happen.

We don’t do that kind of pay cut though I know as some of the post-Communist countries reverted to capitalist systems in the early 90s, they did cut wages and benefits for those in the State sector and even Greece and Spain cut public sector wages during the Eurozone crisis.

The British approach is to freeze wages which translates to a real term cut as you know.

Raising the age at which the State pension can be taken is one option and that will no doubt happen. To be fair, frozen thresholds mean many people are seeing their workplace pensions increasingly taxed (the State pension itself isn’t) so perhaps we need to rethink that to encourage more people to fund their own retirement from workplace schemes which means the private sector stepping up to offer the kind of pensions to their workers other sectors achieve.

Some form of sovereign pension fund into which all private companies would have to pay and increased contributions from workers, he says, thinking aloud.

The logical endpoint becomes the end of the State pension with everyone self financing their retirement (hopefully not via the American style 401 with everyone playing the stock market). Can’t see that happening anytime soon.

The current system is in trouble but the irony is a lot of older people are currently doing very well so it works - to a point.

That was the point, a real terms cut is viable.

Do to pensions the same as was done to many state employees over the past decade and a half "increases will be at 1% per year until the finances are sorted".

That's a nominal increase, but a real terms cut.

In real terms many people's salaries have been cut by over 20%, and that's people working for a living. Those who aren't working for their living deserve no more than those who are.

The only answer to pensions is mean testing the high earners and the asset rich plus increase to 70

Similarly with the NHS

Of course this is blasphemy to many, but reality can at times be difficult to accept and new hard thinking is required

But then you have to pay benefits to all those aged 67 to 70 who can't find work (or those younger who can't take the jobs they leave) we don't have the jobs to support work till 70

Im all for means testing the NHS though

I would just say any increase in the retirement age takes years to implement, otherwise we have WASPI's again

Don't fall for their nonsense Big G - the Waspi changes also took a long time to roll out. Its just a claim based on the government not coming round to each and every person affected with a a cup a tea and a bar chart in the lounge...

Yet the pathetic Lib Dem’s want to give them billions.

My retirement age has changed twice. I’ve had no letter. Where’s my compo ?

Get on the blower to the Fox Beater General

God knows what that means but it was not a serious comment.

Eabhal said:

wooliedyed said:

A lot of the anti pensioners vitriol seems to stem from them sitting on equity. What on earth would be the point in working for 50 years, paying off a mortgage and then 'downsizing' to some soulless shoebox? And all to support 'young people' to work 50 years, pay off a mortgage and......
People aren't battery hens.

The most gorgeous home I've ever been in was a one bed flat in central Stockholm, owned by two pensioners. They'd sold their 4 bed family home when the kids left and owned a share in a lakeside cabin.

The rest of their cash went into considerable volumes of alcohol and a fish-based diet. They cycled everywhere, despite having mobility problems, and gave us a deeply entertaining tour of the city before lending us the hut for the weekend.

Dura_Ace said:

carnforth said:

None of the wording anywhere seems to suggest survivors.

If by, some stroke of divine intervention, there is just one survivor they can come on here and win the eternally tedious air travel anecdotes battle royale.

WhisperingOracle said:

algarkirk said:

IanB2 said:

Andy_JS said:

algarkirk said:

Sean Thomas has not one but two articles in the Speccie this week. One on otter's pockets and lads mags and another on Luxembourg.

He is stealing all his ideas from someone on PB. This young man will go far. (He's right about the golden age of lads mags).

The annoying thing is that the articles aren't always in the print version of the magazine.

The web content is after clicks, whereas the hard copy will focus on more the more thoughtful stuff.

I wish that last bit was true. The Speccie is far to much like a sort of Telegraph using longer words, sharper writers but still full of unmeritorious tripe.

The TLS used to be better for the right-leaning erudite. Is it still, now ?

I tread the LRB, which is sometimes wonderful, and sometimes dull.

AnneJGP said:

IanB2 said:

OldKingCole said:

algarkirk said:

malcolmg said:

algarkirk said:

AnthonyT said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

RochdalePioneers said:

wooliedyed said:

Feb 0.7
Mar 0.2
Apr -0.3

Off a cliff. Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

Even that is a lagging indicator. The real economy is in a hell of a mess.

