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
I'm pretty happy to believe that it was a personal issue for her - undoubtedly exaggerated by some immediate political stuff.
I completely buy her line of her place at PMQs being on the front bench. (Well not completely, but it'd be a bit caddish not to)
Whatever it was I'm very pleased to see she's recovered. Of course these issues may reemerge and she may again become unhappy, but I hope she doesn't place herself in the unfortunate position of being so publically in anguish again.
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.
It’s a very good deal.
It's a decent deal, albeit teachers aren't that well paid during their working life.
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?
Of course pensions are taxable and this was a conversation with someone who actually knows the details of the case
I expect there are quite a few very high earners in education that could be in a similar position, as indeed in other professions and industry
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.
It’s a very good deal.
It's a decent deal, albeit teachers aren't that well paid during their working life.
The Telegraph reckons that tube drivers can get 75% of their salary as pension (index linked, government guaranteed etc)
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
It's always hard being a Labour supporter. Many are called, few stay the course.
It's not like being one of the PB Tory faithful.
When the Labour Party do something reprehensible like Iraq or the recent benefits debacle those of us who are broadly supportive are quite content to call them out, even in the knowledge that the alternatives are even more craven and cruel.
Remember all those on here defending Dido Harding blowing £29bn of a budgeted £40bn on Test and Trace, or the PPE fast lane for friends, family and donors. Boris Johnson's £62m invisible bridge. The genius that was the Boriswave. Truss crashing the economy and the bond markets over a lunchtime, not through a tearful episode but by wilfully ignoring the OBR. And Brexit, let's not forget Brexit. The Conservatives's and UKIP/Reform's finest hour. All of these mere trifles dismissed as inconsequential by people who otherwise claim their team got all the big calls right.
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?
Of course pensions are taxable and this was a conversation with someone who actually knows the details of the case
I expect there are quite a few very high earners in education that could be in a similar position, as indeed in other professions and industry
To be on the sort of money where your pension is £90,000, you won't be a teacher you would be CEO of a academic chain with a fair number of secondary schools within 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
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.
It’s a very good deal.
It's a decent deal, albeit teachers aren't that well paid during their working life.
No, but it’s a trade off isn’t it.
Pension is deferred salary.
It’s probably why more and more of them seem to be opting out of the pension scheme.
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! 🇺🇸
It's got to be as subtle as a brick because he needs the real idiots to vote for him when reality hits over the next 3 years.
Yep you are better off now but because Medicare has been trashed you are going to be working until you die because you will need to continue to work to receive health insurance...
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.
It's just a question of degree. Graffiti makes thousands of people's day that little bit worse as long as it's there. For no gain whatsoever. I would allow perhaps one strike for youthful indiscretion, then off to the gallows for a second offence. Clemency offered for genuine wit or beauty. Clemency removed if you are trying to make a political point.
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
We cannot continue to borrow and spend and the day of reckoning is comimg on pensions and free NHS to all
Probably have another election or two before the electorate accepts 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 ?
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.
It’s a very good deal.
It's a decent deal, albeit teachers aren't that well paid during their working life.
The Telegraph reckons that tube drivers can get 75% of their salary as pension (index linked, government guaranteed etc)
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.
It’s a very good deal.
Hence why DB FS schemes have generally been replaced with DB CA, usually including for existing members,
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?
Of course pensions are taxable and this was a conversation with someone who actually knows the details of the case
I expect there are quite a few very high earners in education that could be in a similar position, as indeed in other professions and industry
For someone to have a pension of 90000 they must have been a headteacher in a big school or a director of education or the head of Eton!
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?
Excuse me! Tax dodging? I think that deserves an apology. I have never tax dodged. I have bought shares. I have taken out ISAs. I have bought a home and a holiday home to enjoy. I have a DC drawdown pension. I didn't dodge my way into keeping my WFA. On the contrary,I don't want it. It is not my fault Reeves is giving to me. I will give it away. I didn't contrive to get it. This is the Govt fault not mine. So your accusations is very unfair.
Where is the tax dodging there? None whatsoever.
I think you need to apologise for that @HYUFD. I have never dodged a penny of tax in my entire life.
We are not going back to the old days @hyufd are we? We have got on in recent years despite our political differences, but that was uncalled for.
I was just pointing out that the new threshold for WFA doesn't take into account retirees who have saved for their retirement as opposed to the small number who are on large DB pensions. Remember most people are not on DB pensions and those that are mostly get a modest pension and rely on savings as well.
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
They were only 1/80th for those retiring at 60, for those retiring at 65 it was 1/60th
For someone who worked from 21 to 65 so 44 years, that'd be 44/60 so would imply a final salary of ~£123k to get a £90k pension, which is entirely plausible.
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.
Surely if someone has dropped something, it's only being a good neighbour to pick it up and return 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
It's always hard being a Labour supporter. Many are called, few stay the course.
It's not like being one of the PB Tory faithful.
When the Labour Party do something reprehensible like Iraq or the recent benefits debacle those of us who are broadly supportive are quite content to call them out, even in the knowledge that the alternatives are even more craven and cruel.
Remember all those on here defending Dido Harding blowing £29bn of a budgeted £40bn on Test and Trace, or the PPE fast lane for friends, family and donors. Boris Johnson's £62m invisible bridge. The genius that was the Boriswave. Truss crashing the economy and the bond markets over a lunchtime, not through a tearful episode but by wilfully ignoring the OBR. And Brexit, let's not forget Brexit. The Conservatives's and UKIP/Reform's finest hour. All of these mere trifles dismissed as inconsequential by people who otherwise claim their team got all the big calls right.
Is there anything that’s actually better after the years of Tory government than it was before?
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
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?
Of course pensions are taxable and this was a conversation with someone who actually knows the details of the case
I expect there are quite a few very high earners in education that could be in a similar position, as indeed in other professions and industry
For someone to have a pension of 90000 they must have been a headteacher in a big school or a director of education or the head of Eton!
Eton offers its own teachers a bespoke pension scheme with an 11% employer contribution - so while they are clearly doing very nicely, it’s nothing to do with the TPS or the taxpayers.
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.
What about cutting down ULEZ cameras?
If there is a group of organised terrorists who are doing tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds of damage or more to those cameras, and threatening to continue to do so unless or until policy changes, then yes that is terrorism under the law. Sauce for the goose.
I'm not aware of any such organisation, but if there is one then yes it is.
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?
Excuse me! Tax dodging? I think that deserves an apology. I have never tax dodged. I have bought shares. I have taken out ISAs. I have bought a home and a holiday home to enjoy. I have a DC drawdown pension. I didn't dodge my way into keeping my WFA. On the contrary,I don't want it. It is not my fault Reeves is giving to me. I will give it away. I didn't contrive to get it. This is the Govt fault not mine. So your accusations is very unfair.
Where is the tax dodging there? None whatsoever.
I think you need to apologise for that @HYUFD. I have never dodged a penny of tax in my entire life.
We are not going back to the old days @hyufd are we? We have got on in recent years despite our political differences, but that was uncalled for.
I was just pointing out that the new threshold for WFA doesn't take into account retirees who have saved for their retirement as opposed to the small number who are on large DB pensions. Remember most people are not on DB pensions and those that are mostly get a modest pension and rely on savings as well.
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?
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.
Surely if someone has dropped something, it's only being a good neighbour to pick it up and return 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
It's always hard being a Labour supporter. Many are called, few stay the course.
It's not like being one of the PB Tory faithful.
When the Labour Party do something reprehensible like Iraq or the recent benefits debacle those of us who are broadly supportive are quite content to call them out, even in the knowledge that the alternatives are even more craven and cruel.
Remember all those on here defending Dido Harding blowing £29bn of a budgeted £40bn on Test and Trace, or the PPE fast lane for friends, family and donors. Boris Johnson's £62m invisible bridge. The genius that was the Boriswave. Truss crashing the economy and the bond markets over a lunchtime, not through a tearful episode but by wilfully ignoring the OBR. And Brexit, let's not forget Brexit. The Conservatives's and UKIP/Reform's finest hour. All of these mere trifles dismissed as inconsequential by people who otherwise claim their team got all the big calls right.
Is there anything that’s actually better after the years of Tory government than it was before?
A pornographer's bank account after an unfortunate intervention by a Housing Minister/ future Prime Minister?
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.
What about cutting down ULEZ cameras?
If there is a group of organised terrorists who are doing tens or hundreds of thousands of pounds of damage or more to those cameras, and threatening to continue to do so unless or until policy changes, then yes that is terrorism under the law. Sauce for the goose.
I'm not aware of any such organisation, but if there is one then yes it is.
Not sure about the need for a group - plenty of lone wolf Islamist terrorists. But yes, there is an organised group called the Bladerunners and they are costing the taxpayer about £17 million per year.
I personally don't think it's terrorism, but I do respect your consistent application of the law and agree with you on that basis.
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.
Surely if someone has dropped something, it's only being a good neighbour to pick it up and return it.
Not at 30 mph it isn't.
Honestly it's disgusting. You only notice it when you go for a cycle - the verges and hedgerows are stuffed full of litter.
None of the politicians today seem to have the gravitas needed. The never ending need of being from the hardest background possible a la 4 Yorkshiremen be it male or female has given us the politicians we deserve. The future isn't bright it's awful.
Rachel Reeves has said it is impossible for her to rule out tax rises in the autumn budget and insisted she never thought about quitting despite a turbulent week for her and the government.
