The early days of women’s football were usually goalaramas - they’ve certainly worked hard to get to the same stage as the men where 45 minutes can go by with next to nothing happening.
The WFA. Everybody knows it was a top top political gimmick from Gordon Brown. Rather than simply increase the pension, do this instead, create the impression of the government popping into the home of an elderly person freezing in winter and turning on the heater. "There you go, dear. All is well."
Such a brilliant gimmick that every government since has defied logic and all impartial advice in order to not mess with it. Too scared to do so. Gordon's conceit would be reversed and bite you in the bum. The government stops by that elderly person in winter and turns the heater off. Brrrr. Terrible optics. So let's carry on giving these annual lump sums to millions of people who don't need it. Bad policy, good politics.
Finally someone bites the bullet and changes it. Hang the politics let's do the right thing. £££ only to those who really need it. And what happens? Of course support from the public is an unrealistic ask since it is a takeaway. But it's well-known money is tight so do the public surprise on the upside by at least being a little bit sanguine about it? Do they hellers like! They are so pissed off it forms their entire view of the government. No other issue gets even a mention.
Sorry, 'customer always right' bla bla, but I find it kind of pathetic.
It must be hard being a Labour supporter at this time, but WFP was the right policy badly sold, then u turns a plenty, then the shambles of this week
Starmer is weak when the country needs a PM with conviction to actually stand by their decisions, and not capitulate when under criticism
Whilst sympathy for Reeves unfortunately for her that picture of her in distress will be her defining legacy
I wanted Starmer to live up to his pre election integrity and have strength to dig in when under pressure but he is simply another poor PM and the word clouds reflect public opinion very well
Agree 100% that the principle of the WFA policy was correct. Said so at the time. My only argument with it is that they didn't properly Means Test it so too many vulnerable people were clobbered by it.
The WFA. Everybody knows it was a top top political gimmick from Gordon Brown. Rather than simply increase the pension, do this instead, create the impression of the government popping into the home of an elderly person freezing in winter and turning on the heater. "There you go, dear. All is well."
Such a brilliant gimmick that every government since has defied logic and all impartial advice in order to not mess with it. Too scared to do so. Gordon's conceit would be reversed and bite you in the bum. The government stops by that elderly person in winter and turns the heater off. Brrrr. Terrible optics. So let's carry on giving these annual lump sums to millions of people who don't need it. Bad policy, good politics.
Finally someone bites the bullet and changes it. Hang the politics let's do the right thing. £££ only to those who really need it. And what happens? Of course support from the public is an unrealistic ask since it is a takeaway. But it's well-known money is tight so do the public surprise on the upside by at least being a little bit sanguine about it? Do they hellers like! They are so pissed off it forms their entire view of the government. No other issue gets even a mention.
Sorry, 'customer always right' bla bla, but I find it kind of pathetic.
It must be hard being a Labour supporter at this time, but WFP was the right policy badly sold, then u turns a plenty, then the shambles of this week
Starmer is weak when the country needs a PM with conviction to actually stand by their decisions, and not capitulate when under criticism
Whilst sympathy for Reeves unfortunately for her that picture of her in distress will be her defining legacy
I wanted Starmer to live up to his pre election integrity and have strength to dig in when under pressure but he is simply another poor PM and the word clouds reflect public opinion very well
Agree 100% that the principle of the WFA policy was correct. Said so at the time. My only argument with it is that they didn't properly Means Test it so too many vulnerable people were clobbered by it.
Turn it around, if that’s the only bad thing that most people recall, it may not turn out so badly.
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
The WFA. Everybody knows it was a top top political gimmick from Gordon Brown. Rather than simply increase the pension, do this instead, create the impression of the government popping into the home of an elderly person freezing in winter and turning on the heater. "There you go, dear. All is well."
Such a brilliant gimmick that every government since has defied logic and all impartial advice in order to not mess with it. Too scared to do so. Gordon's conceit would be reversed and bite you in the bum. The government stops by that elderly person in winter and turns the heater off. Brrrr. Terrible optics. So let's carry on giving these annual lump sums to millions of people who don't need it. Bad policy, good politics.
Finally someone bites the bullet and changes it. Hang the politics let's do the right thing. £££ only to those who really need it. And what happens? Of course support from the public is an unrealistic ask since it is a takeaway. But it's well-known money is tight so do the public surprise on the upside by at least being a little bit sanguine about it? Do they hellers like! They are so pissed off it forms their entire view of the government. No other issue gets even a mention.
Sorry, 'customer always right' bla bla, but I find it kind of pathetic.
Surely the obvious lesson is that people prefer specific payments to regular benefits.
We could abolish the state pension and replace it with a Spring Equinox Payment, a Summer Holiday payment, a Harvest Festival Payment, a Christmas Payment, a New Year Bonus, etc.
Do the same with other benefits and reform the whole system.
That's better, W. Back on form.
You could even go a bit woke with it and have some of the payments scheduled for world relgious festivals too. Get the Reform voting pensioners up in arms if Farage threatens to cut their annual Diwali Payment.
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
Where is the government brave enough to say that those with an income in excess of £35k don't actually get the OAP, or at least a diminished share of it? We are so deeply in debt and we are borrowing outrageous sums. Radical approaches need to be taken or we risk catastrophe.
We watched them gingerly carrying that Ming vase about to secure their win, hoping that once they got their mandate and five long years, they would emerge from the telephone box ready for some bold action and get some stuff done. Instead they decided to put the vase inside the telephone box and are all sitting around looking at it.
No, the issue is that Labour doesn't have a mandate from the voters. Only 1 in 5 voters actually voted for them, usually winning parties, especially ones with landslide majorities, get closer to 1 in 3 voters so there's a reasonable amount of popular support out there in the public for whatever the government's agenda might be. With only 1 in 5 people going out to bat for them in conversations there's just not enough people to defend them. Previous governments would have had 3 or 4 out of 10 people defending their agenda, 3 or 4 opposed and 2 or 3 just uninterested in politics. Labour have got 1 or 2 out of ten defending them, 5 or 6 against them and 3 or 4 uninterested. It's a very difficult position for them and that lack of popular support means they can't rock the boat when it comes to controversial cuts or tax rises.
So far the biggest tax rise has nominally been on businesses because businesses can't really do anything about it, everything else where they've attempted to decrease transaction values for handouts or increase transaction values for tax on voters has failed.
We watched them gingerly carrying that Ming vase about to secure their win, hoping that once they got their mandate and five long years, they would emerge from the telephone box ready for some bold action and get some stuff done. Instead they decided to put the vase inside the telephone box and are all sitting around looking at it.
No, the issue is that Labour doesn't have a mandate from the voters. Only 1 in 5 voters actually voted for them, usually winning parties, especially ones with landslide majorities, get closer to 1 in 3 voters so there's a reasonable amount of popular support out there in the public for whatever the government's agenda might be. With only 1 in 5 people going out to bat for them in conversations there's just not enough people to defend them. Previous governments would have had 3 or 4 out of 10 people defending their agenda, 3 or 4 opposed and 2 or 3 just uninterested in politics. Labour have got 1 or 2 out of ten defending them, 5 or 6 against them and 3 or 4 uninterested. It's a very difficult position for them and that lack of popular support means they can't rock the boat when it comes to controversial cuts or tax rises.
So far the biggest tax rise has nominally been on businesses because businesses can't really do anything about it, everything else where they've attempted to decrease transaction values for handouts or increase transaction values for tax on voters has failed.
It’s always been a flaw of our voting system that a minority vote delivers majority power. That Labour’s win was broad but shallow feeds into politics via the small majorities and ton of MPs who know they’ll be one-term wonders, but I don’t believe the difference between one minority vote and a slightly larger one explains Labour’s failure to be bolder.
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
Where is the government brave enough to say that those with an income in excess of £35k don't actually get the OAP, or at least a diminished share of it? We are so deeply in debt and we are borrowing outrageous sums. Radical approaches need to be taken or we risk catastrophe.
Pleased to see my great friend Keith Girling reclaimed his Notts County Council seat after the Reform councilllor quit a week after the elections in May. Nothing to do with him being a Tory (in fact I wish he wasn't) but he is a genuinely good bloke and a cracking councillor so very pleased he is back.
No, that is great news for the Tories, if they can win back most of the 33% who now want to bring back Rishi as PM that would almost double their current voteshare
a large portion of that 33% won't vote for Kemi tho
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
Yeah the income will but not the capital. It is easy to tie your capital up without generating £35k of income from it and live off the capital. Pension funds, ISA, capital growth shares, property, etc. Without going into detail I will be miles away from £35k income, but by anyone's measure I am very very well off. That will be true of many well off pensioners. It is how we prepared for retirement if we didn't have a DB pension.
Because of the benefit rules on capital even though I have a low income I lost the WFA as I should. Now, as for a lot of rich pensioners, who don't have DB pensions I will get it.
It is nonsense. I and others like me shouldn't get it. I will probably donate it.
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
Where is the government brave enough to say that those with an income in excess of £35k don't actually get the OAP, or at least a diminished share of it? We are so deeply in debt and we are borrowing outrageous sums. Radical approaches need to be taken or we risk catastrophe.
Given they will have paid in via NI and state pension eligibility is based on that that won't happen, WFA never depended on NI contributions.
Though the triple lock could be ended for higher earning pensioners
No, that is great news for the Tories, if they can win back most of the 33% who now want to bring back Rishi as PM that would almost double their current voteshare
a large portion of that 33% won't vote for Kemi tho
Won't they? That is about the same percentage as backed the Tories under IDS and Howard
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
Where is the government brave enough to say that those with an income in excess of £35k don't actually get the OAP, or at least a diminished share of it? We are so deeply in debt and we are borrowing outrageous sums. Radical approaches need to be taken or we risk catastrophe.
Does that £35,000 include the current OAP?
No. But those who have income in excess of £35k (other figures are available) do not need the OAP and should not get it. The lies told by generations of politicians have come home to roost. We don't have the money to splurge on those that don't need it. We need that for those in need and to try and create some new wealth.
I can't read the Telegraph these days due to it being ranty. But I was surprised to listen to the 1Jul2025 Daily Telegraph "Daily T" podcast which, whilst I didn't agree with all of it, it was still expressed in a quiet reasonable manner by well-spoken people in a non-asylum manner.
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
Yeah the income will but not the capital. It is easy to tie your capital up without generating £35k of income from it and live off the capital. Pension funds, ISA, capital growth shares, property, etc. Without going into detail I will be miles away from £35k income, but by anyone's measure I am very very well off. That will be true of many well off pensioners. It is how we prepared for retirement if we didn't have a DB pension.
Because of the benefit rules on capital even though I have a low income I lost the WFA as I should. Now, as for a lot of rich pensioners, who don't have DB pensions I will get it.
It is nonsense. I and others like me shouldn't get it. I will probably donate it.
Only if you sell the capital do you get any earnings from it, dividends from shares, rental income from property etc would still count for the £35k +
Pleased to see my great friend Keith Girling reclaimed his Notts County Council seat after the Reform councilllor quit a week after the elections in May. Nothing to do with him being a Tory (in fact I wish he wasn't) but he is a genuinely good bloke and a cracking councillor so very pleased he is back.