Who could have ever thought that raising taxes on employment while leaving unearned incomes untaxed might not be the best way to manage an economy?

Savings are taxed. Dividends are taxed. The tax on dividends has been increased. Pensions are taxed. Assets when sold are taxed. Other than houses you live in. Are you suggesting CGT on the sale of houses?

True. but it's bad politics for workers to be taxed more heavily than the retired (like me). And the low tax/untaxed nature of residential property is a disaster distorting the market and giving all the wrong incentives.

Also distorting the market is the ludicrous IHT rules whereby the rate is far too high (40%) and the exemptions capricious (extra if you own a home etc) and the ways of avoiding it a series of open goals, keeping Lincoln's Inn in business.

Low rate (5-10%), no exemptions, CTT at the same rate on inter vivos transactions is the way forward.

What mince are you talking , the only tax (sic ) that can be different is NI for working pensioners. So unless you specifically mean that miniscule point then you are talking absolute bollox.

Thanks. Not trivial if you see NI as simply a futher tax - which it is, as money is money.

For someone receiving say £50,000 pa gross from earned income the NI would be roughly £3k. This is not trivial. I suggest combining IT and NI at around 30% for income generally so that the person with an income of £50,000 gross from whatever source pays the same as the bloke who gets up at 6am to go to work on an overpriced season ticket to feed his starving children and pay the mortgage on an overpriced house.

Pensioners like me are extremely privileged, and I think as a group they are asking too much of others. I decline to join their number.

As another pensioner quite honestly I don't think I've ever been as well off as I am now. I've paid for my house, I've no debts (which I had when working due to a combination of misfortune and incompetence) I'm not paying into savings accounts for pensions and I'm not paying NI.

Ditto. The young working person who has to spend their entire earned income is paying both income tax and NI on their income, and is paying a high proportion of their income in sales taxes (VAT, fuel and alcohol duty, etc.).

Whereas the better-off pensioner only pays income tax on pension income, and has likely managed to shelter their savings in tax free ISAs such that they aren’t paying any tax at all on investment or savings income. Capital gains are taxed at less than income, significantly so for higher rate taxpayers. And I’d bet that those better-off pensioners are probably subject to a lower proportion of VAT on their income, as gifts, holidays and savings don’t attract it and fuel is levied at just 5%. And they don’t have commuting costs. They do probably pay their share of alcohol duty….

I don't. My bottle of sherry is still going strong after 5 or 6 years or more.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

turbotubbs said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

wooliedyed said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

stodge said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

rkrkrk said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Foxy said:

DavidL said:

Yesterday's spending review commits the government to increasing current spending by £190bn a year more over the term of the Parliament. Public spending is committed to growing 2.3% in real terms.

These plans, in my view, condemn the UK to higher taxes and lower growth as well as spiralling ever nearer the plug hole of unsustainable debt. It is indicative of the complacency that is shared across the media and elsewhere, despite the lesson of Truss, that this disastrous course of action seems to engender so little comment with the focus being on the individual elements.

We are in serious trouble and yesterday made it worse.

The alternative is another decade of worsening austerity. Even yesterday's plans are significant cuts for many departments. We can't have both growth and the featherbedding of the Granny State.

I take no particular view on what the percentage of GDP spent by the government should be, just want a balanced budget and for the politicians to be honest about the trade offs. I am not expecting either any time soon.

We can't, so we need to choose growth and not the granny state.

Long past time to cut the NHS, Triple Lock etc and prioritise things other than the grey vote.

Even if you cut spending per old person, the numbers are going up a lot. 11m to 13m over 65s in 10 years. A 20% cut (unthinkable) in pensions would still leave the pension budget increasing.

In real terms its absolutely not unthinkable, just unpopular.

We need to have the same attitude to grey benefits that the older generation had to free tuition ... numbers have gone up so its just not viable

I don’t think any politician would ever stand up and propose a 20% cut in basic State pension. It might be logical or even desirable but it’s not going to happen.

We don’t do that kind of pay cut though I know as some of the post-Communist countries reverted to capitalist systems in the early 90s, they did cut wages and benefits for those in the State sector and even Greece and Spain cut public sector wages during the Eurozone crisis.