In an interview with the Guardian, the chancellor said “there are costs” to the watering down of the welfare bill and acknowledged it had been a “damaging” week for Downing Street.
The chancellor’s tears in the Commons on Wednesday spooked the financial markets and raised questions about her future in the job, but No 10 quickly weighed in behind her, saying she and the prime minister were in lockstep.
Reeves said she had never considered resigning her position, despite being the focus of some Labour backbench anger over her handling of the economy, saying: “I didn’t work that hard to then quit.”
She said she regretted going into prime minister’s questions in tears after a “tough day in the office” but hoped that people “could relate” to her distress.
“It was a personal matter but it was in the glare of the camera. And that’s unfortunate, but I think people have seen that I’m back in business and back out there,” she said.
“I went to prime minister’s questions because I thought that was the right thing to do, because that’s where I always am at lunchtime on a Wednesday. You know, in retrospect, I probably wished I hadn’t gone in … [on] a tough day in the office. But, you know, it is what it is. But I think most people can relate to that – that they’ve had tough days.”
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
They were only 1/80th for those retiring at 60, for those retiring at 65 it was 1/60th
For someone who worked from 21 to 65 so 44 years, that'd be 44/60 so would imply a final salary of ~£123k to get a £90k pension, which is entirely plausible.
No, that’s not right.
Someone joining the scheme before 2007 has a divisor of 1/80 plus a three-times lump sum, and a retirement age of 60. Someone who joined since 2007 has a retirement age of 65, and a divisor of 1/60, with no additional lump sum. Since 2012 I believe joiners are now on CA, not FS.
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.
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.
It’s a very good deal.
Hence why DB FS schemes have generally been replaced with DB CA, usually including for existing members,
My wife has two NHS pensions.
The 95 scheme that is the former and the 2015 scheme that is the latter.
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.
What about cutting down ULEZ cameras?
{checks cue card stack}
No protest has ever succeed by being completely legal and peaceful. So it’s a moral right to destroy ULEZ cameras, in the face of a neon fascist imperialist capitalist racist government led by a white man.
?
Do I win a cookie?
Hmmm…
Is that from the wrong cue card stack? I keep getting muddled up who I’m supposed to hate and who to cheer.
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.
Surely if someone has dropped something, it's only being a good neighbour to pick it up and return it.
Not at 30 mph it isn't.
Honestly it's disgusting. You only notice it when you go for a cycle - the verges and hedgerows are stuffed full of litter.
Being out and about early with the dog, I was watching the Norwegian guys emptying the bins in Trondheim this morning. The van turns up and most of the crew go round the city centre emptying the bins, but they send a couple of guys out with litter pickers and buckets, litter picking the pavements. I guess this happens daily.
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.
It’s a very good deal.
It's a decent deal, albeit teachers aren't that well paid during their working life.
The Telegraph reckons that tube drivers can get 75% of their salary as pension (index linked, government guaranteed etc)
They are also rather better paid than teachers.
Many teachers are better paid than people think because of various allowances they accumulate. The trouble with teachers, especially with regard to pensions, is a lot of lady teachers take career breaks, and a lot of young teachers leave the profession after only a few years.
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.
I've just listened on your recommendation and although the woman seemed more petty, more partisan, and often to miss the point, it was surprising she ended up rating Starmer higher than the chap, who gave him zero.
A reminder that it is already 5th July in Japan. The date predicted by two separate mystics (one Japanese - one Thai) for a devasting volcano/earthquake/tsunami between Japan and Taiwan/Philippines. There is already an ongoing earthquake swarm...... watch this space.. Mystic Smeg
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.
Surely if someone has dropped something, it's only being a good neighbour to pick it up and return it.
Not at 30 mph it isn't.
Honestly it's disgusting. You only notice it when you go for a cycle - the verges and hedgerows are stuffed full of litter.
Being out and about early with the dog, I was watching the Norwegian guys emptying the bins in Trondheim this morning. The van turns up and most of the crew go round the city centre emptying the bins, but they send a couple of guys out with litter pickers and buckets, litter picking the pavements. I guess this happens daily.
It's not so much a problem is residential areas but rather A roads, particularly in close proximity with retail parks and drive thrus.
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' .
That doesn't matter. NI was never intended as us paying for our own retirement. We were paying for those who had already retired. It was part of the cradle to the grave safety net, not a means to supplement our lifestyle choices.
It is a tax like any other and should be viewed as such. Part of living in society is paying for to support those less fortunate than yourselves because it is both the moral thing to do and the way to stop them coming round and burnng your house down because they are starving and desperate.
That is how we should view NI and the state pension, not as a product we have paid into and from which we expect a commensurate return.
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' .
That doesn't matter. NI was never intended as us paying for our own retirement. We were paying for those who had already retired. It was part of the cradle to the grave safety net, not a means to supplement our lifestyle choices.
It is a tax like any other and should be viewed as such. Part of living in society is paying for to support those less fortunate than yourselves because it is both the moral thing to do and the way to stop them coming round and burnng your house down because they are starving and desperate.
That is how we should view NI and the state pension, not as a product we have paid into and from which we expect a commensurate return.
No, National Insurance was NOT created as a tax. It was created at the start of the last century to fund the state pension and contributory unemployment benefits and that was it (and pre NHS some health insurance).
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?
Any stats/evidence to prove that ?
When it was a national election campaign with the Tory party in the spotlight they got absolutely slaughtered. When it came back down to an individual councillor fighting for his seat he won.
If you want to see how popular Jenrick, Badenoch and the rest of them are look at the national polls.
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' .
That doesn't matter. NI was never intended as us paying for our own retirement. We were paying for those who had already retired. It was part of the cradle to the grave safety net, not a means to supplement our lifestyle choices.
It is a tax like any other and should be viewed as such. Part of living in society is paying for to support those less fortunate than yourselves because it is both the moral thing to do and the way to stop them coming round and burnng your house down because they are starving and desperate.
That is how we should view NI and the state pension, not as a product we have paid into and from which we expect a commensurate return.
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' .
That doesn't matter. NI was never intended as us paying for our own retirement. We were paying for those who had already retired. It was part of the cradle to the grave safety net, not a means to supplement our lifestyle choices.
It is a tax like any other and should be viewed as such. Part of living in society is paying for to support those less fortunate than yourselves because it is both the moral thing to do and the way to stop them coming round and burnng your house down because they are starving and desperate.
That is how we should view NI and the state pension, not as a product we have paid into and from which we expect a commensurate return.
An ingrained view, however.
For sure. But that doesn't mean we can't work to educate people. And we certainly shouldn't be seeing supposedly politically literate people on PB still believing the myth of 'paying into my State pension'.
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' .
That doesn't matter. NI was never intended as us paying for our own retirement. We were paying for those who had already retired. It was part of the cradle to the grave safety net, not a means to supplement our lifestyle choices.
It is a tax like any other and should be viewed as such. Part of living in society is paying for to support those less fortunate than yourselves because it is both the moral thing to do and the way to stop them coming round and burnng your house down because they are starving and desperate.
That is how we should view NI and the state pension, not as a product we have paid into and from which we expect a commensurate return.
No, National Insurance was NOT created as a tax. It was created at the start of the last century to fund the state pension and contributory unemployment benefits and that was it (and pre NHS some health insurance).
That is what it should be ringfenced to fund
It was and is a tax. All be it originally a hypothecated one. But the idea that we are 'owed' a state pension beause we have paid for it was and is a myth
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?
Excuse me! Tax dodging? I think that deserves an apology. I have never tax dodged. I have bought shares. I have taken out ISAs. I have bought a home and a holiday home to enjoy. I have a DC drawdown pension. I didn't dodge my way into keeping my WFA. On the contrary,I don't want it. It is not my fault Reeves is giving to me. I will give it away. I didn't contrive to get it. This is the Govt fault not mine. So your accusations is very unfair.
Where is the tax dodging there? None whatsoever.
I think you need to apologise for that @HYUFD. I have never dodged a penny of tax in my entire life.
We are not going back to the old days @hyufd are we? We have got on in recent years despite our political differences, but that was uncalled for.
I was just pointing out that the new threshold for WFA doesn't take into account retirees who have saved for their retirement as opposed to the small number who are on large DB pensions. Remember most people are not on DB pensions and those that are mostly get a modest pension and rely on savings as well.
No I will not, it may be legal tax dodging but still a tax dodge nonetheless.
By your own admission you have bought ISAs, used 25% of your pension etc to avoid paying tax on it in retirement.
Hence making it much harder for HMRC to remove your WFA without employing extra administrators to trace all that tax free extra income you have.
I didn't necessarily say that was a negative but a factual tax dodge it is
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.
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.
It’s a very good deal.
It's a decent deal, albeit teachers aren't that well paid during their working life.
The Telegraph reckons that tube drivers can get 75% of their salary as pension (index linked, government guaranteed etc)
They are also rather better paid than teachers.
Many teachers are better paid than people think because of various allowances they accumulate. The trouble with teachers, especially with regard to pensions, is a lot of lady teachers take career breaks, and a lot of young teachers leave the profession after only a few years.
Those teachers who take career breaks and leave the profession early are not going to get their years in so their pensions will be much less.
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?