No, that is great news for the Tories, if they can win back most of the 33% who now want to bring back Rishi as PM that would almost double their current voteshare
a large portion of that 33% won't vote for Kemi tho
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
No, that is great news for the Tories, if they can win back most of the 33% who now want to bring back Rishi as PM that would almost double their current voteshare
a large portion of that 33% won't vote for Kemi tho
Won't they? That is about the same percentage as backed the Tories under IDS and Howard
That as before they became thorough;y incompetent and corrupt.
Pleased to see my great friend Keith Girling reclaimed his Notts County Council seat after the Reform councilllor quit a week after the elections in May. Nothing to do with him being a Tory (in fact I wish he wasn't) but he is a genuinely good bloke and a cracking councillor so very pleased he is back.
I see Jenrick has muscled in on the success.
Well Kemi and he did campaign up there, so why not ?
Pleased to see my great friend Keith Girling reclaimed his Notts County Council seat after the Reform councilllor quit a week after the elections in May. Nothing to do with him being a Tory (in fact I wish he wasn't) but he is a genuinely good bloke and a cracking councillor so very pleased he is back.
Hard to think a year ago some were laying into Starmer before his car back from the Palace had reached Admiralty Arch but that's politics, a "rough trade" as someone else said.
From my centrist perspective, what has disappointed but not surprised has been the lack of anything radical from the new Government - while not quite Continuity Sunak (they aren't that bad), the poor can continues to suffer numerous kickings. Too many important issues remain unresolved, too many questions unanswered.
I'd argue big majorities do not always help - it just means more people to share the unpopularity. It wasn't Labour's "fault" unprecedented Conservative unpopularity and a new insurgent party helped deliver a landslide on a relatively small share of the vote. Perhaps Starmer, rather like Blair before 1997, didn't believe what the polls are saying and couldn't conceive of a 170 seat majority and its implications.
The truth is being unpopular isn't nice and few enjoy it - however, if you are convinced what you are doing will ultimately be for the good of the country you have to ride out the unpopulatity (exacerbated as it is by social media hostility) and wait for the positive. There are signs parts of the NHS are doing better but the failure to do anything about social care and its impact on local Govenrment finances is a black mark in my book.
That Labour has no real coherent and practical answers to the concerns many feel about immigration is less surprising - no one else has come up with anything coherent and practical so we all stumble on desperately looking for a quick, easy and cheap solution which doesn't exist while the debate has moved on from immigration to integration to remigration (the whos, the hows and the whys are usually understated if not wholly absent).
We watched them gingerly carrying that Ming vase about to secure their win, hoping that once they got their mandate and five long years, they would emerge from the telephone box ready for some bold action and get some stuff done. Instead they decided to put the vase inside the telephone box and are all sitting around looking at it.
No, the issue is that Labour doesn't have a mandate from the voters. Only 1 in 5 voters actually voted for them, usually winning parties, especially ones with landslide majorities, get closer to 1 in 3 voters so there's a reasonable amount of popular support out there in the public for whatever the government's agenda might be. With only 1 in 5 people going out to bat for them in conversations there's just not enough people to defend them. Previous governments would have had 3 or 4 out of 10 people defending their agenda, 3 or 4 opposed and 2 or 3 just uninterested in politics. Labour have got 1 or 2 out of ten defending them, 5 or 6 against them and 3 or 4 uninterested. It's a very difficult position for them and that lack of popular support means they can't rock the boat when it comes to controversial cuts or tax rises.
So far the biggest tax rise has nominally been on businesses because businesses can't really do anything about it, everything else where they've attempted to decrease transaction values for handouts or increase transaction values for tax on voters has failed.
It’s always been a flaw of our voting system that a minority vote delivers majority power. That Labour’s win was broad but shallow feeds into politics via the small majorities and ton of MPs who know they’ll be one-term wonders, but I don’t believe the difference between one minority vote and a slightly larger one explains Labour’s failure to be bolder.
It's because there's no popular support for anything they're doing. If you can only muster 19 out of 100 people to sign up to your agenda it's much, much worse than if you get 30/100 to do so. The drop in Labour support vs the Boris majority is absolutely gigantic in terms of just having people out there willing to defend them because they have some level of emotional investment after voting. There is a very real 35-40% drop off in the absolute numbers of people who are willing to step up and say to their friends "this is good because" or "this is right because" and that has a big effect on the national mood and sentiment towards the government.
Winning a mile wide, inch deep majority was never going to produce radical change, I said this at the time when Labour supporters were banging on about the size of the majority and the landslide. There's just not enough people out in the real world who want what Labour are selling. It's a function of running on a blank sheet of paper and just being "not the Tories". The only thing that people support them to do is not be the Tories, and even there the poll in this thread suggests that actually isn't something that's helping them any more with a the same proportion of voters saying they'd take Rishi back.
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
Where is the government brave enough to say that those with an income in excess of £35k don't actually get the OAP, or at least a diminished share of it? We are so deeply in debt and we are borrowing outrageous sums. Radical approaches need to be taken or we risk catastrophe.
Given they will have paid in via NI and state pension eligibility is based on that that won't happen, WFA never depended on NI contributions.
Though the triple lock could be ended for higher earning pensioners
But it will happen because it is not affordable to continue to provide free NHS and the state pension given to the wealthy
NI is not a hypothecated tax - indeed no taxes are - they all go into the one pot
The triple lock and WFP also have to go and this comes back to having a strong leader as PM
Let’s say someone bought a flat 25 years ago, lived in it for five years then moved 50 miles away for work purposes, so rented it out for five years whilst renting a place near work, and on their return continued to let it and rented a similar property locally, then bought another place 5 years ago…is it really fair to be liable for CGT for the last 20 years, even though it was their only property for 20/25 of them?
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
Where is the government brave enough to say that those with an income in excess of £35k don't actually get the OAP, or at least a diminished share of it? We are so deeply in debt and we are borrowing outrageous sums. Radical approaches need to be taken or we risk catastrophe.
Does that £35,000 include the current OAP?
No. But those who have income in excess of £35k (other figures are available) do not need the OAP and should not get it. The lies told by generations of politicians have come home to roost. We don't have the money to splurge on those that don't need it. We need that for those in need and to try and create some new wealth.
All benefits including the OAP should be means tested in some way. And I say that not as a stripling youngester but as someone who will be old enough to receive it in just over 7 years.
No, that is great news for the Tories, if they can win back most of the 33% who now want to bring back Rishi as PM that would almost double their current voteshare
a large portion of that 33% won't vote for Kemi tho
Won't they? That is about the same percentage as backed the Tories under IDS and Howard
That as before they became thorough;y incompetent and corrupt.
And labour are doing an even better job at doing that
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
Where is the government brave enough to say that those with an income in excess of £35k don't actually get the OAP, or at least a diminished share of it? We are so deeply in debt and we are borrowing outrageous sums. Radical approaches need to be taken or we risk catastrophe.
Given they will have paid in via NI and state pension eligibility is based on that that won't happen, WFA never depended on NI contributions.
Though the triple lock could be ended for higher earning pensioners
Not enough. Not nearly enough. We need to find £75bn of savings. We need to find £75bn of cuts and yet we need to increase defence spending. It is a hellish situation and I have some sympathy for Reeves and even Starmer although they were quite content to tell lies to win the election. We need to stop pretending.
Let’s say someone bought a flat 25 years ago, lived in it for five years then moved 50 miles away for work purposes, so rented it out for five years whilst renting a place near work, and on their return continued to let it and rented a similar property locally, then bought another place 5 years ago…is it really fair to be liable for CGT for the last 20 years, even though it was their only property for 20/25 of them?
Yes, it wasn't their primary residence during that period of time. No one forced that person to keep the flat rather than sell and buy near their new workplace.
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
Where is the government brave enough to say that those with an income in excess of £35k don't actually get the OAP, or at least a diminished share of it? We are so deeply in debt and we are borrowing outrageous sums. Radical approaches need to be taken or we risk catastrophe.
Given they will have paid in via NI and state pension eligibility is based on that that won't happen, WFA never depended on NI contributions.
Though the triple lock could be ended for higher earning pensioners
The original 'contract' as set out by the post war Government was that we would pay NI to pay for pensions for the existing pensioners at the time and when we got to the point of retirement then the current workers would pay NI for our pensions.
But circumstances change. It is no longer a viable system and if we are rich enough to cope without it we should not expect existing workers earning little more than minimum wage to be paying NI to support us in our old age.
It is time for a new contract. One that recognises that the workers are not necessarily well off and pensioners are not necessarily poor and in need (or deserving) of state support.
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
Yeah the income will but not the capital. It is easy to tie your capital up without generating £35k of income from it and live off the capital. Pension funds, ISA, capital growth shares, property, etc. Without going into detail I will be miles away from £35k income, but by anyone's measure I am very very well off. That will be true of many well off pensioners. It is how we prepared for retirement if we didn't have a DB pension.
Because of the benefit rules on capital even though I have a low income I lost the WFA as I should. Now, as for a lot of rich pensioners, who don't have DB pensions I will get it.
It is nonsense. I and others like me shouldn't get it. I will probably donate it.
Only if you sell the capital do you get any earnings from it, dividends from shares, rental income from property etc would still count for the £35k +
@hyufd you haven't a clue. I have over £5m invested nearly all of which is not revenue generating but capital generating or doing nothing. It is ISAs, property I don't rent out out but use and can borrow against, drawdown pensions I can control, etc. I will be long dead before I spend all of this. My sole income is my state pension and a few thousand in dividends and interest. I realise capital or savings to make up what I need to live which don't impact the £35k figure. I will be dead before it runs out. Consequently I now get the WFA which is nonsense.
Others who are a lot less well off than me but don't have DB pensions will be doing exactly the same. It is nonsense that I will get it. When tied into benefits I wouldn't.
Pleased to see my great friend Keith Girling reclaimed his Notts County Council seat after the Reform councilllor quit a week after the elections in May. Nothing to do with him being a Tory (in fact I wish he wasn't) but he is a genuinely good bloke and a cracking councillor so very pleased he is back.
I see Jenrick has muscled in on the success.
Well Kemi and he did campaign up there, so why not ?
Because they were as likely to drive support away as to increase it?
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
Yeah the income will but not the capital. It is easy to tie your capital up without generating £35k of income from it and live off the capital. Pension funds, ISA, capital growth shares, property, etc. Without going into detail I will be miles away from £35k income, but by anyone's measure I am very very well off. That will be true of many well off pensioners. It is how we prepared for retirement if we didn't have a DB pension.
Because of the benefit rules on capital even though I have a low income I lost the WFA as I should. Now, as for a lot of rich pensioners, who don't have DB pensions I will get it.
It is nonsense. I and others like me shouldn't get it. I will probably donate it.
Only if you sell the capital do you get any earnings from it, dividends from shares, rental income from property etc would still count for the £35k +
@hyufd you haven't a clue. I have over £5m invested nearly all of which is not revenue generating but capital generating or doing nothing. It is ISAs, property I don't rent out out but use and can borrow against, drawdown pensions I can control, etc. I will be long dead before I spend all of this. My sole income is my state pension and a few thousand in dividends and interest. I realise capital or savings to make up what I need to live which don't impact the £35k figure. I will be dead before it runs out. Consequently I now get the WFA which is nonsense.
Others who are a lot less well off than me but don't have DB pensions will be doing exactly the same. It is nonsense that I will get it. When tied into benefits I wouldn't.