The British approach is to freeze wages which translates to a real term cut as you know.

Raising the age at which the State pension can be taken is one option and that will no doubt happen. To be fair, frozen thresholds mean many people are seeing their workplace pensions increasingly taxed (the State pension itself isn’t) so perhaps we need to rethink that to encourage more people to fund their own retirement from workplace schemes which means the private sector stepping up to offer the kind of pensions to their workers other sectors achieve.

Some form of sovereign pension fund into which all private companies would have to pay and increased contributions from workers, he says, thinking aloud.

The logical endpoint becomes the end of the State pension with everyone self financing their retirement (hopefully not via the American style 401 with everyone playing the stock market). Can’t see that happening anytime soon.

The current system is in trouble but the irony is a lot of older people are currently doing very well so it works - to a point.

That was the point, a real terms cut is viable.

Do to pensions the same as was done to many state employees over the past decade and a half "increases will be at 1% per year until the finances are sorted".

That's a nominal increase, but a real terms cut.

In real terms many people's salaries have been cut by over 20%, and that's people working for a living. Those who aren't working for their living deserve no more than those who are.

The only answer to pensions is mean testing the high earners and the asset rich plus increase to 70

Similarly with the NHS

Of course this is blasphemy to many, but reality can at times be difficult to accept and new hard thinking is required

But then you have to pay benefits to all those aged 67 to 70 who can't find work (or those younger who can't take the jobs they leave) we don't have the jobs to support work till 70

Im all for means testing the NHS though

I would just say any increase in the retirement age takes years to implement, otherwise we have WASPI's again

Don't fall for their nonsense Big G - the Waspi changes also took a long time to roll out. Its just a claim based on the government not coming round to each and every person affected with a a cup a tea and a bar chart in the lounge...

By some coincidence, I have just received a letter in a brown envelope marked “Information about State Pension age” (including the quotation marks).

turbotubbs said:

WhisperingOracle said:

turbotubbs said:

IanB2 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

IanB2 said:

Eabhal said:

IanB2 said:

Spot the almost subliminal flash of Rachel Reeves towards the end of Clarkson's Farm S4 E8!

I like Clarkson's Farm but that stuff really winds me up. Whatever you think of the IHT change, the motivation for it was to prevent people like Clarkson inflating land prices by using it as a tax dodge. Part of the reason someone like Kaleb struggles to buy a farm is because the agricultural returns are so small, so the breakeven point is sometimes centuries in the future.

I'd forgive him if at the end of the next season he sells the land to Kaleb for a fair price for use as a farm (e.g. something like £0).

All true. That Clarkson emerged as the public face of the farm IHT campaign is ironic.

True but misleading. As Clarkson said, there are other tax shelters available.

The financial reality of the show is that Amazon more than subsidises any losses Clarkson makes on farming. So far as I can make out, everyone watches it, except for me.

It is good TV, and Clarkson manages to put himself across as quite likeable, even though I suspect he actually isn’t. He does concede that he doesn’t need the income from his farm to live on - just as well, as he isn’t making any.

Buying the farm as a tax dodge and then realising the possibility of milking a whole TV series out of it is genius, though. On Amazon it’s right at the top of the most viewed.

Why do you suspect he isn't likeable? I know there is the classic getting stroppy late at night/punching the member of the crew (not acceptable), but my impression of him is that is genuinely likeable, but probably prone to getting pissed off at times. Like a lot of people.

He was incredibly nasty to his mother on Who Do You Think You Are, mocking and belittling her in front of the cameras.

I'll take your word for it. Maybe he didn't like her, or maybe that's the family humour.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

turbotubbs said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

wooliedyed said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

stodge said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

rkrkrk said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Foxy said:

DavidL said:

Yesterday's spending review commits the government to increasing current spending by £190bn a year more over the term of the Parliament. Public spending is committed to growing 2.3% in real terms.

These plans, in my view, condemn the UK to higher taxes and lower growth as well as spiralling ever nearer the plug hole of unsustainable debt. It is indicative of the complacency that is shared across the media and elsewhere, despite the lesson of Truss, that this disastrous course of action seems to engender so little comment with the focus being on the individual elements.