Excuse me! Tax dodging? I think that deserves an apology. I have never tax dodged. I have bought shares. I have taken out ISAs. I have bought a home and a holiday home to enjoy. I have a DC drawdown pension. I didn't dodge my way into keeping my WFA. On the contrary,I don't want it. It is not my fault Reeves is giving to me. I will give it away. I didn't contrive to get it. This is the Govt fault not mine. So your accusations is very unfair.
Where is the tax dodging there? None whatsoever.
I think you need to apologise for that @HYUFD. I have never dodged a penny of tax in my entire life.
We are not going back to the old days @hyufd are we? We have got on in recent years despite our political differences, but that was uncalled for.
I was just pointing out that the new threshold for WFA doesn't take into account retirees who have saved for their retirement as opposed to the small number who are on large DB pensions. Remember most people are not on DB pensions and those that are mostly get a modest pension and rely on savings as well.
No I will not, it may be legal tax dodging but still a tax dodge nonetheless.
By your own admission you have bought ISAs, used 25% of your pension etc to avoid paying tax on it in retirement.
Hence making it much harder for HMRC to remove your WFA without employing extra administrator to trace all that tax free extra income you have.
I didn't necessarily say that was a negative but a factual tax dodge it is
That's not a tax dodge. If the Government decides that certain income is tax free, then you are at liberty to manage your retirement income to make sure the maximum is tax free. I've just taken a maximum lump sum for that very purpose, fingers crossed on inflation!
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' .
That doesn't matter. NI was never intended as us paying for our own retirement. We were paying for those who had already retired. It was part of the cradle to the grave safety net, not a means to supplement our lifestyle choices.
It is a tax like any other and should be viewed as such. Part of living in society is paying for to support those less fortunate than yourselves because it is both the moral thing to do and the way to stop them coming round and burnng your house down because they are starving and desperate.
That is how we should view NI and the state pension, not as a product we have paid into and from which we expect a commensurate return.
We can and should simplify the tax system and roll NI and Income Tax together into a single, simple tax that is transparent and applied equitably to all regardless of how they earn their incomes.
Changes from their last poll at the end May/beginning June.
Before this week's mayhem [25th to 27th June]
Interesting to see in later polls the effect if any
Simply MoE and rounding errors.
Mind you the tearful Reeves might harvest a sympathy vote and the Government have capitulated on all their Nasty Party baggage. I suspect those outraged at the absolute carnage are already on board with Reform or the Tories.
That Green 8% could be compromised when Magic Grandad gets his sh*t together. Corbyn consequences seem to be diametrically opposed to his intent.
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' .
That doesn't matter. NI was never intended as us paying for our own retirement. We were paying for those who had already retired. It was part of the cradle to the grave safety net, not a means to supplement our lifestyle choices.
It is a tax like any other and should be viewed as such. Part of living in society is paying for to support those less fortunate than yourselves because it is both the moral thing to do and the way to stop them coming round and burnng your house down because they are starving and desperate.
That is how we should view NI and the state pension, not as a product we have paid into and from which we expect a commensurate return.
We can and should simplify the tax system and roll NI and Income Tax together into a single, simple tax that is transparent and applied equitably to all regardless of how they earn their incomes.
No we should not, we should ringfence NI for state pension and JSA only as it was set up to fund
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?
Excuse me! Tax dodging? I think that deserves an apology. I have never tax dodged. I have bought shares. I have taken out ISAs. I have bought a home and a holiday home to enjoy. I have a DC drawdown pension. I didn't dodge my way into keeping my WFA. On the contrary,I don't want it. It is not my fault Reeves is giving to me. I will give it away. I didn't contrive to get it. This is the Govt fault not mine. So your accusations is very unfair.
Where is the tax dodging there? None whatsoever.
I think you need to apologise for that @HYUFD. I have never dodged a penny of tax in my entire life.
We are not going back to the old days @hyufd are we? We have got on in recent years despite our political differences, but that was uncalled for.
I was just pointing out that the new threshold for WFA doesn't take into account retirees who have saved for their retirement as opposed to the small number who are on large DB pensions. Remember most people are not on DB pensions and those that are mostly get a modest pension and rely on savings as well.
No I will not, it may be legal tax dodging but still a tax dodge nonetheless.
By your own admission you have bought ISAs, used 25% of your pension etc to avoid paying tax on it in retirement.
Hence making it much harder for HMRC to remove your WFA without employing extra administrator to trace all that tax free extra income you have.
I didn't necessarily say that was a negative but a factual tax dodge it is
That's not a tax dodge. If the Government decides that certain income is tax free, then you are at liberty to manage your retirement income to make sure the maximum is tax free. I've just taken a maximum lump sum for that very purpose, fingers crossed on inflation!
Or just not do it and keep standard pension and saving income like normal people do
I think it says everything that's wrong with our country that Winter Fuel Allowance is so bloody big. A mild and fair reform that should have been totally uncontentious.
It's an apt representation of the complete state of denial we're in.
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' .
That doesn't matter. NI was never intended as us paying for our own retirement. We were paying for those who had already retired. It was part of the cradle to the grave safety net, not a means to supplement our lifestyle choices.
It is a tax like any other and should be viewed as such. Part of living in society is paying for to support those less fortunate than yourselves because it is both the moral thing to do and the way to stop them coming round and burnng your house down because they are starving and desperate.
That is how we should view NI and the state pension, not as a product we have paid into and from which we expect a commensurate return.
No, National Insurance was NOT created as a tax. It was created at the start of the last century to fund the state pension and contributory unemployment benefits and that was it (and pre NHS some health insurance).
That is what it should be ringfenced to fund
It was and is a tax. All be it originally a hypothecated one. But the idea that we are 'owed' a state pension beause we have paid for it was and is a myth
No, it isn't. Originally National insurance literally did fund state pensions that was all it funded along with contributory unemployment benefits and most died earlier too
Given how shit the last Tory government was that's absolutely damning for Labour. To be rated the same as the Tories who were 14 years in and completely exhausted after just a year must be some kind of record.
I also think there's a lot of Tory voters who have realised how big of a mistake it was to stay home and sit on their hands. They could have got 50-80 extra seats and pushed Labour into a much smaller majority if they'd not been so selfish. It is going to be up to Kemi to try and harness that regret and turn it into votes for them. This poll should give them a target now. Find out who that 33% is made up of and ruthlessly target them with policies and ads.
Well, I tried to warn them.
I remember being told at the time Labour can't be any worse. And here we are.
I think it says everything that's wrong with our country that Winter Fuel Allowance is so bloody big. A mild and fair reform that should have been totally uncontentious.
It's an apt representation of the complete state of denial we're in.
It will have to just be allowed to wither. The £10 benefit claimant's Christmas bonus has been £10 since 1972...
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?
Excuse me! Tax dodging? I think that deserves an apology. I have never tax dodged. I have bought shares. I have taken out ISAs. I have bought a home and a holiday home to enjoy. I have a DC drawdown pension. I didn't dodge my way into keeping my WFA. On the contrary,I don't want it. It is not my fault Reeves is giving to me. I will give it away. I didn't contrive to get it. This is the Govt fault not mine. So your accusations is very unfair.
Where is the tax dodging there? None whatsoever.
I think you need to apologise for that @HYUFD. I have never dodged a penny of tax in my entire life.
We are not going back to the old days @hyufd are we? We have got on in recent years despite our political differences, but that was uncalled for.
I was just pointing out that the new threshold for WFA doesn't take into account retirees who have saved for their retirement as opposed to the small number who are on large DB pensions. Remember most people are not on DB pensions and those that are mostly get a modest pension and rely on savings as well.
No I will not, it may be legal tax dodging but still a tax dodge nonetheless.
By your own admission you have bought ISAs, used 25% of your pension etc to avoid paying tax on it in retirement.
Hence making it much harder for HMRC to remove your WFA without employing extra administrators to trace all that tax free extra income you have.
I didn't necessarily say that was a negative but a factual tax dodge it is
Your first sentence is simply idiotic
@kjh has not tax dodged and you owe him an apology
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?
Excuse me! Tax dodging? I think that deserves an apology. I have never tax dodged. I have bought shares. I have taken out ISAs. I have bought a home and a holiday home to enjoy. I have a DC drawdown pension. I didn't dodge my way into keeping my WFA. On the contrary,I don't want it. It is not my fault Reeves is giving to me. I will give it away. I didn't contrive to get it. This is the Govt fault not mine. So your accusations is very unfair.
Where is the tax dodging there? None whatsoever.
I think you need to apologise for that @HYUFD. I have never dodged a penny of tax in my entire life.
We are not going back to the old days @hyufd are we? We have got on in recent years despite our political differences, but that was uncalled for.
I was just pointing out that the new threshold for WFA doesn't take into account retirees who have saved for their retirement as opposed to the small number who are on large DB pensions. Remember most people are not on DB pensions and those that are mostly get a modest pension and rely on savings as well.
No I will not, it may be legal tax dodging but still a tax dodge nonetheless.
By your own admission you have bought ISAs, used 25% of your pension etc to avoid paying tax on it in retirement.
Hence making it much harder for HMRC to remove your WFA without employing extra administrators to trace all that tax free extra income you have.
I didn't necessarily say that was a negative but a factual tax dodge it is
Your first sentence is simply idiotic
@kjh has not tax dodged and you owe him an apology
No I do not, if KJH didn't tax dodge, even legally, he wouldn't be getting his WFA.