Any cash drawn out from ISAs could arguably be income and I am sure you would need to check the fine print on that before claiming your WFA
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
If you have a SIPP it will be much easier to manage your income than if you’re receiving a DB pension, thereby disadvantaging public sector workers. Probably not what Reeves intended.
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
Where is the government brave enough to say that those with an income in excess of £35k don't actually get the OAP, or at least a diminished share of it? We are so deeply in debt and we are borrowing outrageous sums. Radical approaches need to be taken or we risk catastrophe.
Given they will have paid in via NI and state pension eligibility is based on that that won't happen, WFA never depended on NI contributions.
Though the triple lock could be ended for higher earning pensioners
The original 'contract' as set out by the post war Government was that we would pay NI to pay for pensions for the existing pensioners at the time and when we got to the point of retirement then the current workers would pay NI for our pensions.
But circumstances change. It is no longer a viable system and if we are rich enough to cope without it we should not expect existing workers earning little more than minimum wage to be paying NI to support us in our old age.
It is time for a new contract. One that recognises that the workers are not necessarily well off and pensioners are not necessarily poor and in need (or deserving) of state support.
We should return to the original NI principle, it should be hypothecated for the state pension and contributions based JSA only with at most funding some healthcare and social care added on
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
Where is the government brave enough to say that those with an income in excess of £35k don't actually get the OAP, or at least a diminished share of it? We are so deeply in debt and we are borrowing outrageous sums. Radical approaches need to be taken or we risk catastrophe.
Given they will have paid in via NI and state pension eligibility is based on that that won't happen, WFA never depended on NI contributions.
Though the triple lock could be ended for higher earning pensioners
Not enough. Not nearly enough. We need to find £75bn of savings. We need to find £75bn of cuts and yet we need to increase defence spending. It is a hellish situation and I have some sympathy for Reeves and even Starmer although they were quite content to tell lies to win the election. We need to stop pretending.
There will likely be a massive wealth tax imposed by this Labour government sooner rather than later so you won't need to wait too long
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
Where is the government brave enough to say that those with an income in excess of £35k don't actually get the OAP, or at least a diminished share of it? We are so deeply in debt and we are borrowing outrageous sums. Radical approaches need to be taken or we risk catastrophe.
Given they will have paid in via NI and state pension eligibility is based on that that won't happen, WFA never depended on NI contributions.
Though the triple lock could be ended for higher earning pensioners
The original 'contract' as set out by the post war Government was that we would pay NI to pay for pensions for the existing pensioners at the time and when we got to the point of retirement then the current workers would pay NI for our pensions.
But circumstances change. It is no longer a viable system and if we are rich enough to cope without it we should not expect existing workers earning little more than minimum wage to be paying NI to support us in our old age.
It is time for a new contract. One that recognises that the workers are not necessarily well off and pensioners are not necessarily poor and in need (or deserving) of state support.
We should return to the original NI principle, it should be hypothecated for the state pension and contributions based JSA only with at most funding some healthcare and social care added on
And if it insufficient to pay for promised pensions, what happens then?
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
Yeah the income will but not the capital. It is easy to tie your capital up without generating £35k of income from it and live off the capital. Pension funds, ISA, capital growth shares, property, etc. Without going into detail I will be miles away from £35k income, but by anyone's measure I am very very well off. That will be true of many well off pensioners. It is how we prepared for retirement if we didn't have a DB pension.
Because of the benefit rules on capital even though I have a low income I lost the WFA as I should. Now, as for a lot of rich pensioners, who don't have DB pensions I will get it.
It is nonsense. I and others like me shouldn't get it. I will probably donate it.
Only if you sell the capital do you get any earnings from it, dividends from shares, rental income from property etc would still count for the £35k +
@hyufd you haven't a clue. I have over £5m invested nearly all of which is not revenue generating but capital generating or doing nothing. It is ISAs, property I don't rent out out but use and can borrow against, drawdown pensions I can control, etc. I will be long dead before I spend all of this. My sole income is my state pension and a few thousand in dividends and interest. I realise capital or savings to make up what I need to live which don't impact the £35k figure. I will be dead before it runs out. Consequently I now get the WFA which is nonsense.
Others who are a lot less well off than me but don't have DB pensions will be doing exactly the same. It is nonsense that I will get it. When tied into benefits I wouldn't.
Any cash drawn out from ISAs could arguably be income and I am sure you would need to check the fine print on that before claiming your WFA
Hard to think a year ago some were laying into Starmer before his car back from the Palace had reached Admiralty Arch but that's politics, a "rough trade" as someone else said.
From my centrist perspective, what has disappointed but not surprised has been the lack of anything radical from the new Government - while not quite Continuity Sunak (they aren't that bad), the poor can continues to suffer numerous kickings. Too many important issues remain unresolved, too many questions unanswered.
I'd argue big majorities do not always help - it just means more people to share the unpopularity. It wasn't Labour's "fault" unprecedented Conservative unpopularity and a new insurgent party helped deliver a landslide on a relatively small share of the vote. Perhaps Starmer, rather like Blair before 1997, didn't believe what the polls are saying and couldn't conceive of a 170 seat majority and its implications.
The truth is being unpopular isn't nice and few enjoy it - however, if you are convinced what you are doing will ultimately be for the good of the country you have to ride out the unpopulatity (exacerbated as it is by social media hostility) and wait for the positive. There are signs parts of the NHS are doing better but the failure to do anything about social care and its impact on local Govenrment finances is a black mark in my book.
That Labour has no real coherent and practical answers to the concerns many feel about immigration is less surprising - no one else has come up with anything coherent and practical so we all stumble on desperately looking for a quick, easy and cheap solution which doesn't exist while the debate has moved on from immigration to integration to remigration (the whos, the hows and the whys are usually understated if not wholly absent).
Instead of acting as if he had a majority of 170, Starmer has acted as if he had a majority of 17. Sir Fear Starmer.
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
Where is the government brave enough to say that those with an income in excess of £35k don't actually get the OAP, or at least a diminished share of it? We are so deeply in debt and we are borrowing outrageous sums. Radical approaches need to be taken or we risk catastrophe.
Given they will have paid in via NI and state pension eligibility is based on that that won't happen, WFA never depended on NI contributions.
Though the triple lock could be ended for higher earning pensioners
The original 'contract' as set out by the post war Government was that we would pay NI to pay for pensions for the existing pensioners at the time and when we got to the point of retirement then the current workers would pay NI for our pensions.
But circumstances change. It is no longer a viable system and if we are rich enough to cope without it we should not expect existing workers earning little more than minimum wage to be paying NI to support us in our old age.
It is time for a new contract. One that recognises that the workers are not necessarily well off and pensioners are not necessarily poor and in need (or deserving) of state support.
It does need looked at but consider this. Someone who has not been able to pay NI due to illness or unemployment gets almost the full State Pension through Pension Credit. Those that have been able to pay NI by working all their years gets almost the same full State Pension. So by removing the pension from those who worked and contributed but paying a pension to those that did not (for whatever reason) would create 'anomalies' .
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
Where is the government brave enough to say that those with an income in excess of £35k don't actually get the OAP, or at least a diminished share of it? We are so deeply in debt and we are borrowing outrageous sums. Radical approaches need to be taken or we risk catastrophe.
Given they will have paid in via NI and state pension eligibility is based on that that won't happen, WFA never depended on NI contributions.
Though the triple lock could be ended for higher earning pensioners
But it will happen because it is not affordable to continue to provide free NHS and the state pension given to the wealthy
NI is not a hypothecated tax - indeed no taxes are - they all go into the one pot
The triple lock and WFP also have to go and this comes back to having a strong leader as PM
It was axing the WFP which led to Labour's collapsed poll rating in the first place, axing it completely is political suicide
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
Where is the government brave enough to say that those with an income in excess of £35k don't actually get the OAP, or at least a diminished share of it? We are so deeply in debt and we are borrowing outrageous sums. Radical approaches need to be taken or we risk catastrophe.
Given they will have paid in via NI and state pension eligibility is based on that that won't happen, WFA never depended on NI contributions.
Though the triple lock could be ended for higher earning pensioners
The original 'contract' as set out by the post war Government was that we would pay NI to pay for pensions for the existing pensioners at the time and when we got to the point of retirement then the current workers would pay NI for our pensions.
But circumstances change. It is no longer a viable system and if we are rich enough to cope without it we should not expect existing workers earning little more than minimum wage to be paying NI to support us in our old age.
It is time for a new contract. One that recognises that the workers are not necessarily well off and pensioners are not necessarily poor and in need (or deserving) of state support.
I think there is an increasing body of opinion that has concluded we cannot continue free NHS care and the state pension to all, and these lucrative benefits do need a form of means testing
I heard yesteday of a teacher retiring on a final salary pension of £90,000 pa
Can anyone justify that teacher receiving the state pension in our current debt crisis ?
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
Where is the government brave enough to say that those with an income in excess of £35k don't actually get the OAP, or at least a diminished share of it? We are so deeply in debt and we are borrowing outrageous sums. Radical approaches need to be taken or we risk catastrophe.
Given they will have paid in via NI and state pension eligibility is based on that that won't happen, WFA never depended on NI contributions.
Though the triple lock could be ended for higher earning pensioners
But it will happen because it is not affordable to continue to provide free NHS and the state pension given to the wealthy
NI is not a hypothecated tax - indeed no taxes are - they all go into the one pot
The triple lock and WFP also have to go and this comes back to having a strong leader as PM
It was axing the WFP which led to Labour's collapsed poll rating in the first place, axing it completely is political suicide
And that is where we need leadership
Reeves proposals should have been kept irrespective of the outcry
And I will tell you what is political suicide, collapsing the bond markets trust in our economic policies (see Truss)
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
Yeah the income will but not the capital. It is easy to tie your capital up without generating £35k of income from it and live off the capital. Pension funds, ISA, capital growth shares, property, etc. Without going into detail I will be miles away from £35k income, but by anyone's measure I am very very well off. That will be true of many well off pensioners. It is how we prepared for retirement if we didn't have a DB pension.
Because of the benefit rules on capital even though I have a low income I lost the WFA as I should. Now, as for a lot of rich pensioners, who don't have DB pensions I will get it.
It is nonsense. I and others like me shouldn't get it. I will probably donate it.
Only if you sell the capital do you get any earnings from it, dividends from shares, rental income from property etc would still count for the £35k +
@hyufd you haven't a clue. I have over £5m invested nearly all of which is not revenue generating but capital generating or doing nothing. It is ISAs, property I don't rent out out but use and can borrow against, drawdown pensions I can control, etc. I will be long dead before I spend all of this. My sole income is my state pension and a few thousand in dividends and interest. I realise capital or savings to make up what I need to live which don't impact the £35k figure. I will be dead before it runs out. Consequently I now get the WFA which is nonsense.
Others who are a lot less well off than me but don't have DB pensions will be doing exactly the same. It is nonsense that I will get it. When tied into benefits I wouldn't.
Any cash drawn out from ISAs could arguably be income and I am sure you would need to check the fine print on that before claiming your WFA
ISAs are tax free. As is any money I borrow against my property, as is 25% of my pension, as is any shares I sell provided I keep below the CGT allowance, as is drawing on my savings. I don't claim the WFA I get it automatically for the very reason that I have a taxable income below £35k.