We are in serious trouble and yesterday made it worse.

The alternative is another decade of worsening austerity. Even yesterday's plans are significant cuts for many departments. We can't have both growth and the featherbedding of the Granny State.

I take no particular view on what the percentage of GDP spent by the government should be, just want a balanced budget and for the politicians to be honest about the trade offs. I am not expecting either any time soon.

We can't, so we need to choose growth and not the granny state.

Long past time to cut the NHS, Triple Lock etc and prioritise things other than the grey vote.

Even if you cut spending per old person, the numbers are going up a lot. 11m to 13m over 65s in 10 years. A 20% cut (unthinkable) in pensions would still leave the pension budget increasing.

In real terms its absolutely not unthinkable, just unpopular.

We need to have the same attitude to grey benefits that the older generation had to free tuition ... numbers have gone up so its just not viable

I don’t think any politician would ever stand up and propose a 20% cut in basic State pension. It might be logical or even desirable but it’s not going to happen.

We don’t do that kind of pay cut though I know as some of the post-Communist countries reverted to capitalist systems in the early 90s, they did cut wages and benefits for those in the State sector and even Greece and Spain cut public sector wages during the Eurozone crisis.

The British approach is to freeze wages which translates to a real term cut as you know.

Raising the age at which the State pension can be taken is one option and that will no doubt happen. To be fair, frozen thresholds mean many people are seeing their workplace pensions increasingly taxed (the State pension itself isn’t) so perhaps we need to rethink that to encourage more people to fund their own retirement from workplace schemes which means the private sector stepping up to offer the kind of pensions to their workers other sectors achieve.

Some form of sovereign pension fund into which all private companies would have to pay and increased contributions from workers, he says, thinking aloud.

The logical endpoint becomes the end of the State pension with everyone self financing their retirement (hopefully not via the American style 401 with everyone playing the stock market). Can’t see that happening anytime soon.

The current system is in trouble but the irony is a lot of older people are currently doing very well so it works - to a point.

That was the point, a real terms cut is viable.

Do to pensions the same as was done to many state employees over the past decade and a half "increases will be at 1% per year until the finances are sorted".

That's a nominal increase, but a real terms cut.

In real terms many people's salaries have been cut by over 20%, and that's people working for a living. Those who aren't working for their living deserve no more than those who are.

The only answer to pensions is mean testing the high earners and the asset rich plus increase to 70

Similarly with the NHS

Of course this is blasphemy to many, but reality can at times be difficult to accept and new hard thinking is required

But then you have to pay benefits to all those aged 67 to 70 who can't find work (or those younger who can't take the jobs they leave) we don't have the jobs to support work till 70

Im all for means testing the NHS though

I would just say any increase in the retirement age takes years to implement, otherwise we have WASPI's again

Don't fall for their nonsense Big G - the Waspi changes also took a long time to roll out. Its just a claim based on the government not coming round to each and every person affected with a a cup a tea and a bar chart in the lounge...

By some coincidence, I have just received a letter in a brown envelope marked “Information about State Pension age” (including the quotation marks).

The pension age letter directs me to this page on the review under the Sunak government. It seems to suggest the next review might alter the date again. Could it be downwards now that lifespan growth has stalled?
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/state-pension-age-review-published

wooliedyed said:

Its all a bit This town is coming like a ghost town out there. Nothing Reeves is doing looks likely to change that.
Its 70s to early 80s again

Taz said:

Eabhal said:

wooliedyed said:

A lot of the anti pensioners vitriol seems to stem from them sitting on equity. What on earth would be the point in working for 50 years, paying off a mortgage and then 'downsizing' to some soulless shoebox? And all to support 'young people' to work 50 years, pay off a mortgage and......
People aren't battery hens.

The most gorgeous home I've ever been in was a one bed flat in central Stockholm, owned by two pensioners. They'd sold their 4 bed family home when the kids left and owned a share in a lakeside cabin.

The rest of their cash went into considerable volumes of alcohol and a fish-based diet. They cycled everywhere, despite having mobility problems, and gave us a deeply entertaining tour of the city before lending us the hut for the weekend.