The fact is trying to trace all his income given so much avoids tax would cost more for HMRC to trace as a result than just giving him his WFA still
One assumes so, if Kemi (or indeed Jenrick) backed Starmer over Farage I would be shocked.
If by the next GE Cleverly or Stride had replaced Kemi as Tory leader though could they back Starmer over Farage in return for some concessions on tax and spend? Not completely impossible
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?
Excuse me! Tax dodging? I think that deserves an apology. I have never tax dodged. I have bought shares. I have taken out ISAs. I have bought a home and a holiday home to enjoy. I have a DC drawdown pension. I didn't dodge my way into keeping my WFA. On the contrary,I don't want it. It is not my fault Reeves is giving to me. I will give it away. I didn't contrive to get it. This is the Govt fault not mine. So your accusations is very unfair.
Where is the tax dodging there? None whatsoever.
I think you need to apologise for that @HYUFD. I have never dodged a penny of tax in my entire life.
We are not going back to the old days @hyufd are we? We have got on in recent years despite our political differences, but that was uncalled for.
I was just pointing out that the new threshold for WFA doesn't take into account retirees who have saved for their retirement as opposed to the small number who are on large DB pensions. Remember most people are not on DB pensions and those that are mostly get a modest pension and rely on savings as well.
No I will not, it may be legal tax dodging but still a tax dodge nonetheless.
By your own admission you have bought ISAs, used 25% of your pension etc to avoid paying tax on it in retirement.
Hence making it much harder for HMRC to remove your WFA without employing extra administrators to trace all that tax free extra income you have.
I didn't necessarily say that was a negative but a factual tax dodge it is
Your first sentence is simply idiotic
@kjh has not tax dodged and you owe him an apology
No I do not, if KJH didn't tax dodge, even legally, he wouldn't be getting his WFA.
The fact is trying to trace all his income given so much avoids tax would cost more for HMRC to trace as a result than just giving him his WFA still
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.
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?
Excuse me! Tax dodging? I think that deserves an apology. I have never tax dodged. I have bought shares. I have taken out ISAs. I have bought a home and a holiday home to enjoy. I have a DC drawdown pension. I didn't dodge my way into keeping my WFA. On the contrary,I don't want it. It is not my fault Reeves is giving to me. I will give it away. I didn't contrive to get it. This is the Govt fault not mine. So your accusations is very unfair.
Where is the tax dodging there? None whatsoever.
I think you need to apologise for that @HYUFD. I have never dodged a penny of tax in my entire life.
We are not going back to the old days @hyufd are we? We have got on in recent years despite our political differences, but that was uncalled for.
I was just pointing out that the new threshold for WFA doesn't take into account retirees who have saved for their retirement as opposed to the small number who are on large DB pensions. Remember most people are not on DB pensions and those that are mostly get a modest pension and rely on savings as well.
No I will not, it may be legal tax dodging but still a tax dodge nonetheless.
By your own admission you have bought ISAs, used 25% of your pension etc to avoid paying tax on it in retirement.
Hence making it much harder for HMRC to remove your WFA without employing extra administrators to trace all that tax free extra income you have.
I didn't necessarily say that was a negative but a factual tax dodge it is
Your first sentence is simply idiotic
@kjh has not tax dodged and you owe him an apology
No I do not, if KJH didn't tax dodge, even legally, he wouldn't be getting his WFA.
The fact is trying to trace all his income given so much avoids tax would cost more for HMRC to trace as a result than just giving him his WFA still
You try the patience of Job
You cannot tax dodge if it is legal
Just say sorry for once
You can, if you were a committed socialist or social democrat for example you should never even invest in legal tax dodges given your commitment to giving so much of your income to the state
Given how shit the last Tory government was that's absolutely damning for Labour. To be rated the same as the Tories who were 14 years in and completely exhausted after just a year must be some kind of record.
I also think there's a lot of Tory voters who have realised how big of a mistake it was to stay home and sit on their hands. They could have got 50-80 extra seats and pushed Labour into a much smaller majority if they'd not been so selfish. It is going to be up to Kemi to try and harness that regret and turn it into votes for them. This poll should give them a target now. Find out who that 33% is made up of and ruthlessly target them with policies and ads.
Well, I tried to warn them.
I remember being told at the time Labour can't be any worse. And here we are.
I remember at the time saying this is 1974 not 1997. Like Blackadder, it was Poo Pood, but I was right. I even voted Labour as I thought Reeves and Starmer had some fiscal discipline. Sadly they had no spine and a parliamentary party of weak people who don’t want to take difficult decisions.
Like 1974. A crap incoming govt with a crap legacy from a crap out going govt.
I even had some moron DM me and call me a Tory shill, in spite of never voting for them. Never would either.
I stand by my comparison.
Labour should not have boxed themselves in and should have got the bad stuff out of the way immediately. Reverse the NI changes, reform the triple lock and any other things they need to do.
Now we’re going to have tax increases in the autumn and we have a govt so weak it cannot even cut a small chunk off the burgeoning benefits bill.
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?
Excuse me! Tax dodging? I think that deserves an apology. I have never tax dodged. I have bought shares. I have taken out ISAs. I have bought a home and a holiday home to enjoy. I have a DC drawdown pension. I didn't dodge my way into keeping my WFA. On the contrary,I don't want it. It is not my fault Reeves is giving to me. I will give it away. I didn't contrive to get it. This is the Govt fault not mine. So your accusations is very unfair.
Where is the tax dodging there? None whatsoever.
I think you need to apologise for that @HYUFD. I have never dodged a penny of tax in my entire life.
We are not going back to the old days @hyufd are we? We have got on in recent years despite our political differences, but that was uncalled for.
I was just pointing out that the new threshold for WFA doesn't take into account retirees who have saved for their retirement as opposed to the small number who are on large DB pensions. Remember most people are not on DB pensions and those that are mostly get a modest pension and rely on savings as well.
No I will not, it may be legal tax dodging but still a tax dodge nonetheless.
By your own admission you have bought ISAs, used 25% of your pension etc to avoid paying tax on it in retirement.
Hence making it much harder for HMRC to remove your WFA without employing extra administrators to trace all that tax free extra income you have.
I didn't necessarily say that was a negative but a factual tax dodge it is
Your first sentence is simply idiotic
@kjh has not tax dodged and you owe him an apology
No I do not, if KJH didn't tax dodge, even legally, he wouldn't be getting his WFA.
The fact is trying to trace all his income given so much avoids tax would cost more for HMRC to trace as a result than just giving him his WFA still
You try the patience of Job
You cannot tax dodge if it is legal
Just say sorry for once
You can, if you were a committed socialist or social democrat for example you should never even invest in legal tax dodges given your commitment to giving so much of your income to the state
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?
Excuse me! Tax dodging? I think that deserves an apology. I have never tax dodged. I have bought shares. I have taken out ISAs. I have bought a home and a holiday home to enjoy. I have a DC drawdown pension. I didn't dodge my way into keeping my WFA. On the contrary,I don't want it. It is not my fault Reeves is giving to me. I will give it away. I didn't contrive to get it. This is the Govt fault not mine. So your accusations is very unfair.
Where is the tax dodging there? None whatsoever.
I think you need to apologise for that @HYUFD. I have never dodged a penny of tax in my entire life.
We are not going back to the old days @hyufd are we? We have got on in recent years despite our political differences, but that was uncalled for.
I was just pointing out that the new threshold for WFA doesn't take into account retirees who have saved for their retirement as opposed to the small number who are on large DB pensions. Remember most people are not on DB pensions and those that are mostly get a modest pension and rely on savings as well.
No I will not, it may be legal tax dodging but still a tax dodge nonetheless.
By your own admission you have bought ISAs, used 25% of your pension etc to avoid paying tax on it in retirement.
Hence making it much harder for HMRC to remove your WFA without employing extra administrators to trace all that tax free extra income you have.
I didn't necessarily say that was a negative but a factual tax dodge it is
None of that is tax avoidance let alone evasion. Nor is it a dodgy it's using the tax system as it is designed to encourage people to save for rainy days and pensions.
The 25% lump sum pension was a common way to pay off your mortgage, it's still a decent reason for saving money into a pension.
Likewise ISA's are designed to encourage people to save....
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.
Do that and people will reduce the amount they put into their pensions / take their pensions earlier / reduce the amount they work so as to not reach the £35k personal income in retirement.
Given how shit the last Tory government was that's absolutely damning for Labour. To be rated the same as the Tories who were 14 years in and completely exhausted after just a year must be some kind of record.
I also think there's a lot of Tory voters who have realised how big of a mistake it was to stay home and sit on their hands. They could have got 50-80 extra seats and pushed Labour into a much smaller majority if they'd not been so selfish. It is going to be up to Kemi to try and harness that regret and turn it into votes for them. This poll should give them a target now. Find out who that 33% is made up of and ruthlessly target them with policies and ads.
Well, I tried to warn them.
I remember being told at the time Labour can't be any worse. And here we are.
I remember at the time saying this is 1974 not 1997. Like Blackadder, it was Poo Pood, but I was right. I even voted Labour as I thought Reeves and Starmer had some fiscal discipline. Sadly they had no spine and a parliamentary party of weak people who don’t want to take difficult decisions.
Like 1974. A crap incoming govt with a crap legacy from a crap out going govt.
I even had some moron DM me and call me a Tory shill, in spite of never voting for them. Never would either.