Yet I have a large amount of capital that is ignored for the purposes of WFA, which wasn't the case prior to the U turn. I will not be an exception here. There will be lots of us, in fact most people I know of my age.
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
Where is the government brave enough to say that those with an income in excess of £35k don't actually get the OAP, or at least a diminished share of it? We are so deeply in debt and we are borrowing outrageous sums. Radical approaches need to be taken or we risk catastrophe.
Given they will have paid in via NI and state pension eligibility is based on that that won't happen, WFA never depended on NI contributions.
Though the triple lock could be ended for higher earning pensioners
The original 'contract' as set out by the post war Government was that we would pay NI to pay for pensions for the existing pensioners at the time and when we got to the point of retirement then the current workers would pay NI for our pensions.
But circumstances change. It is no longer a viable system and if we are rich enough to cope without it we should not expect existing workers earning little more than minimum wage to be paying NI to support us in our old age.
It is time for a new contract. One that recognises that the workers are not necessarily well off and pensioners are not necessarily poor and in need (or deserving) of state support.
I think there is an increasing body of opinion that has concluded we cannot continue free NHS care and the state pension to all, and these lucrative benefits do need a form of means testing
I heard yesteday of a teacher retiring on a final salary pension of £90,000 pa
Can anyone justify that teacher receiving the state pension in our current debt crisis ?
That figure simply doesn’t make sense - got any details as it’s clearly designed to be a clickbait lie
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
Yeah the income will but not the capital. It is easy to tie your capital up without generating £35k of income from it and live off the capital. Pension funds, ISA, capital growth shares, property, etc. Without going into detail I will be miles away from £35k income, but by anyone's measure I am very very well off. That will be true of many well off pensioners. It is how we prepared for retirement if we didn't have a DB pension.
Because of the benefit rules on capital even though I have a low income I lost the WFA as I should. Now, as for a lot of rich pensioners, who don't have DB pensions I will get it.
It is nonsense. I and others like me shouldn't get it. I will probably donate it.
Only if you sell the capital do you get any earnings from it, dividends from shares, rental income from property etc would still count for the £35k +
@hyufd you haven't a clue. I have over £5m invested nearly all of which is not revenue generating but capital generating or doing nothing. It is ISAs, property I don't rent out out but use and can borrow against, drawdown pensions I can control, etc. I will be long dead before I spend all of this. My sole income is my state pension and a few thousand in dividends and interest. I realise capital or savings to make up what I need to live which don't impact the £35k figure. I will be dead before it runs out. Consequently I now get the WFA which is nonsense.
Others who are a lot less well off than me but don't have DB pensions will be doing exactly the same. It is nonsense that I will get it. When tied into benefits I wouldn't.
Any cash drawn out from ISAs could arguably be income and I am sure you would need to check the fine print on that before claiming your WFA
Palestine Action loses bid to gain temporary block on government ban
The protest group is set to be added to the list of proscribed terrorist groups from midnight.
They quite literally are terrorists under the law. Damaging property with the intent to compel political change or violence will continue is the definition of terrorism.
Peaceful protest is non-violent and does not include damaging property.
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
Yeah the income will but not the capital. It is easy to tie your capital up without generating £35k of income from it and live off the capital. Pension funds, ISA, capital growth shares, property, etc. Without going into detail I will be miles away from £35k income, but by anyone's measure I am very very well off. That will be true of many well off pensioners. It is how we prepared for retirement if we didn't have a DB pension.
Because of the benefit rules on capital even though I have a low income I lost the WFA as I should. Now, as for a lot of rich pensioners, who don't have DB pensions I will get it.
It is nonsense. I and others like me shouldn't get it. I will probably donate it.
Only if you sell the capital do you get any earnings from it, dividends from shares, rental income from property etc would still count for the £35k +
@hyufd you haven't a clue. I have over £5m invested nearly all of which is not revenue generating but capital generating or doing nothing. It is ISAs, property I don't rent out out but use and can borrow against, drawdown pensions I can control, etc. I will be long dead before I spend all of this. My sole income is my state pension and a few thousand in dividends and interest. I realise capital or savings to make up what I need to live which don't impact the £35k figure. I will be dead before it runs out. Consequently I now get the WFA which is nonsense.
Others who are a lot less well off than me but don't have DB pensions will be doing exactly the same. It is nonsense that I will get it. When tied into benefits I wouldn't.
Any cash drawn out from ISAs could arguably be income and I am sure you would need to check the fine print on that before claiming your WFA
ISAs are tax free. As is any money I borrow against my property, as is 25% of my pension, as is any shares I sell provided I keep below the CGT allowance, as is drawing on my savings. I don't claim the WFA I get it automatically for the very reason that I have a taxable income below £35k.
Yet I have a large amount of capital that is ignored for the purposes of WFA, which wasn't the case prior to the U turn. I will not be an exception here. There will be lots of us, in fact most people I know of my age.
You are defending the indefensible.
Everyone’s going to get it automatically, and then have it reclaimed through tax in the year following, unless we go to the trouble of specifically opting out. Whether people below the threshold can also use the opt out route will be an interesting question.
No, that is great news for the Tories, if they can win back most of the 33% who now want to bring back Rishi as PM that would almost double their current voteshare
By the same logic, if Labour convince a quarter of those undecided to vote for them, they are home and dry.
Palestine Action loses bid to gain temporary block on government ban
The protest group is set to be added to the list of proscribed terrorist groups from midnight.
They quite literally are terrorists under the law. Damaging property with the intent to compel political change or violence will continue is the definition of terrorism.
Peaceful protest is non-violent and does not include damaging property.
So if somebody spray-paints "Labour Out" on a wall, that's terrorism?
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
Yeah the income will but not the capital. It is easy to tie your capital up without generating £35k of income from it and live off the capital. Pension funds, ISA, capital growth shares, property, etc. Without going into detail I will be miles away from £35k income, but by anyone's measure I am very very well off. That will be true of many well off pensioners. It is how we prepared for retirement if we didn't have a DB pension.
Because of the benefit rules on capital even though I have a low income I lost the WFA as I should. Now, as for a lot of rich pensioners, who don't have DB pensions I will get it.
It is nonsense. I and others like me shouldn't get it. I will probably donate it.
Only if you sell the capital do you get any earnings from it, dividends from shares, rental income from property etc would still count for the £35k +
@hyufd you haven't a clue. I have over £5m invested nearly all of which is not revenue generating but capital generating or doing nothing. It is ISAs, property I don't rent out out but use and can borrow against, drawdown pensions I can control, etc. I will be long dead before I spend all of this. My sole income is my state pension and a few thousand in dividends and interest. I realise capital or savings to make up what I need to live which don't impact the £35k figure. I will be dead before it runs out. Consequently I now get the WFA which is nonsense.
Others who are a lot less well off than me but don't have DB pensions will be doing exactly the same. It is nonsense that I will get it. When tied into benefits I wouldn't.
Any cash drawn out from ISAs could arguably be income and I am sure you would need to check the fine print on that before claiming your WFA
ISAs are tax free. As is any money I borrow against my property, as is 25% of my pension, as is any shares I sell provided I keep below the CGT allowance, as is drawing on my savings. I don't claim the WFA I get it automatically for the very reason that I have a taxable income below £35k.
Yet I have a large amount of capital that is ignored for the purposes of WFA, which wasn't the case prior to the U turn. I will not be an exception here. There will be lots of us, in fact most people I know of my age.
You are defending the indefensible.
Everyone’s going to get it automatically, and then have it reclaimed through tax in the year following, unless we go to the trouble of specifically opting out. Whether people below the threshold can also use the opt out route will be an interesting question.
I wouldn't even if I could. I would rather decide what charity gets it than leave it with the Govt.
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
Where is the government brave enough to say that those with an income in excess of £35k don't actually get the OAP, or at least a diminished share of it? We are so deeply in debt and we are borrowing outrageous sums. Radical approaches need to be taken or we risk catastrophe.
Given they will have paid in via NI and state pension eligibility is based on that that won't happen, WFA never depended on NI contributions.
Though the triple lock could be ended for higher earning pensioners
The original 'contract' as set out by the post war Government was that we would pay NI to pay for pensions for the existing pensioners at the time and when we got to the point of retirement then the current workers would pay NI for our pensions.
But circumstances change. It is no longer a viable system and if we are rich enough to cope without it we should not expect existing workers earning little more than minimum wage to be paying NI to support us in our old age.
It is time for a new contract. One that recognises that the workers are not necessarily well off and pensioners are not necessarily poor and in need (or deserving) of state support.
I think there is an increasing body of opinion that has concluded we cannot continue free NHS care and the state pension to all, and these lucrative benefits do need a form of means testing
I heard yesteday of a teacher retiring on a final salary pension of £90,000 pa
Can anyone justify that teacher receiving the state pension in our current debt crisis ?
That figure simply doesn’t make sense - got any details as it’s clearly designed to be a clickbait lie
I was told it by someone who works with this person and they are in the education sector
I have no reason to believe it was clickbait
However, the general point remains that a good number of retirees have extremely generous pensions and we simply cannot expect 'workers' to pay ever higher taxes to sustain this unfairness
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
Where is the government brave enough to say that those with an income in excess of £35k don't actually get the OAP, or at least a diminished share of it? We are so deeply in debt and we are borrowing outrageous sums. Radical approaches need to be taken or we risk catastrophe.
Given they will have paid in via NI and state pension eligibility is based on that that won't happen, WFA never depended on NI contributions.
Though the triple lock could be ended for higher earning pensioners
The original 'contract' as set out by the post war Government was that we would pay NI to pay for pensions for the existing pensioners at the time and when we got to the point of retirement then the current workers would pay NI for our pensions.
But circumstances change. It is no longer a viable system and if we are rich enough to cope without it we should not expect existing workers earning little more than minimum wage to be paying NI to support us in our old age.
It is time for a new contract. One that recognises that the workers are not necessarily well off and pensioners are not necessarily poor and in need (or deserving) of state support.
I think there is an increasing body of opinion that has concluded we cannot continue free NHS care and the state pension to all, and these lucrative benefits do need a form of means testing
I heard yesteday of a teacher retiring on a final salary pension of £90,000 pa
Can anyone justify that teacher receiving the state pension in our current debt crisis ?
Looks like you’re spreading nonsense, ot at least highly misleading info, there.
The legacy teachers pension arrangements were an eightieths scheme, such that even after forty years service you’d only receive a pension equal to half your final salary. So your figure only makes sense if it’s someone retiring on a salary of £180,000 after an entire working life spent in teaching. Yes, there are a few academy schools paying that much for their heads - so the figure is just about possible, in an extreme minority case, but that says very little about the pension that other teachers, including the large majority of heads, will be getting. The average pension from the TPS is believed to be about £10,000 per year.
Palestine Action loses bid to gain temporary block on government ban
The protest group is set to be added to the list of proscribed terrorist groups from midnight.
They quite literally are terrorists under the law. Damaging property with the intent to compel political change or violence will continue is the definition of terrorism.
Peaceful protest is non-violent and does not include damaging property.
So if somebody spray-paints "Labour Out" on a wall, that's terrorism?