At least they didn’t waste their money.

A question for you and @MattW

I go out every morning for a cycle ride. Is it a close pass irrespective of the direction of the traffic or only if the traffic is in the same direction of travel as you ?

Theuniondivvie said:

Dura_Ace said:

carnforth said:

None of the wording anywhere seems to suggest survivors.

If by, some stroke of divine intervention, there is just one survivor they can come on here and win the eternally tedious air travel anecdotes battle royale.

‘Thank God for that upgrade.’

wooliedyed said:

turbotubbs said:

wooliedyed said:

A lot of the anti pensioners vitriol seems to stem from them sitting on equity. What on earth would be the point in working for 50 years, paying off a mortgage and then 'downsizing' to some soulless shoebox? And all to support 'young people' to work 50 years, pay off a mortgage and......
People aren't battery hens.

It doesn't need to be a shoe-box. My recently retired colleague lives in a 850K, 6 bedroom house with his wife. They do not need sech a place in reality, but also have no need for cash. But later in their retirement he has expressed a desire to move to a posh flat - no stairs, lots of nice space, but more appropriate for their lives at that point in time.

And thats the point - making appropriate housing for people to downsize to.

Indeed. There is no infrastructure in place for these options.
More than that though is that its often pensioners in a modest paid off home (let's say a 2 to 3 bed semi in a normal suburban area) who somehow are seen to be greedy because of their 'equity'. 50 years in the system to get 'something' to call your own and a piss poor state pension is nothing the youth need to be jealous of.
Its the millionaire pensioners shouldn't get WFA thing - most of them aren't millionaires and many did suffer by taking a real terms 2% cut in income

carnforth said:

"There were 169 Indian nationals, 53 British nationals, one Canadian national and seven Portuguese nationals on board."

Edit: Any reason a British Indian would travel on an Indian passport? So maybe more than 53.

kjh said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Leon said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Leon said:

Remember the Golden Rule

Sooner or later, any decision made by Starmer’s Labour government turns out to be damaging for the UK

This is now being applied to the Gibraltar deal. Falling apart under scrutiny

What's the problem with the Gibraltar deal? They have fixed the border FUBAR so that people are able to cross it freely again as they need to. Gibraltar remains a BOT, the military facility remains untouched, and the people who voted in almost unanimity to not fuck their lives up get the fix they voted for.

Loads of details about the passport arrangements now being revealed. Allegations on X such as: every British citizen entering Gibraltar will now have their passports checked by Spain and a stay in Gibraltar will count as a stay in Schenghen. As visiting the EU. The Spanish will control how and when the British visit British territory abroad

Likewise some are claiming this will apply to British troops or sailors in the Navy

OK. This is Gibraltar. The deal is great for everyone who lives there - who didn't vote to be walled in. The deal is great for the workers Gibraltar needs to cross from Spain and back each day. The deal makes no difference to most people travelling to Gibraltar as how may are close to the 90/180 barrier? Which itself is on its way out as we work towards a solution longer term.

So in practice this deal in a very practical way improves the lives of the people of Gibraltar who voted for it. But imposes a theoretical dictat on Mr Keyboard of Clacton who doesn't travel to forrin anyway.

Honestly this is classic @Leon. Shouting about stuff and expounding simple solutions to things that are always more complicated to implement. You wanted Brexit, which you thought was simple, but it had consequences, one of them being the border at Gibraltar. Are you coming up with a solution? No, just shouting again. This solves the big problem, but unfortunately may have a knock on problem for a small minority of others. You didn't seem to have any sympathy for all those people who were buggered by the 90/180 rule who had commitments (eg family), property of businesses in the EU, which was a huge number of people yet you are now worried about the very very minute number of Brits who both may make a visit to Gibraltar and who in addition might fall foul of the 90/180 day rule. With the exception of people stationed on Gibraltar it is unlikely to impact any UK visitors who weren't bordering on exceeding the limit anyway. You know those ones you didn't care about previously.

As far as people stationed on the rock there will obviously have to be a solution because some are not just Navy sailors visiting, but based there for 3/6/12 months so will all fail the 90 day test.