I stand by my comparison.
Labour should not have boxed themselves in and should have got the bad stuff out of the way immediately. Reverse the NI changes, reform the triple lock and any other things they need to do.
Now we’re going to have tax increases in the autumn and we have a govt so weak it cannot even cut a small chunk off the burgeoning benefits bill.
I never understand voters like you and @Andy_JS who talk Right most of the time and then plump for a left-wing party at every election.
I think it says everything that's wrong with our country that Winter Fuel Allowance is so bloody big. A mild and fair reform that should have been totally uncontentious.
It's an apt representation of the complete state of denial we're in.
I hope at least some of that is people who think the u-turn on WFP was the mistake, not the measure in the first place.
Given how shit the last Tory government was that's absolutely damning for Labour. To be rated the same as the Tories who were 14 years in and completely exhausted after just a year must be some kind of record.
I also think there's a lot of Tory voters who have realised how big of a mistake it was to stay home and sit on their hands. They could have got 50-80 extra seats and pushed Labour into a much smaller majority if they'd not been so selfish. It is going to be up to Kemi to try and harness that regret and turn it into votes for them. This poll should give them a target now. Find out who that 33% is made up of and ruthlessly target them with policies and ads.
Well, I tried to warn them.
I remember being told at the time Labour can't be any worse. And here we are.
And yet the most totemic awful thing they have done is reduce eligibility for a pensioner benefit whose original reason has been overtaken by events.
Given how shit the last Tory government was that's absolutely damning for Labour. To be rated the same as the Tories who were 14 years in and completely exhausted after just a year must be some kind of record.
I also think there's a lot of Tory voters who have realised how big of a mistake it was to stay home and sit on their hands. They could have got 50-80 extra seats and pushed Labour into a much smaller majority if they'd not been so selfish. It is going to be up to Kemi to try and harness that regret and turn it into votes for them. This poll should give them a target now. Find out who that 33% is made up of and ruthlessly target them with policies and ads.
Well, I tried to warn them.
I remember being told at the time Labour can't be any worse. And here we are.
I remember at the time saying this is 1974 not 1997. Like Blackadder, it was Poo Pood, but I was right. I even voted Labour as I thought Reeves and Starmer had some fiscal discipline. Sadly they had no spine and a parliamentary party of weak people who don’t want to take difficult decisions.
Like 1974. A crap incoming govt with a crap legacy from a crap out going govt.
I even had some moron DM me and call me a Tory shill, in spite of never voting for them. Never would either.
I stand by my comparison.
Labour should not have boxed themselves in and should have got the bad stuff out of the way immediately. Reverse the NI changes, reform the triple lock and any other things they need to do.
Now we’re going to have tax increases in the autumn and we have a govt so weak it cannot even cut a small chunk off the burgeoning benefits bill.
I never understand voters like you and @Andy_JS who talk Right most of the time and then plump for a left-wing party at every election.
Why?
I’m fiscally right but socially left.
I went labour, as opposed to not voting at all, as I did think Reeves and Starmer had some fiscal discipline. Let’s face it, we’ve not seen it from the Tories. The two NI cuts from Hunt prior to the election were hugely reckless.
In 2017 and 2019 my vote was a personal vote for Kevan Jones, who I like, rather than an endorsement of Labour.
I think it says everything that's wrong with our country that Winter Fuel Allowance is so bloody big. A mild and fair reform that should have been totally uncontentious.
It's an apt representation of the complete state of denial we're in.
I hope at least some of that is people who think the u-turn on WFP was the mistake, not the measure in the first place.
I certainly do. When they first announced it I was pleased as well as when they tooled the WASPE women to jog 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
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?
Excuse me! Tax dodging? I think that deserves an apology. I have never tax dodged. I have bought shares. I have taken out ISAs. I have bought a home and a holiday home to enjoy. I have a DC drawdown pension. I didn't dodge my way into keeping my WFA. On the contrary,I don't want it. It is not my fault Reeves is giving to me. I will give it away. I didn't contrive to get it. This is the Govt fault not mine. So your accusations is very unfair.
Where is the tax dodging there? None whatsoever.
I think you need to apologise for that @HYUFD. I have never dodged a penny of tax in my entire life.
We are not going back to the old days @hyufd are we? We have got on in recent years despite our political differences, but that was uncalled for.
I was just pointing out that the new threshold for WFA doesn't take into account retirees who have saved for their retirement as opposed to the small number who are on large DB pensions. Remember most people are not on DB pensions and those that are mostly get a modest pension and rely on savings as well.
No I will not, it may be legal tax dodging but still a tax dodge nonetheless.
By your own admission you have bought ISAs, used 25% of your pension etc to avoid paying tax on it in retirement.
Hence making it much harder for HMRC to remove your WFA without employing extra administrators to trace all that tax free extra income you have.
I didn't necessarily say that was a negative but a factual tax dodge it is
Your first sentence is simply idiotic
@kjh has not tax dodged and you owe him an apology
No I do not, if KJH didn't tax dodge, even legally, he wouldn't be getting his WFA.
The fact is trying to trace all his income given so much avoids tax would cost more for HMRC to trace as a result than just giving him his WFA still
You try the patience of Job
You cannot tax dodge if it is legal
Just say sorry for once
Not quite- there is a category of legal-but-tawdry, unacceptable face of capitalism. ISAs don't fall in that category, though.
But polemicists on the right have always enjoyed finding alleged hypocrisy on the left.
Given how shit the last Tory government was that's absolutely damning for Labour. To be rated the same as the Tories who were 14 years in and completely exhausted after just a year must be some kind of record.
I also think there's a lot of Tory voters who have realised how big of a mistake it was to stay home and sit on their hands. They could have got 50-80 extra seats and pushed Labour into a much smaller majority if they'd not been so selfish. It is going to be up to Kemi to try and harness that regret and turn it into votes for them. This poll should give them a target now. Find out who that 33% is made up of and ruthlessly target them with policies and ads.
Well, I tried to warn them.
I remember being told at the time Labour can't be any worse. And here we are.
I remember at the time saying this is 1974 not 1997. Like Blackadder, it was Poo Pood, but I was right. I even voted Labour as I thought Reeves and Starmer had some fiscal discipline. Sadly they had no spine and a parliamentary party of weak people who don’t want to take difficult decisions.
Like 1974. A crap incoming govt with a crap legacy from a crap out going govt.
I even had some moron DM me and call me a Tory shill, in spite of never voting for them. Never would either.
I stand by my comparison.
Labour should not have boxed themselves in and should have got the bad stuff out of the way immediately. Reverse the NI changes, reform the triple lock and any other things they need to do.
Now we’re going to have tax increases in the autumn and we have a govt so weak it cannot even cut a small chunk off the burgeoning benefits bill.
I never understand voters like you and @Andy_JS who talk Right most of the time and then plump for a left-wing party at every election.
Why?
I’m fiscally right but socially left.
I went labour, as opposed to not voting at all, as I did think Reeves and Starmer had some fiscal discipline. Let’s face it, we’ve not seen it from the Tories. The two NI cuts from Hunt prior to the election were hugely reckless.
In 2017 and 2019 my vote was a personal vote for Kevan Jones, who I like, rather than an endorsement of Labour.
Ok, but you said you'd never vote Conservative, which i find interesting.
I'm not sure i find you that socially left either. You're pretty sceptical of mass migration and Wokery, as i recall.
Given how shit the last Tory government was that's absolutely damning for Labour. To be rated the same as the Tories who were 14 years in and completely exhausted after just a year must be some kind of record.
I also think there's a lot of Tory voters who have realised how big of a mistake it was to stay home and sit on their hands. They could have got 50-80 extra seats and pushed Labour into a much smaller majority if they'd not been so selfish. It is going to be up to Kemi to try and harness that regret and turn it into votes for them. This poll should give them a target now. Find out who that 33% is made up of and ruthlessly target them with policies and ads.
Well, I tried to warn them.
I remember being told at the time Labour can't be any worse. And here we are.
I remember at the time saying this is 1974 not 1997. Like Blackadder, it was Poo Pood, but I was right. I even voted Labour as I thought Reeves and Starmer had some fiscal discipline. Sadly they had no spine and a parliamentary party of weak people who don’t want to take difficult decisions.
Like 1974. A crap incoming govt with a crap legacy from a crap out going govt.
I even had some moron DM me and call me a Tory shill, in spite of never voting for them. Never would either.
I stand by my comparison.
Labour should not have boxed themselves in and should have got the bad stuff out of the way immediately. Reverse the NI changes, reform the triple lock and any other things they need to do.
Now we’re going to have tax increases in the autumn and we have a govt so weak it cannot even cut a small chunk off the burgeoning benefits bill.
I never understand voters like you and @Andy_JS who talk Right most of the time and then plump for a left-wing party at every election.
Why?
I plead guilty to voting LD at every election since 2010.
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?
Excuse me! Tax dodging? I think that deserves an apology. I have never tax dodged. I have bought shares. I have taken out ISAs. I have bought a home and a holiday home to enjoy. I have a DC drawdown pension. I didn't dodge my way into keeping my WFA. On the contrary,I don't want it. It is not my fault Reeves is giving to me. I will give it away. I didn't contrive to get it. This is the Govt fault not mine. So your accusations is very unfair.
Where is the tax dodging there? None whatsoever.
I think you need to apologise for that @HYUFD. I have never dodged a penny of tax in my entire life.