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
Where is the government brave enough to say that those with an income in excess of £35k don't actually get the OAP, or at least a diminished share of it? We are so deeply in debt and we are borrowing outrageous sums. Radical approaches need to be taken or we risk catastrophe.
Given they will have paid in via NI and state pension eligibility is based on that that won't happen, WFA never depended on NI contributions.
Though the triple lock could be ended for higher earning pensioners
The original 'contract' as set out by the post war Government was that we would pay NI to pay for pensions for the existing pensioners at the time and when we got to the point of retirement then the current workers would pay NI for our pensions.
But circumstances change. It is no longer a viable system and if we are rich enough to cope without it we should not expect existing workers earning little more than minimum wage to be paying NI to support us in our old age.
It is time for a new contract. One that recognises that the workers are not necessarily well off and pensioners are not necessarily poor and in need (or deserving) of state support.
I think there is an increasing body of opinion that has concluded we cannot continue free NHS care and the state pension to all, and these lucrative benefits do need a form of means testing
I heard yesteday of a teacher retiring on a final salary pension of £90,000 pa
Can anyone justify that teacher receiving the state pension in our current debt crisis ?
That figure simply doesn’t make sense - got any details as it’s clearly designed to be a clickbait lie
I was told it by someone who works with this person and they are in the education sector
I have no reason to believe it was clickbait
However, the general point remains that a good number of retirees have extremely generous pensions and we simply cannot expect 'workers' to pay ever higher taxes to sustain this unfairness
Now that interest rates are back at ‘normal’ levels, most DB schemes are in surplus - and those that don’t have funds would be in surplus if the contributions made by the employee and employer had been invested, rather than nicked and spent by your Tories in government. So it’s hard to see how taxpayers are funding this “unfairness”, except through the employer contributions in the first place - which as part of the overall remuneration package are hardly excessive.
Palestine Action loses bid to gain temporary block on government ban
The protest group is set to be added to the list of proscribed terrorist groups from midnight.
They quite literally are terrorists under the law. Damaging property with the intent to compel political change or violence will continue is the definition of terrorism.
Peaceful protest is non-violent and does not include damaging property.
So if somebody spray-paints "Labour Out" on a wall, that's terrorism?
Graffiti is worse than terrorism. I would happily support the death penalty for graffiti; indeed, I would pull the lever myself.
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
Yeah the income will but not the capital. It is easy to tie your capital up without generating £35k of income from it and live off the capital. Pension funds, ISA, capital growth shares, property, etc. Without going into detail I will be miles away from £35k income, but by anyone's measure I am very very well off. That will be true of many well off pensioners. It is how we prepared for retirement if we didn't have a DB pension.
Because of the benefit rules on capital even though I have a low income I lost the WFA as I should. Now, as for a lot of rich pensioners, who don't have DB pensions I will get it.
It is nonsense. I and others like me shouldn't get it. I will probably donate it.
Only if you sell the capital do you get any earnings from it, dividends from shares, rental income from property etc would still count for the £35k +
@hyufd you haven't a clue. I have over £5m invested nearly all of which is not revenue generating but capital generating or doing nothing. It is ISAs, property I don't rent out out but use and can borrow against, drawdown pensions I can control, etc. I will be long dead before I spend all of this. My sole income is my state pension and a few thousand in dividends and interest. I realise capital or savings to make up what I need to live which don't impact the £35k figure. I will be dead before it runs out. Consequently I now get the WFA which is nonsense.
Others who are a lot less well off than me but don't have DB pensions will be doing exactly the same. It is nonsense that I will get it. When tied into benefits I wouldn't.
Any cash drawn out from ISAs could arguably be income and I am sure you would need to check the fine print on that before claiming your WFA
ISAs are tax free. As is any money I borrow against my property, as is 25% of my pension, as is any shares I sell provided I keep below the CGT allowance, as is drawing on my savings. I don't claim the WFA I get it automatically for the very reason that I have a taxable income below £35k.
Yet I have a large amount of capital that is ignored for the purposes of WFA, which wasn't the case prior to the U turn. I will not be an exception here. There will be lots of us, in fact most people I know of my age.
You are defending the indefensible.
Everyone’s going to get it automatically, and then have it reclaimed through tax in the year following, unless we go to the trouble of specifically opting out. Whether people below the threshold can also use the opt out route will be an interesting question.
I wouldn't even if I could. I would rather decide what charity gets it than leave it with the Govt.
I’m sure the civil servants’ benevolent fund will be very grateful.
Palestine Action loses bid to gain temporary block on government ban
The protest group is set to be added to the list of proscribed terrorist groups from midnight.
They quite literally are terrorists under the law. Damaging property with the intent to compel political change or violence will continue is the definition of terrorism.
Peaceful protest is non-violent and does not include damaging property.
So if somebody spray-paints "Labour Out" on a wall, that's terrorism?
Graffiti is worse than terrorism. I would happily support the death penalty for graffiti; indeed, I would pull the lever myself.
I think we need to examine your school desk closely.
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
Yeah the income will but not the capital. It is easy to tie your capital up without generating £35k of income from it and live off the capital. Pension funds, ISA, capital growth shares, property, etc. Without going into detail I will be miles away from £35k income, but by anyone's measure I am very very well off. That will be true of many well off pensioners. It is how we prepared for retirement if we didn't have a DB pension.
Because of the benefit rules on capital even though I have a low income I lost the WFA as I should. Now, as for a lot of rich pensioners, who don't have DB pensions I will get it.
It is nonsense. I and others like me shouldn't get it. I will probably donate it.
Only if you sell the capital do you get any earnings from it, dividends from shares, rental income from property etc would still count for the £35k +
@hyufd you haven't a clue. I have over £5m invested nearly all of which is not revenue generating but capital generating or doing nothing. It is ISAs, property I don't rent out out but use and can borrow against, drawdown pensions I can control, etc. I will be long dead before I spend all of this. My sole income is my state pension and a few thousand in dividends and interest. I realise capital or savings to make up what I need to live which don't impact the £35k figure. I will be dead before it runs out. Consequently I now get the WFA which is nonsense.
Others who are a lot less well off than me but don't have DB pensions will be doing exactly the same. It is nonsense that I will get it. When tied into benefits I wouldn't.
Any cash drawn out from ISAs could arguably be income and I am sure you would need to check the fine print on that before claiming your WFA
ISAs are tax free. As is any money I borrow against my property, as is 25% of my pension, as is any shares I sell provided I keep below the CGT allowance, as is drawing on my savings. I don't claim the WFA I get it automatically for the very reason that I have a taxable income below £35k.
Yet I have a large amount of capital that is ignored for the purposes of WFA, which wasn't the case prior to the U turn. I will not be an exception here. There will be lots of us, in fact most people I know of my age.
You are defending the indefensible.
Everyone’s going to get it automatically, and then have it reclaimed through tax in the year following, unless we go to the trouble of specifically opting out. Whether people below the threshold can also use the opt out route will be an interesting question.
Just to qualify this
The WFP applies to the household and where there are 2 pensioners then half the WFP is paid to each
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
Where is the government brave enough to say that those with an income in excess of £35k don't actually get the OAP, or at least a diminished share of it? We are so deeply in debt and we are borrowing outrageous sums. Radical approaches need to be taken or we risk catastrophe.
Given they will have paid in via NI and state pension eligibility is based on that that won't happen, WFA never depended on NI contributions.
Though the triple lock could be ended for higher earning pensioners
The original 'contract' as set out by the post war Government was that we would pay NI to pay for pensions for the existing pensioners at the time and when we got to the point of retirement then the current workers would pay NI for our pensions.
But circumstances change. It is no longer a viable system and if we are rich enough to cope without it we should not expect existing workers earning little more than minimum wage to be paying NI to support us in our old age.
It is time for a new contract. One that recognises that the workers are not necessarily well off and pensioners are not necessarily poor and in need (or deserving) of state support.
I think there is an increasing body of opinion that has concluded we cannot continue free NHS care and the state pension to all, and these lucrative benefits do need a form of means testing
I heard yesteday of a teacher retiring on a final salary pension of £90,000 pa
Can anyone justify that teacher receiving the state pension in our current debt crisis ?
That figure simply doesn’t make sense - got any details as it’s clearly designed to be a clickbait lie
I was told it by someone who works with this person and they are in the education sector
I have no reason to believe it was clickbait
However, the general point remains that a good number of retirees have extremely generous pensions and we simply cannot expect 'workers' to pay ever higher taxes to sustain this unfairness
This is ridiculous Big G. The most a teacher gets when he retires is 50%. A full time teacher on 50000 pa, gets a max of 25000. Did they not teach percentages in your school?
Let’s say someone bought a flat 25 years ago, lived in it for five years then moved 50 miles away for work purposes, so rented it out for five years whilst renting a place near work, and on their return continued to let it and rented a similar property locally, then bought another place 5 years ago…is it really fair to be liable for CGT for the last 20 years, even though it was their only property for 20/25 of them?
Yes, it wasn't their primary residence during that period of time. No one forced that person to keep the flat rather than sell and buy near their new workplace.
@isam's point is that the current tax system discriminates against people whose jobs cause them to move around relative to those whose don't.
The alternative is to pay transaction fees (stamp duty + estate agent fees) every time you move.
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
Yeah the income will but not the capital. It is easy to tie your capital up without generating £35k of income from it and live off the capital. Pension funds, ISA, capital growth shares, property, etc. Without going into detail I will be miles away from £35k income, but by anyone's measure I am very very well off. That will be true of many well off pensioners. It is how we prepared for retirement if we didn't have a DB pension.
Because of the benefit rules on capital even though I have a low income I lost the WFA as I should. Now, as for a lot of rich pensioners, who don't have DB pensions I will get it.
It is nonsense. I and others like me shouldn't get it. I will probably donate it.
Only if you sell the capital do you get any earnings from it, dividends from shares, rental income from property etc would still count for the £35k +
@hyufd you haven't a clue. I have over £5m invested nearly all of which is not revenue generating but capital generating or doing nothing. It is ISAs, property I don't rent out out but use and can borrow against, drawdown pensions I can control, etc. I will be long dead before I spend all of this. My sole income is my state pension and a few thousand in dividends and interest. I realise capital or savings to make up what I need to live which don't impact the £35k figure. I will be dead before it runs out. Consequently I now get the WFA which is nonsense.
Others who are a lot less well off than me but don't have DB pensions will be doing exactly the same. It is nonsense that I will get it. When tied into benefits I wouldn't.
Any cash drawn out from ISAs could arguably be income and I am sure you would need to check the fine print on that before claiming your WFA
ISAs are tax free. As is any money I borrow against my property, as is 25% of my pension, as is any shares I sell provided I keep below the CGT allowance, as is drawing on my savings. I don't claim the WFA I get it automatically for the very reason that I have a taxable income below £35k.
Yet I have a large amount of capital that is ignored for the purposes of WFA, which wasn't the case prior to the U turn. I will not be an exception here. There will be lots of us, in fact most people I know of my age.
You are defending the indefensible.
Everyone’s going to get it automatically, and then have it reclaimed through tax in the year following, unless we go to the trouble of specifically opting out. Whether people below the threshold can also use the opt out route will be an interesting question.
Just to qualify this
The WFP applies to the household and where there are 2 pensioners then half the WFP is paid to each
As I say, you will be paid the lot automatically, and then for those not qualifying it will be clawed back the year following. Presumably from the estates of those that have died, meantime.
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
Yeah the income will but not the capital. It is easy to tie your capital up without generating £35k of income from it and live off the capital. Pension funds, ISA, capital growth shares, property, etc. Without going into detail I will be miles away from £35k income, but by anyone's measure I am very very well off. That will be true of many well off pensioners. It is how we prepared for retirement if we didn't have a DB pension.
Because of the benefit rules on capital even though I have a low income I lost the WFA as I should. Now, as for a lot of rich pensioners, who don't have DB pensions I will get it.
It is nonsense. I and others like me shouldn't get it. I will probably donate it.
Only if you sell the capital do you get any earnings from it, dividends from shares, rental income from property etc would still count for the £35k +
@hyufd you haven't a clue. I have over £5m invested nearly all of which is not revenue generating but capital generating or doing nothing. It is ISAs, property I don't rent out out but use and can borrow against, drawdown pensions I can control, etc. I will be long dead before I spend all of this. My sole income is my state pension and a few thousand in dividends and interest. I realise capital or savings to make up what I need to live which don't impact the £35k figure. I will be dead before it runs out. Consequently I now get the WFA which is nonsense.
Others who are a lot less well off than me but don't have DB pensions will be doing exactly the same. It is nonsense that I will get it. When tied into benefits I wouldn't.
Any cash drawn out from ISAs could arguably be income and I am sure you would need to check the fine print on that before claiming your WFA
ISAs are tax free. As is any money I borrow against my property, as is 25% of my pension, as is any shares I sell provided I keep below the CGT allowance, as is drawing on my savings. I don't claim the WFA I get it automatically for the very reason that I have a taxable income below £35k.
Yet I have a large amount of capital that is ignored for the purposes of WFA, which wasn't the case prior to the U turn. I will not be an exception here. There will be lots of us, in fact most people I know of my age.
You are defending the indefensible.
Everyone’s going to get it automatically, and then have it reclaimed through tax in the year following, unless we go to the trouble of specifically opting out. Whether people below the threshold can also use the opt out route will be an interesting question.
I wouldn't even if I could. I would rather decide what charity gets it than leave it with the Govt.
I’m sure the civil servants’ benevolent fund will be very grateful.
After my dealings with civil servant on a campaign I am involved in there is not a chance. But I'm guessing you knew that😁
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
Where is the government brave enough to say that those with an income in excess of £35k don't actually get the OAP, or at least a diminished share of it? We are so deeply in debt and we are borrowing outrageous sums. Radical approaches need to be taken or we risk catastrophe.
Given they will have paid in via NI and state pension eligibility is based on that that won't happen, WFA never depended on NI contributions.
Though the triple lock could be ended for higher earning pensioners
The original 'contract' as set out by the post war Government was that we would pay NI to pay for pensions for the existing pensioners at the time and when we got to the point of retirement then the current workers would pay NI for our pensions.
But circumstances change. It is no longer a viable system and if we are rich enough to cope without it we should not expect existing workers earning little more than minimum wage to be paying NI to support us in our old age.
It is time for a new contract. One that recognises that the workers are not necessarily well off and pensioners are not necessarily poor and in need (or deserving) of state support.
I think there is an increasing body of opinion that has concluded we cannot continue free NHS care and the state pension to all, and these lucrative benefits do need a form of means testing
I heard yesteday of a teacher retiring on a final salary pension of £90,000 pa
Can anyone justify that teacher receiving the state pension in our current debt crisis ?
Looks like you’re spreading nonsense, ot at least highly misleading info, there.
The legacy teachers pension arrangements were an eightieths scheme, such that even after forty years service you’d only receive a pension equal to half your final salary. So your figure only makes sense if it’s someone retiring on a salary of £180,000 after an entire working life spent in teaching. Yes, there are a few academy schools paying that much for their heads - so the figure is just about possible, in an extreme minority case, but that says very little about the pension that other teachers, including the large majority of heads, will be getting. The average pension from the TPS is believed to be about £10,000 per year.
Water company bosses will be getting much more
The figure I quoted is real and maybe a very high earner but even half that figure is a high pension, and at some time in the future the state pension will need to take that into account
Let’s say someone bought a flat 25 years ago, lived in it for five years then moved 50 miles away for work purposes, so rented it out for five years whilst renting a place near work, and on their return continued to let it and rented a similar property locally, then bought another place 5 years ago…is it really fair to be liable for CGT for the last 20 years, even though it was their only property for 20/25 of them?
Yes, it wasn't their primary residence during that period of time. No one forced that person to keep the flat rather than sell and buy near their new workplace.
@isam's point is that the current tax system discriminates against people whose jobs cause them to move around relative to those whose don't.
The alternative is to pay transaction fees (stamp duty + estate agent fees) every time you move.
Stamp Duty should be abolished and replaced by an annual property tax of - say (on the basis that on average people move every seven years) 1/7 of the current stamp duty rate based on your purchase price.
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
Yeah the income will but not the capital. It is easy to tie your capital up without generating £35k of income from it and live off the capital. Pension funds, ISA, capital growth shares, property, etc. Without going into detail I will be miles away from £35k income, but by anyone's measure I am very very well off. That will be true of many well off pensioners. It is how we prepared for retirement if we didn't have a DB pension.
Because of the benefit rules on capital even though I have a low income I lost the WFA as I should. Now, as for a lot of rich pensioners, who don't have DB pensions I will get it.
It is nonsense. I and others like me shouldn't get it. I will probably donate it.
Only if you sell the capital do you get any earnings from it, dividends from shares, rental income from property etc would still count for the £35k +
@hyufd you haven't a clue. I have over £5m invested nearly all of which is not revenue generating but capital generating or doing nothing. It is ISAs, property I don't rent out out but use and can borrow against, drawdown pensions I can control, etc. I will be long dead before I spend all of this. My sole income is my state pension and a few thousand in dividends and interest. I realise capital or savings to make up what I need to live which don't impact the £35k figure. I will be dead before it runs out. Consequently I now get the WFA which is nonsense.
Others who are a lot less well off than me but don't have DB pensions will be doing exactly the same. It is nonsense that I will get it. When tied into benefits I wouldn't.
Any cash drawn out from ISAs could arguably be income and I am sure you would need to check the fine print on that before claiming your WFA
ISAs are tax free. As is any money I borrow against my property, as is 25% of my pension, as is any shares I sell provided I keep below the CGT allowance, as is drawing on my savings. I don't claim the WFA I get it automatically for the very reason that I have a taxable income below £35k.
Yet I have a large amount of capital that is ignored for the purposes of WFA, which wasn't the case prior to the U turn. I will not be an exception here. There will be lots of us, in fact most people I know of my age.
You are defending the indefensible.
So? WFA is also tax free. As a self professed tax dodging LD (quelle surprise) you may have dodged your way back into keeping your WFA, the question is would all the income of HMRC admin trying to find your non taxable income to deprive you of your WFA end up costing more than any savings made?
Let’s say someone bought a flat 25 years ago, lived in it for five years then moved 50 miles away for work purposes, so rented it out for five years whilst renting a place near work, and on their return continued to let it and rented a similar property locally, then bought another place 5 years ago…is it really fair to be liable for CGT for the last 20 years, even though it was their only property for 20/25 of them?
Yes, it wasn't their primary residence during that period of time. No one forced that person to keep the flat rather than sell and buy near their new workplace.
@isam's point is that the current tax system discriminates against people whose jobs cause them to move around relative to those whose don't.
The alternative is to pay transaction fees (stamp duty + estate agent fees) every time you move.
Stamp Duty should be abolished and replaced by an annual property tax of - say (on the basis that on average people move every seven years) 1/7 of the current stamp duty rate based on your purchase price.
Wouldn't it be better to combine stamp duty and council tax into an annual property tax? Based on the current value.
On thread - Labour have given voters on both sides of the argument to tell them they've got it wrong over WFA. Though it isn't WFA. There is a reason to abolish WFA - to save money. Perfectly rational. For biggest failures you have to look at any of the no-upside failures. Like Chagos. Or the 'deal' with the EU. Or Alleygate. Or employers' NI. Or chasing away billionaires.
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
Where is the government brave enough to say that those with an income in excess of £35k don't actually get the OAP, or at least a diminished share of it? We are so deeply in debt and we are borrowing outrageous sums. Radical approaches need to be taken or we risk catastrophe.
Given they will have paid in via NI and state pension eligibility is based on that that won't happen, WFA never depended on NI contributions.
Though the triple lock could be ended for higher earning pensioners
But it will happen because it is not affordable to continue to provide free NHS and the state pension given to the wealthy
NI is not a hypothecated tax - indeed no taxes are - they all go into the one pot
The triple lock and WFP also have to go and this comes back to having a strong leader as PM
It was axing the WFP which led to Labour's collapsed poll rating in the first place, axing it completely is political suicide
And that is where we need leadership
Reeves proposals should have been kept irrespective of the outcry
And I will tell you what is political suicide, collapsing the bond markets trust in our economic policies (see Truss)
You are not a Labour MP facing losing their seat, have the bond markets collapsed since most WFA cuts were reversed? No.
Investors are expecting a massive wealth tax to raise extra revenue in the autumn, Truss' problem was she slashed tax but not spending. Labour are increasing tax (as they have with the family farm and small businesses tax and NI employers rise) to fund their rising spending
Palestine Action loses bid to gain temporary block on government ban
The protest group is set to be added to the list of proscribed terrorist groups from midnight.
They quite literally are terrorists under the law. Damaging property with the intent to compel political change or violence will continue is the definition of terrorism.
Peaceful protest is non-violent and does not include damaging property.
So if somebody spray-paints "Labour Out" on a wall, that's terrorism?
Spray painting on a wall is not serious damage.
Doing tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds of damage absolutely is.
Let’s say someone bought a flat 25 years ago, lived in it for five years then moved 50 miles away for work purposes, so rented it out for five years whilst renting a place near work, and on their return continued to let it and rented a similar property locally, then bought another place 5 years ago…is it really fair to be liable for CGT for the last 20 years, even though it was their only property for 20/25 of them?
Yes, it wasn't their primary residence during that period of time. No one forced that person to keep the flat rather than sell and buy near their new workplace.
@isam's point is that the current tax system discriminates against people whose jobs cause them to move around relative to those whose don't.
The alternative is to pay transaction fees (stamp duty + estate agent fees) every time you move.
Stamp Duty should be abolished and replaced by an annual property tax of - say (on the basis that on average people move every seven years) 1/7 of the current stamp duty rate based on your purchase price.
Wouldn't it be better to combine stamp duty and council tax into an annual property tax? Based on the current value.
But one is local and one is national. To start with it would be simpler to create a new national tax from Stamp Duty, then nudge it up (and maybe tweak the CT system into closer alignment) as years pass.
There is so much that could be done with the tax system - moving toward merging tax and NI being another example - which simply highlights how tragically timid and unambitious is the current government.
To consider that the 1945 Labour government created the entire NHS in essentially a term.
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
Where is the government brave enough to say that those with an income in excess of £35k don't actually get the OAP, or at least a diminished share of it? We are so deeply in debt and we are borrowing outrageous sums. Radical approaches need to be taken or we risk catastrophe.
Given they will have paid in via NI and state pension eligibility is based on that that won't happen, WFA never depended on NI contributions.