We are not going back to the old days @hyufd are we? We have got on in recent years despite our political differences, but that was uncalled for.
I was just pointing out that the new threshold for WFA doesn't take into account retirees who have saved for their retirement as opposed to the small number who are on large DB pensions. Remember most people are not on DB pensions and those that are mostly get a modest pension and rely on savings as well.
No I will not, it may be legal tax dodging but still a tax dodge nonetheless.
By your own admission you have bought ISAs, used 25% of your pension etc to avoid paying tax on it in retirement.
Hence making it much harder for HMRC to remove your WFA without employing extra administrators to trace all that tax free extra income you have.
I didn't necessarily say that was a negative but a factual tax dodge it is
None of that is tax avoidance let alone evasion. Nor is it a dodgy it's using the tax system as it is designed to encourage people to save for rainy days and pensions.
The 25% lump sum pension was a common way to pay off your mortgage, it's still a decent reason for saving money into a pension.
Likewise ISA's are designed to encourage people to save....
...and also have the side effect of enabling pensioners to tax dodge, legally.
If kjh wants to whinge about still getting his WFA he should not have invested in so many ways of avoiding tax on his retirement income
I think it says everything that's wrong with our country that Winter Fuel Allowance is so bloody big. A mild and fair reform that should have been totally uncontentious.
It's an apt representation of the complete state of denial we're in.
I hope at least some of that is people who think the u-turn on WFP was the mistake, not the measure in the first place.
I certainly do. When they first announced it I was pleased as well as when they tooled the WASPE women to jog on.
I think it says everything that's wrong with our country that Winter Fuel Allowance is so bloody big. A mild and fair reform that should have been totally uncontentious.
It's an apt representation of the complete state of denial we're in.
Its also an effectively trivial amount compared to how much collateral damage on guilt yields the loss of government economic credibility can have.
One of my pension funds has lost the equivalent of 20+ years of WFA as a consequence of this week's tantrums and loss of control. Hopefully as temporarily as the Trump effect in the spring.
Given how shit the last Tory government was that's absolutely damning for Labour. To be rated the same as the Tories who were 14 years in and completely exhausted after just a year must be some kind of record.
I also think there's a lot of Tory voters who have realised how big of a mistake it was to stay home and sit on their hands. They could have got 50-80 extra seats and pushed Labour into a much smaller majority if they'd not been so selfish. It is going to be up to Kemi to try and harness that regret and turn it into votes for them. This poll should give them a target now. Find out who that 33% is made up of and ruthlessly target them with policies and ads.
Well, I tried to warn them.
I remember being told at the time Labour can't be any worse. And here we are.
I remember at the time saying this is 1974 not 1997. Like Blackadder, it was Poo Pood, but I was right. I even voted Labour as I thought Reeves and Starmer had some fiscal discipline. Sadly they had no spine and a parliamentary party of weak people who don’t want to take difficult decisions.
Like 1974. A crap incoming govt with a crap legacy from a crap out going govt.
I even had some moron DM me and call me a Tory shill, in spite of never voting for them. Never would either.
I stand by my comparison.
Labour should not have boxed themselves in and should have got the bad stuff out of the way immediately. Reverse the NI changes, reform the triple lock and any other things they need to do.
Now we’re going to have tax increases in the autumn and we have a govt so weak it cannot even cut a small chunk off the burgeoning benefits bill.
I never understand voters like you and @Andy_JS who talk Right most of the time and then plump for a left-wing party at every election.
Why?
I’m fiscally right but socially left.
I went labour, as opposed to not voting at all, as I did think Reeves and Starmer had some fiscal discipline. Let’s face it, we’ve not seen it from the Tories. The two NI cuts from Hunt prior to the election were hugely reckless.
In 2017 and 2019 my vote was a personal vote for Kevan Jones, who I like, rather than an endorsement of Labour.
Ok, but you said you'd never vote Conservative, which i find interesting.
I'm not sure i find you that socially left either. You're pretty sceptical of mass migration and Wokery, as i recall.
I don't think being pro-migration is a necessary element of being socially on the left. There are good arguments against it, particularly on a cultural basis, pressure on publuc services etc. And there are economic arguments too. "Woke" can mean anything, from its original meaning to some of the extreme pro-trans positions.
I know quite a few lefties who would welcome net zero migration but were also aghast at Starmer cutting the aid budget. I think that's a consistent position too, and one I'm moving towards.
Given how shit the last Tory government was that's absolutely damning for Labour. To be rated the same as the Tories who were 14 years in and completely exhausted after just a year must be some kind of record.
I also think there's a lot of Tory voters who have realised how big of a mistake it was to stay home and sit on their hands. They could have got 50-80 extra seats and pushed Labour into a much smaller majority if they'd not been so selfish. It is going to be up to Kemi to try and harness that regret and turn it into votes for them. This poll should give them a target now. Find out who that 33% is made up of and ruthlessly target them with policies and ads.
Well, I tried to warn them.
I remember being told at the time Labour can't be any worse. And here we are.
I remember at the time saying this is 1974 not 1997. Like Blackadder, it was Poo Pood, but I was right. I even voted Labour as I thought Reeves and Starmer had some fiscal discipline. Sadly they had no spine and a parliamentary party of weak people who don’t want to take difficult decisions.
Like 1974. A crap incoming govt with a crap legacy from a crap out going govt.
I even had some moron DM me and call me a Tory shill, in spite of never voting for them. Never would either.
I stand by my comparison.
Labour should not have boxed themselves in and should have got the bad stuff out of the way immediately. Reverse the NI changes, reform the triple lock and any other things they need to do.
Now we’re going to have tax increases in the autumn and we have a govt so weak it cannot even cut a small chunk off the burgeoning benefits bill.
I never understand voters like you and @Andy_JS who talk Right most of the time and then plump for a left-wing party at every election.
Why?
I plead guilty to voting LD at every election since 2010.
Well, I can understand the 2010 and 2015 votes, at least.
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' .
That doesn't matter. NI was never intended as us paying for our own retirement. We were paying for those who had already retired. It was part of the cradle to the grave safety net, not a means to supplement our lifestyle choices.
It is a tax like any other and should be viewed as such. Part of living in society is paying for to support those less fortunate than yourselves because it is both the moral thing to do and the way to stop them coming round and burnng your house down because they are starving and desperate.
That is how we should view NI and the state pension, not as a product we have paid into and from which we expect a commensurate return.
No, National Insurance was NOT created as a tax. It was created at the start of the last century to fund the state pension and contributory unemployment benefits and that was it (and pre NHS some health insurance).
That is what it should be ringfenced to fund
It’s definitely not a contributory fund, however, which is what some ill informed folks seem to think. Otherwise it wouldn’t have been possible to start paying a reasonable level of state pension straight away.
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?
Excuse me! Tax dodging? I think that deserves an apology. I have never tax dodged. I have bought shares. I have taken out ISAs. I have bought a home and a holiday home to enjoy. I have a DC drawdown pension. I didn't dodge my way into keeping my WFA. On the contrary,I don't want it. It is not my fault Reeves is giving to me. I will give it away. I didn't contrive to get it. This is the Govt fault not mine. So your accusations is very unfair.
Where is the tax dodging there? None whatsoever.
I think you need to apologise for that @HYUFD. I have never dodged a penny of tax in my entire life.
We are not going back to the old days @hyufd are we? We have got on in recent years despite our political differences, but that was uncalled for.
I was just pointing out that the new threshold for WFA doesn't take into account retirees who have saved for their retirement as opposed to the small number who are on large DB pensions. Remember most people are not on DB pensions and those that are mostly get a modest pension and rely on savings as well.
No I will not, it may be legal tax dodging but still a tax dodge nonetheless.
By your own admission you have bought ISAs, used 25% of your pension etc to avoid paying tax on it in retirement.
Hence making it much harder for HMRC to remove your WFA without employing extra administrators to trace all that tax free extra income you have.
I didn't necessarily say that was a negative but a factual tax dodge it is
None of that is tax avoidance let alone evasion. Nor is it a dodgy it's using the tax system as it is designed to encourage people to save for rainy days and pensions.
The 25% lump sum pension was a common way to pay off your mortgage, it's still a decent reason for saving money into a pension.
Likewise ISA's are designed to encourage people to save....
...and also have the side effect of enabling pensioners to tax dodge, legally.
If kjh wants to whinge about still getting his WFA he should not have invested in so many ways of avoiding tax on his retirement income
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' .
That doesn't matter. NI was never intended as us paying for our own retirement. We were paying for those who had already retired. It was part of the cradle to the grave safety net, not a means to supplement our lifestyle choices.
It is a tax like any other and should be viewed as such. Part of living in society is paying for to support those less fortunate than yourselves because it is both the moral thing to do and the way to stop them coming round and burnng your house down because they are starving and desperate.
That is how we should view NI and the state pension, not as a product we have paid into and from which we expect a commensurate return.
No, National Insurance was NOT created as a tax. It was created at the start of the last century to fund the state pension and contributory unemployment benefits and that was it (and pre NHS some health insurance).
That is what it should be ringfenced to fund
It’s definitely not a contributory fund, however, which is what some ill informed folks seem to think. Otherwise it wouldn’t have been possible to start paying a reasonable level of state pension straight away.
100 years ago very few lived beyond the age of 70 so early state pension payments were few and far between
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?