Though the triple lock could be ended for higher earning pensioners
The original 'contract' as set out by the post war Government was that we would pay NI to pay for pensions for the existing pensioners at the time and when we got to the point of retirement then the current workers would pay NI for our pensions.
But circumstances change. It is no longer a viable system and if we are rich enough to cope without it we should not expect existing workers earning little more than minimum wage to be paying NI to support us in our old age.
It is time for a new contract. One that recognises that the workers are not necessarily well off and pensioners are not necessarily poor and in need (or deserving) of state support.
I think there is an increasing body of opinion that has concluded we cannot continue free NHS care and the state pension to all, and these lucrative benefits do need a form of means testing
I heard yesteday of a teacher retiring on a final salary pension of £90,000 pa
Can anyone justify that teacher receiving the state pension in our current debt crisis ?
That figure simply doesn’t make sense - got any details as it’s clearly designed to be a clickbait lie
I was told it by someone who works with this person and they are in the education sector
I have no reason to believe it was clickbait
However, the general point remains that a good number of retirees have extremely generous pensions and we simply cannot expect 'workers' to pay ever higher taxes to sustain this unfairness
This is ridiculous Big G. The most a teacher gets when he retires is 50%. A full time teacher on 50000 pa, gets a max of 25000. Did they not teach percentages in your school?
There is no need to be rude
I have no reason to disbelieve the information
However, the point is that high pension earners should have the state pension means tested
Palestine Action loses bid to gain temporary block on government ban
The protest group is set to be added to the list of proscribed terrorist groups from midnight.
They quite literally are terrorists under the law. Damaging property with the intent to compel political change or violence will continue is the definition of terrorism.
Peaceful protest is non-violent and does not include damaging property.
So if somebody spray-paints "Labour Out" on a wall, that's terrorism?
Graffiti is worse than terrorism. I would happily support the death penalty for graffiti; indeed, I would pull the lever myself.
A car in front of us yesterday threw litter out of the window of the car. I was fuming for ages. If they didn't want an untidy car why is it ok to make the countryside untidy. Guillotine was my first thought, then I decided it would be too quick.
Pleased to see my great friend Keith Girling reclaimed his Notts County Council seat after the Reform councilllor quit a week after the elections in May. Nothing to do with him being a Tory (in fact I wish he wasn't) but he is a genuinely good bloke and a cracking councillor so very pleased he is back.
I see Jenrick has muscled in on the success.
Well Kemi and he did campaign up there, so why not ?
Because they were as likely to drive support away as to increase it?
Hard to think a year ago some were laying into Starmer before his car back from the Palace had reached Admiralty Arch but that's politics, a "rough trade" as someone else said.
From my centrist perspective, what has disappointed but not surprised has been the lack of anything radical from the new Government - while not quite Continuity Sunak (they aren't that bad), the poor can continues to suffer numerous kickings. Too many important issues remain unresolved, too many questions unanswered.
I'd argue big majorities do not always help - it just means more people to share the unpopularity. It wasn't Labour's "fault" unprecedented Conservative unpopularity and a new insurgent party helped deliver a landslide on a relatively small share of the vote. Perhaps Starmer, rather like Blair before 1997, didn't believe what the polls are saying and couldn't conceive of a 170 seat majority and its implications.
The truth is being unpopular isn't nice and few enjoy it - however, if you are convinced what you are doing will ultimately be for the good of the country you have to ride out the unpopulatity (exacerbated as it is by social media hostility) and wait for the positive. There are signs parts of the NHS are doing better but the failure to do anything about social care and its impact on local Govenrment finances is a black mark in my book.
That Labour has no real coherent and practical answers to the concerns many feel about immigration is less surprising - no one else has come up with anything coherent and practical so we all stumble on desperately looking for a quick, easy and cheap solution which doesn't exist while the debate has moved on from immigration to integration to remigration (the whos, the hows and the whys are usually understated if not wholly absent).
Instead of acting as if he had a majority of 170, Starmer has acted as if he had a majority of 17. Sir Fear Starmer.
Which has the paradoxical effect of meaning that he has an effective majority of about minus 17.
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
Where is the government brave enough to say that those with an income in excess of £35k don't actually get the OAP, or at least a diminished share of it? We are so deeply in debt and we are borrowing outrageous sums. Radical approaches need to be taken or we risk catastrophe.
Given they will have paid in via NI and state pension eligibility is based on that that won't happen, WFA never depended on NI contributions.
Though the triple lock could be ended for higher earning pensioners
The original 'contract' as set out by the post war Government was that we would pay NI to pay for pensions for the existing pensioners at the time and when we got to the point of retirement then the current workers would pay NI for our pensions.
But circumstances change. It is no longer a viable system and if we are rich enough to cope without it we should not expect existing workers earning little more than minimum wage to be paying NI to support us in our old age.
It is time for a new contract. One that recognises that the workers are not necessarily well off and pensioners are not necessarily poor and in need (or deserving) of state support.
I think there is an increasing body of opinion that has concluded we cannot continue free NHS care and the state pension to all, and these lucrative benefits do need a form of means testing
I heard yesteday of a teacher retiring on a final salary pension of £90,000 pa
Can anyone justify that teacher receiving the state pension in our current debt crisis ?
That figure simply doesn’t make sense - got any details as it’s clearly designed to be a clickbait lie
I was told it by someone who works with this person and they are in the education sector
I have no reason to believe it was clickbait
However, the general point remains that a good number of retirees have extremely generous pensions and we simply cannot expect 'workers' to pay ever higher taxes to sustain this unfairness
This is ridiculous Big G. The most a teacher gets when he retires is 50%. A full time teacher on 50000 pa, gets a max of 25000. Did they not teach percentages in your school?
Index linked, of course, and at what age ?
The actuarial value to buy such a pension is colossal.
Palestine Action loses bid to gain temporary block on government ban
The protest group is set to be added to the list of proscribed terrorist groups from midnight.
They quite literally are terrorists under the law. Damaging property with the intent to compel political change or violence will continue is the definition of terrorism.
Peaceful protest is non-violent and does not include damaging property.
So if somebody spray-paints "Labour Out" on a wall, that's terrorism?
Graffiti is worse than terrorism. I would happily support the death penalty for graffiti; indeed, I would pull the lever myself.
A car in front of us yesterday threw litter out of the window of the car. I was fuming for ages. If they didn't want an untidy car why is it ok to make the countryside untidy. Guillotine was my first thought, then I decided it would be too quick.
There is only so much a liberal like me can take.
You could basically trap them in their car and pump it full of discarded ubbish till they suffocated and/or were crushed, as some sort of hypothetical fitting retribution. Not to be all dark about it, but hey.
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
Yeah the income will but not the capital. It is easy to tie your capital up without generating £35k of income from it and live off the capital. Pension funds, ISA, capital growth shares, property, etc. Without going into detail I will be miles away from £35k income, but by anyone's measure I am very very well off. That will be true of many well off pensioners. It is how we prepared for retirement if we didn't have a DB pension.
Because of the benefit rules on capital even though I have a low income I lost the WFA as I should. Now, as for a lot of rich pensioners, who don't have DB pensions I will get it.
It is nonsense. I and others like me shouldn't get it. I will probably donate it.
Only if you sell the capital do you get any earnings from it, dividends from shares, rental income from property etc would still count for the £35k +
@hyufd you haven't a clue. I have over £5m invested nearly all of which is not revenue generating but capital generating or doing nothing. It is ISAs, property I don't rent out out but use and can borrow against, drawdown pensions I can control, etc. I will be long dead before I spend all of this. My sole income is my state pension and a few thousand in dividends and interest. I realise capital or savings to make up what I need to live which don't impact the £35k figure. I will be dead before it runs out. Consequently I now get the WFA which is nonsense.
Others who are a lot less well off than me but don't have DB pensions will be doing exactly the same. It is nonsense that I will get it. When tied into benefits I wouldn't.
Any cash drawn out from ISAs could arguably be income and I am sure you would need to check the fine print on that before claiming your WFA
ISAs are tax free. As is any money I borrow against my property, as is 25% of my pension, as is any shares I sell provided I keep below the CGT allowance, as is drawing on my savings. I don't claim the WFA I get it automatically for the very reason that I have a taxable income below £35k.
Yet I have a large amount of capital that is ignored for the purposes of WFA, which wasn't the case prior to the U turn. I will not be an exception here. There will be lots of us, in fact most people I know of my age.
You are defending the indefensible.
Everyone’s going to get it automatically, and then have it reclaimed through tax in the year following, unless we go to the trouble of specifically opting out. Whether people below the threshold can also use the opt out route will be an interesting question.
Just to qualify this
The WFP applies to the household and where there are 2 pensioners then half the WFP is paid to each
As I say, you will be paid the lot automatically, and then for those not qualifying it will be clawed back the year following. Presumably from the estates of those that have died, meantime.
My wife and I each receive £150 paid directly into our bank accounts (over 80)
Therefore in our case if either of us earned £35,000 then each would have it clawed back
Palestine Action loses bid to gain temporary block on government ban
The protest group is set to be added to the list of proscribed terrorist groups from midnight.
They quite literally are terrorists under the law. Damaging property with the intent to compel political change or violence will continue is the definition of terrorism.
Peaceful protest is non-violent and does not include damaging property.
So if somebody spray-paints "Labour Out" on a wall, that's terrorism?
As I suggested the other day, we need an offence of Sabotage of National Infrastructure. Groups could be proscribed for repeated actions.
Palestine Action loses bid to gain temporary block on government ban
The protest group is set to be added to the list of proscribed terrorist groups from midnight.
They quite literally are terrorists under the law. Damaging property with the intent to compel political change or violence will continue is the definition of terrorism.
Peaceful protest is non-violent and does not include damaging property.
So if somebody spray-paints "Labour Out" on a wall, that's terrorism?
“Bollocks to Blair” T-shirts were offensive (apparently) and Police officers used threats of arrest to get them removed.
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
Where is the government brave enough to say that those with an income in excess of £35k don't actually get the OAP, or at least a diminished share of it? We are so deeply in debt and we are borrowing outrageous sums. Radical approaches need to be taken or we risk catastrophe.
Given they will have paid in via NI and state pension eligibility is based on that that won't happen, WFA never depended on NI contributions.
Though the triple lock could be ended for higher earning pensioners
The original 'contract' as set out by the post war Government was that we would pay NI to pay for pensions for the existing pensioners at the time and when we got to the point of retirement then the current workers would pay NI for our pensions.
But circumstances change. It is no longer a viable system and if we are rich enough to cope without it we should not expect existing workers earning little more than minimum wage to be paying NI to support us in our old age.
It is time for a new contract. One that recognises that the workers are not necessarily well off and pensioners are not necessarily poor and in need (or deserving) of state support.
I think there is an increasing body of opinion that has concluded we cannot continue free NHS care and the state pension to all, and these lucrative benefits do need a form of means testing
I heard yesteday of a teacher retiring on a final salary pension of £90,000 pa
Can anyone justify that teacher receiving the state pension in our current debt crisis ?
That figure simply doesn’t make sense - got any details as it’s clearly designed to be a clickbait lie
I was told it by someone who works with this person and they are in the education sector
I have no reason to believe it was clickbait
However, the general point remains that a good number of retirees have extremely generous pensions and we simply cannot expect 'workers' to pay ever higher taxes to sustain this unfairness
This is ridiculous Big G. The most a teacher gets when he retires is 50%. A full time teacher on 50000 pa, gets a max of 25000. Did they not teach percentages in your school?
There is no need to be rude
I have no reason to disbelieve the information
However, the point is that high pension earners should have the state pension means tested
You have no reason to disbelieve the info? Have you no critical thinking skills?
And for that matter the pensions are taxable you know?
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
Where is the government brave enough to say that those with an income in excess of £35k don't actually get the OAP, or at least a diminished share of it? We are so deeply in debt and we are borrowing outrageous sums. Radical approaches need to be taken or we risk catastrophe.
Given they will have paid in via NI and state pension eligibility is based on that that won't happen, WFA never depended on NI contributions.
Though the triple lock could be ended for higher earning pensioners
But it will happen because it is not affordable to continue to provide free NHS and the state pension given to the wealthy
NI is not a hypothecated tax - indeed no taxes are - they all go into the one pot
The triple lock and WFP also have to go and this comes back to having a strong leader as PM
It was axing the WFP which led to Labour's collapsed poll rating in the first place, axing it completely is political suicide
And that is where we need leadership
Reeves proposals should have been kept irrespective of the outcry
And I will tell you what is political suicide, collapsing the bond markets trust in our economic policies (see Truss)
You are not a Labour MP facing losing their seat, have the bond markets collapsed since most WFA cuts were reversed? No.
Investors are expecting a massive wealth tax to raise extra revenue in the autumn, Truss' problem was she slashed tax but not spending. Labour are increasing tax (as they have with the family farm and small businesses tax and NI employers rise) to fund their rising spending
They collapsed as Reeves 'cried' and recovered only when she appeared to have been endorsed by Starmer
This is the lesson
We cannot continue to borrow and spend and the day of reckoning is comimg on pensions and free NHS to all
Let’s say someone bought a flat 25 years ago, lived in it for five years then moved 50 miles away for work purposes, so rented it out for five years whilst renting a place near work, and on their return continued to let it and rented a similar property locally, then bought another place 5 years ago…is it really fair to be liable for CGT for the last 20 years, even though it was their only property for 20/25 of them?
Yes, it wasn't their primary residence during that period of time. No one forced that person to keep the flat rather than sell and buy near their new workplace.
@isam's point is that the current tax system discriminates against people whose jobs cause them to move around relative to those whose don't.
The alternative is to pay transaction fees (stamp duty + estate agent fees) every time you move.
Stamp Duty should be abolished and replaced by an annual property tax of - say (on the basis that on average people move every seven years) 1/7 of the current stamp duty rate based on your purchase price.
Wouldn't it be better to combine stamp duty and council tax into an annual property tax? Based on the current value.
Which is what I think we've concluded here multiple times - the best fix for a lot of things (council tax, "wealth tax", stamp duty) is to replace it with a <1% tax based on current value. Only issue is who pays it for rented properties...
Palestine Action loses bid to gain temporary block on government ban
The protest group is set to be added to the list of proscribed terrorist groups from midnight.
They quite literally are terrorists under the law. Damaging property with the intent to compel political change or violence will continue is the definition of terrorism.
Peaceful protest is non-violent and does not include damaging property.
So if somebody spray-paints "Labour Out" on a wall, that's terrorism?
Graffiti is worse than terrorism. I would happily support the death penalty for graffiti; indeed, I would pull the lever myself.
A car in front of us yesterday threw litter out of the window of the car. I was fuming for ages. If they didn't want an untidy car why is it ok to make the countryside untidy. Guillotine was my first thought, then I decided it would be too quick.
There is only so much a liberal like me can take.
A car in front of me did that in a traffic jam. I got out the car, picked the litter up, and threw it back in the window. Quite forcibly. Along with a tirade of expletives. Obviously they'll just throw it out again as soon as they think I won't follow them. But maybe they'll get the impression that that sort of behaviour is frowned on in this country. It was a rash act, and in my defence it was during covid and I was suffering with depression and not necessarily making good decisions.
Comments
So far the biggest tax rise has nominally been on businesses because businesses can't really do anything about it, everything else where they've attempted to decrease transaction values for handouts or increase transaction values for tax on voters has failed.
Pleased to see my great friend Keith Girling reclaimed his Notts County Council seat after the Reform councilllor quit a week after the elections in May. Nothing to do with him being a Tory (in fact I wish he wasn't) but he is a genuinely good bloke and a cracking councillor so very pleased he is back.
Because of the benefit rules on capital even though I have a low income I lost the WFA as I should. Now, as for a lot of rich pensioners, who don't have DB pensions I will get it.
It is nonsense. I and others like me shouldn't get it. I will probably donate it.
Though the triple lock could be ended for higher earning pensioners
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebOklb5LlzY
BBC Sport journalist at Edgbaston
Now this will be controversial. We have been waiting for this series to kick off.
For me, the time on the big screen was definitely at zero when Jaiswal signalled."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/live/clyw9g1j74gt#LiveReporting
https://observer.co.uk/news/politics/article/the-only-way-out-for-keir-starmer-and-rachel-reeves-is-to-show-sheer-audacity
Hard to think a year ago some were laying into Starmer before his car back from the Palace had reached Admiralty Arch but that's politics, a "rough trade" as someone else said.
From my centrist perspective, what has disappointed but not surprised has been the lack of anything radical from the new Government - while not quite Continuity Sunak (they aren't that bad), the poor can continues to suffer numerous kickings. Too many important issues remain unresolved, too many questions unanswered.
I'd argue big majorities do not always help - it just means more people to share the unpopularity. It wasn't Labour's "fault" unprecedented Conservative unpopularity and a new insurgent party helped deliver a landslide on a relatively small share of the vote. Perhaps Starmer, rather like Blair before 1997, didn't believe what the polls are saying and couldn't conceive of a 170 seat majority and its implications.
The truth is being unpopular isn't nice and few enjoy it - however, if you are convinced what you are doing will ultimately be for the good of the country you have to ride out the unpopulatity (exacerbated as it is by social media hostility) and wait for the positive. There are signs parts of the NHS are doing better but the failure to do anything about social care and its impact on local Govenrment finances is a black mark in my book.
That Labour has no real coherent and practical answers to the concerns many feel about immigration is less surprising - no one else has come up with anything coherent and practical so we all stumble on desperately looking for a quick, easy and cheap solution which doesn't exist while the debate has moved on from immigration to integration to remigration (the whos, the hows and the whys are usually understated if not wholly absent).
Winning a mile wide, inch deep majority was never going to produce radical change, I said this at the time when Labour supporters were banging on about the size of the majority and the landslide. There's just not enough people out in the real world who want what Labour are selling. It's a function of running on a blank sheet of paper and just being "not the Tories". The only thing that people support them to do is not be the Tories, and even there the poll in this thread suggests that actually isn't something that's helping them any more with a the same proportion of voters saying they'd take Rishi back.
NI is not a hypothecated tax - indeed no taxes are - they all go into the one pot
The triple lock and WFP also have to go and this comes back to having a strong leader as PM
https://x.com/ukhomeoffice/status/1941050664312009013
There's been a 44% rise in street crime, record levels of shop theft and a million incidents of anti-social behaviour.
We refuse to accept this for our towns.
This summer, police forces are increasing targeted patrols to protect businesses from harm and increase public safety.
But circumstances change. It is no longer a viable system and if we are rich enough to cope without it we should not expect existing workers earning little more than minimum wage to be paying NI to support us in our old age.
It is time for a new contract. One that recognises that the workers are not necessarily well off and pensioners are not necessarily poor and in need (or deserving) of state support.
Others who are a lot less well off than me but don't have DB pensions will be doing exactly the same. It is nonsense that I will get it. When tied into benefits I wouldn't.
Palestine Action loses bid to gain temporary block on government ban
The protest group is set to be added to the list of proscribed terrorist groups from midnight.
I heard yesteday of a teacher retiring on a final salary pension of £90,000 pa
Can anyone justify that teacher receiving the state pension in our current debt crisis ?
https://www.wimbledon.com/en_GB/scores/schedule/index.html
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/tennis/live/c86glvdd9x5t
Reeves proposals should have been kept irrespective of the outcry
And I will tell you what is political suicide, collapsing the bond markets trust in our economic policies (see Truss)
Yet I have a large amount of capital that is ignored for the purposes of WFA, which wasn't the case prior to the U turn. I will not be an exception here. There will be lots of us, in fact most people I know of my age.
You are defending the indefensible.
Peaceful protest is non-violent and does not include damaging property.
I have no reason to believe it was clickbait
However, the general point remains that a good number of retirees have extremely generous pensions and we simply cannot expect 'workers' to pay ever higher taxes to sustain this unfairness
The legacy teachers pension arrangements were an eightieths scheme, such that even after forty years service you’d only receive a pension equal to half your final salary. So your figure only makes sense if it’s someone retiring on a salary of £180,000 after an entire working life spent in teaching. Yes, there are a few academy schools paying that much for their heads - so the figure is just about possible, in an extreme minority case, but that says very little about the pension that other teachers, including the large majority of heads, will be getting. The average pension from the TPS is believed to be about £10,000 per year.
Water company bosses will be getting much more
I would doubt that spray painting a wall counts as "serious damage" but IANAL
Ridiculously, it means that attempting to overthrow the Iranian government, by an Iranian, would be terrorism.
The WFP applies to the household and where there are 2 pensioners then half the WFP is paid to each
Did they not teach percentages in your school?
The alternative is to pay transaction fees (stamp duty + estate agent fees) every time you move.
Though it isn't WFA. There is a reason to abolish WFA - to save money. Perfectly rational. For biggest failures you have to look at any of the no-upside failures. Like Chagos. Or the 'deal' with the EU. Or Alleygate. Or employers' NI. Or chasing away billionaires.
Investors are expecting a massive wealth tax to raise extra revenue in the autumn, Truss' problem was she slashed tax but not spending. Labour are increasing tax (as they have with the family farm and small businesses tax and NI employers rise) to fund their rising spending
Doing tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds of damage absolutely is.
There is so much that could be done with the tax system - moving toward merging tax and NI being another example - which simply highlights how tragically timid and unambitious is the current government.
To consider that the 1945 Labour government created the entire NHS in essentially a term.
I have no reason to disbelieve the information
However, the point is that high pension earners should have the state pension means tested
There is only so much a liberal like me can take.
The actuarial value to buy such a pension is colossal.
It’s a very good deal.
Therefore in our case if either of us earned £35,000 then each would have it clawed back
However we do not earn these figures
And for that matter the pensions are taxable you know?
This is the lesson
We cannot continue to borrow and spend and the day of reckoning is comimg on pensions and free NHS to all
Obviously they'll just throw it out again as soon as they think I won't follow them. But maybe they'll get the impression that that sort of behaviour is frowned on in this country.
It was a rash act, and in my defence it was during covid and I was suffering with depression and not necessarily making good decisions.
JD Vance
@JDVance
Usha and I brought the kids to Mt. Rushmore yesterday as we all get ready to celebrate Independence Day.
Today, we're also celebrating passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill, which will increase take home pay for families all across America.
Happy Fourth of July everyone! 🇺🇸