Excuse me! Tax dodging? I think that deserves an apology. I have never tax dodged. I have bought shares. I have taken out ISAs. I have bought a home and a holiday home to enjoy. I have a DC drawdown pension. I didn't dodge my way into keeping my WFA. On the contrary,I don't want it. It is not my fault Reeves is giving to me. I will give it away. I didn't contrive to get it. This is the Govt fault not mine. So your accusations is very unfair.
Where is the tax dodging there? None whatsoever.
I think you need to apologise for that @HYUFD. I have never dodged a penny of tax in my entire life.
We are not going back to the old days @hyufd are we? We have got on in recent years despite our political differences, but that was uncalled for.
I was just pointing out that the new threshold for WFA doesn't take into account retirees who have saved for their retirement as opposed to the small number who are on large DB pensions. Remember most people are not on DB pensions and those that are mostly get a modest pension and rely on savings as well.
No I will not, it may be legal tax dodging but still a tax dodge nonetheless.
By your own admission you have bought ISAs, used 25% of your pension etc to avoid paying tax on it in retirement.
Hence making it much harder for HMRC to remove your WFA without employing extra administrators to trace all that tax free extra income you have.
I didn't necessarily say that was a negative but a factual tax dodge it is
Your first sentence is simply idiotic
@kjh has not tax dodged and you owe him an apology
No I do not, if KJH didn't tax dodge, even legally, he wouldn't be getting his WFA.
The fact is trying to trace all his income given so much avoids tax would cost more for HMRC to trace as a result than just giving him his WFA still
I’m thinking, maybe you’re in the wrong party?
Or don’t talk to the other members and elected representatives that much.
Given how shit the last Tory government was that's absolutely damning for Labour. To be rated the same as the Tories who were 14 years in and completely exhausted after just a year must be some kind of record.
I also think there's a lot of Tory voters who have realised how big of a mistake it was to stay home and sit on their hands. They could have got 50-80 extra seats and pushed Labour into a much smaller majority if they'd not been so selfish. It is going to be up to Kemi to try and harness that regret and turn it into votes for them. This poll should give them a target now. Find out who that 33% is made up of and ruthlessly target them with policies and ads.
Well, I tried to warn them.
I remember being told at the time Labour can't be any worse. And here we are.
I remember at the time saying this is 1974 not 1997. Like Blackadder, it was Poo Pood, but I was right. I even voted Labour as I thought Reeves and Starmer had some fiscal discipline. Sadly they had no spine and a parliamentary party of weak people who don’t want to take difficult decisions.
Like 1974. A crap incoming govt with a crap legacy from a crap out going govt.
I even had some moron DM me and call me a Tory shill, in spite of never voting for them. Never would either.
I stand by my comparison.
Labour should not have boxed themselves in and should have got the bad stuff out of the way immediately. Reverse the NI changes, reform the triple lock and any other things they need to do.
Now we’re going to have tax increases in the autumn and we have a govt so weak it cannot even cut a small chunk off the burgeoning benefits bill.
I never understand voters like you and @Andy_JS who talk Right most of the time and then plump for a left-wing party at every election.
Why?
I’m fiscally right but socially left.
I went labour, as opposed to not voting at all, as I did think Reeves and Starmer had some fiscal discipline. Let’s face it, we’ve not seen it from the Tories. The two NI cuts from Hunt prior to the election were hugely reckless.
In 2017 and 2019 my vote was a personal vote for Kevan Jones, who I like, rather than an endorsement of Labour.
Ok, but you said you'd never vote Conservative, which i find interesting.
I'm not sure i find you that socially left either. You're pretty sceptical of mass migration and Wokery, as i recall.
Wokery I’ve not really commented on aside from the trans issue and I’ve not commented on that for a while.
Mass migration of minimum wage workers with economically inactive dependents, who will never be a positive benefit to the economy in financial terms I object to. The recent changes to allow low grade office workers to come here, when we have youngsters who cannot get entry level jobs, I object to.
Not putting in place the infrastructure we need, I object to.
Mass inward migration of skilled workers who will help the economy and be a positive contributor I’m happy clappy about.
Never vote Conservative, well to be honest I voted for them once for a local councillor, Allan Bainbridge, but that was for him and what he did for the ward. He lost.
But nationally what will the Conservatives ever offer me or my area. From 2010 to 2024 they did sod all for areas like ours. Investment in transport and infrastructure in the North East was pitiful in comparison to the rest of the U.K.
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?
Excuse me! Tax dodging? I think that deserves an apology. I have never tax dodged. I have bought shares. I have taken out ISAs. I have bought a home and a holiday home to enjoy. I have a DC drawdown pension. I didn't dodge my way into keeping my WFA. On the contrary,I don't want it. It is not my fault Reeves is giving to me. I will give it away. I didn't contrive to get it. This is the Govt fault not mine. So your accusations is very unfair.
Where is the tax dodging there? None whatsoever.
I think you need to apologise for that @HYUFD. I have never dodged a penny of tax in my entire life.
We are not going back to the old days @hyufd are we? We have got on in recent years despite our political differences, but that was uncalled for.
I was just pointing out that the new threshold for WFA doesn't take into account retirees who have saved for their retirement as opposed to the small number who are on large DB pensions. Remember most people are not on DB pensions and those that are mostly get a modest pension and rely on savings as well.
No I will not, it may be legal tax dodging but still a tax dodge nonetheless.
By your own admission you have bought ISAs, used 25% of your pension etc to avoid paying tax on it in retirement.
Hence making it much harder for HMRC to remove your WFA without employing extra administrators to trace all that tax free extra income you have.
I didn't necessarily say that was a negative but a factual tax dodge it is
Your first sentence is simply idiotic
@kjh has not tax dodged and you owe him an apology
No I do not, if KJH didn't tax dodge, even legally, he wouldn't be getting his WFA.
The fact is trying to trace all his income given so much avoids tax would cost more for HMRC to trace as a result than just giving him his WFA still
I’m thinking, maybe you’re in the wrong party?
Or don’t talk to the other members and elected representatives that much.
I never said I was opposed to a bit of legal tax dodging.
Nor do I whinge about receiving WFA without recognising that the only reason I do so is because of said legal tax dodging keeping my taxable annual income in retirement below the £35k mark where WFA is cut off
Given how shit the last Tory government was that's absolutely damning for Labour. To be rated the same as the Tories who were 14 years in and completely exhausted after just a year must be some kind of record.
I also think there's a lot of Tory voters who have realised how big of a mistake it was to stay home and sit on their hands. They could have got 50-80 extra seats and pushed Labour into a much smaller majority if they'd not been so selfish. It is going to be up to Kemi to try and harness that regret and turn it into votes for them. This poll should give them a target now. Find out who that 33% is made up of and ruthlessly target them with policies and ads.
Well, I tried to warn them.
I remember being told at the time Labour can't be any worse. And here we are.
I remember at the time saying this is 1974 not 1997. Like Blackadder, it was Poo Pood, but I was right. I even voted Labour as I thought Reeves and Starmer had some fiscal discipline. Sadly they had no spine and a parliamentary party of weak people who don’t want to take difficult decisions.
Like 1974. A crap incoming govt with a crap legacy from a crap out going govt.
I even had some moron DM me and call me a Tory shill, in spite of never voting for them. Never would either.
I stand by my comparison.
Labour should not have boxed themselves in and should have got the bad stuff out of the way immediately. Reverse the NI changes, reform the triple lock and any other things they need to do.
Now we’re going to have tax increases in the autumn and we have a govt so weak it cannot even cut a small chunk off the burgeoning benefits bill.
I never understand voters like you and @Andy_JS who talk Right most of the time and then plump for a left-wing party at every election.
Why?
I plead guilty to voting LD at every election since 2010.
I think it says everything that's wrong with our country that Winter Fuel Allowance is so bloody big. A mild and fair reform that should have been totally uncontentious.
It's an apt representation of the complete state of denial we're in.
I hope at least some of that is people who think the u-turn on WFP was the mistake, not the measure in the first place.
I certainly do. When they first announced it I was pleased as well as when they tooled the WASPE women to jog on.
I think it says everything that's wrong with our country that Winter Fuel Allowance is so bloody big. A mild and fair reform that should have been totally uncontentious.
It's an apt representation of the complete state of denial we're in.
Its also an effectively trivial amount compared to how much collateral damage on guilt yields the loss of government economic credibility can have.
One of my pension funds has lost the equivalent of 20+ years of WFA as a consequence of this week's tantrums and loss of control. Hopefully as temporarily as the Trump effect in the spring.
The 20 years plus of WFA is meaningless in itself. What is it as a percentage. That is what matters.
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?
Excuse me! Tax dodging? I think that deserves an apology. I have never tax dodged. I have bought shares. I have taken out ISAs. I have bought a home and a holiday home to enjoy. I have a DC drawdown pension. I didn't dodge my way into keeping my WFA. On the contrary,I don't want it. It is not my fault Reeves is giving to me. I will give it away. I didn't contrive to get it. This is the Govt fault not mine. So your accusations is very unfair.
Where is the tax dodging there? None whatsoever.
I think you need to apologise for that @HYUFD. I have never dodged a penny of tax in my entire life.
We are not going back to the old days @hyufd are we? We have got on in recent years despite our political differences, but that was uncalled for.
I was just pointing out that the new threshold for WFA doesn't take into account retirees who have saved for their retirement as opposed to the small number who are on large DB pensions. Remember most people are not on DB pensions and those that are mostly get a modest pension and rely on savings as well.
No I will not, it may be legal tax dodging but still a tax dodge nonetheless.
By your own admission you have bought ISAs, used 25% of your pension etc to avoid paying tax on it in retirement.
Hence making it much harder for HMRC to remove your WFA without employing extra administrators to trace all that tax free extra income you have.
I didn't necessarily say that was a negative but a factual tax dodge it is
None of that is tax avoidance let alone evasion. Nor is it a dodgy it's using the tax system as it is designed to encourage people to save for rainy days and pensions.
The 25% lump sum pension was a common way to pay off your mortgage, it's still a decent reason for saving money into a pension.
Likewise ISA's are designed to encourage people to save....
...and also have the side effect of enabling pensioners to tax dodge, legally.
If kjh wants to whinge about still getting his WFA he should not have invested in so many ways of avoiding tax on his retirement income
I didn't you idiot. I did nothing to avoid tax on retirement. I bought a house and a holiday home, I bought shares, I took out a pension through my life. None of this is doing anything to avoid tax. It is normal stuff. The only thing I have done to minimise tax is take out ISAs, which is hardly radical and something everyone does. I have paid oodles of tax and done nothing to avoid it including a huge amount of stamp duty.
This is bonkers stuff @hyufd. It is not my fault that the govt cocks up and gives me WFA which I don't deserve and which I will give away.
Given how shit the last Tory government was that's absolutely damning for Labour. To be rated the same as the Tories who were 14 years in and completely exhausted after just a year must be some kind of record.
I also think there's a lot of Tory voters who have realised how big of a mistake it was to stay home and sit on their hands. They could have got 50-80 extra seats and pushed Labour into a much smaller majority if they'd not been so selfish. It is going to be up to Kemi to try and harness that regret and turn it into votes for them. This poll should give them a target now. Find out who that 33% is made up of and ruthlessly target them with policies and ads.
Well, I tried to warn them.
I remember being told at the time Labour can't be any worse. And here we are.
I remember at the time saying this is 1974 not 1997. Like Blackadder, it was Poo Pood, but I was right. I even voted Labour as I thought Reeves and Starmer had some fiscal discipline. Sadly they had no spine and a parliamentary party of weak people who don’t want to take difficult decisions.
Like 1974. A crap incoming govt with a crap legacy from a crap out going govt.
I even had some moron DM me and call me a Tory shill, in spite of never voting for them. Never would either.
I stand by my comparison.
Labour should not have boxed themselves in and should have got the bad stuff out of the way immediately. Reverse the NI changes, reform the triple lock and any other things they need to do.
Now we’re going to have tax increases in the autumn and we have a govt so weak it cannot even cut a small chunk off the burgeoning benefits bill.
I never understand voters like you and @Andy_JS who talk Right most of the time and then plump for a left-wing party at every election.
Why?
I plead guilty to voting LD at every election since 2010.
I’d only ever vote Lib Dem if the only other candidate on the ballot paper was from Britain First.
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?
Excuse me! Tax dodging? I think that deserves an apology. I have never tax dodged. I have bought shares. I have taken out ISAs. I have bought a home and a holiday home to enjoy. I have a DC drawdown pension. I didn't dodge my way into keeping my WFA. On the contrary,I don't want it. It is not my fault Reeves is giving to me. I will give it away. I didn't contrive to get it. This is the Govt fault not mine. So your accusations is very unfair.
Where is the tax dodging there? None whatsoever.
I think you need to apologise for that @HYUFD. I have never dodged a penny of tax in my entire life.
We are not going back to the old days @hyufd are we? We have got on in recent years despite our political differences, but that was uncalled for.
I was just pointing out that the new threshold for WFA doesn't take into account retirees who have saved for their retirement as opposed to the small number who are on large DB pensions. Remember most people are not on DB pensions and those that are mostly get a modest pension and rely on savings as well.
No I will not, it may be legal tax dodging but still a tax dodge nonetheless.
By your own admission you have bought ISAs, used 25% of your pension etc to avoid paying tax on it in retirement.
Hence making it much harder for HMRC to remove your WFA without employing extra administrators to trace all that tax free extra income you have.
I didn't necessarily say that was a negative but a factual tax dodge it is
None of that is tax avoidance let alone evasion. Nor is it a dodgy it's using the tax system as it is designed to encourage people to save for rainy days and pensions.
The 25% lump sum pension was a common way to pay off your mortgage, it's still a decent reason for saving money into a pension.
Likewise ISA's are designed to encourage people to save....
...and also have the side effect of enabling pensioners to tax dodge, legally.
If kjh wants to whinge about still getting his WFA he should not have invested in so many ways of avoiding tax on his retirement income
I didn't you idiot. I did nothing to avoid tax on retirement. I bought a house and a holiday home, I bought shares, I took out a pension through my life. None of this is doing anything to avoid tax. It is normal stuff. The only thing I have done to minimise tax is take out ISAs, which is hardly radical and something everyone does. I have paid oodles of tax and done nothing to avoid it including a huge amount of stamp duty.
This is bonkers stuff @hyufd. It is not my fault that the govt cocks up and gives me WFA which I don't deserve and which I will give away.
Tell me what should I have done differently?
You have just said yourself you did it so much of your retirement income is non taxable and to minimise tax. No, most people don't as most people aren't as high earning and educated in ways to legally tax dodge in retirement as you were.
WFA has been removed for all those with taxable income over £35k, to remove it for legal tax dodging pensioners like you as well would require HMRC to employ lots of extra administrators to trace all the extra tax avoided income you get and find enough to get you over the £35k threshold.
Which would end up costing the HMRC more than any savings made from finally removing your WFA in the end
Comments
I completely buy her line of her place at PMQs being on the front bench. (Well not completely, but it'd be a bit caddish not to)
Whatever it was I'm very pleased to see she's recovered. Of course these issues may reemerge and she may again become unhappy, but I hope she doesn't place herself in the unfortunate position of being so publically in anguish again.
I expect there are quite a few very high earners in education that could be in a similar position, as indeed in other professions and industry
When the Labour Party do something reprehensible like Iraq or the recent benefits debacle those of us who are broadly supportive are quite content to call them out, even in the knowledge that the alternatives are even more craven and cruel.
Remember all those on here defending Dido Harding blowing £29bn of a budgeted £40bn on Test and Trace, or the PPE fast lane for friends, family and donors. Boris Johnson's £62m invisible bridge. The genius that was the Boriswave. Truss crashing the economy and the bond markets over a lunchtime, not through a tearful episode but by wilfully ignoring the OBR. And Brexit, let's not forget Brexit. The Conservatives's and UKIP/Reform's finest hour. All of these mere trifles dismissed as inconsequential by people who otherwise claim their team got all the big calls right.
It’s ’of its time’ and not great
Still, I imagine it’s better than listening to the son of a toolmaker.
Pension is deferred salary.
It’s probably why more and more of them seem to be opting out of the pension scheme.
Yep you are better off now but because Medicare has been trashed you are going to be working until you die because you will need to continue to work to receive health insurance...
Graffiti makes thousands of people's day that little bit worse as long as it's there. For no gain whatsoever. I would allow perhaps one strike for youthful indiscretion, then off to the gallows for a second offence.
Clemency offered for genuine wit or beauty. Clemency removed if you are trying to make a political point.
Where is the tax dodging there? None whatsoever.
I think you need to apologise for that @HYUFD. I have never dodged a penny of tax in my entire life.
We are not going back to the old days @hyufd are we? We have got on in recent years despite our political differences, but that was uncalled for.
I was just pointing out that the new threshold for WFA doesn't take into account retirees who have saved for their retirement as opposed to the small number who are on large DB pensions. Remember most people are not on DB pensions and those that are mostly get a modest pension and rely on savings as well.
For someone who worked from 21 to 65 so 44 years, that'd be 44/60 so would imply a final salary of ~£123k to get a £90k pension, which is entirely plausible.
I'm not aware of any such organisation, but if there is one then yes it is.
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?
You should apologise for that unworthy comment
I personally don't think it's terrorism, but I do respect your consistent application of the law and agree with you on that basis.
The never ending need of being from the hardest background possible a la 4 Yorkshiremen be it male or female has given us the politicians we deserve.
The future isn't bright it's awful.
Rachel Reeves has said it is impossible for her to rule out tax rises in the autumn budget and insisted she never thought about quitting despite a turbulent week for her and the government.
In an interview with the Guardian, the chancellor said “there are costs” to the watering down of the welfare bill and acknowledged it had been a “damaging” week for Downing Street.
The chancellor’s tears in the Commons on Wednesday spooked the financial markets and raised questions about her future in the job, but No 10 quickly weighed in behind her, saying she and the prime minister were in lockstep.
Reeves said she had never considered resigning her position, despite being the focus of some Labour backbench anger over her handling of the economy, saying: “I didn’t work that hard to then quit.”
She said she regretted going into prime minister’s questions in tears after a “tough day in the office” but hoped that people “could relate” to her distress.
“It was a personal matter but it was in the glare of the camera. And that’s unfortunate, but I think people have seen that I’m back in business and back out there,” she said.
“I went to prime minister’s questions because I thought that was the right thing to do, because that’s where I always am at lunchtime on a Wednesday. You know, in retrospect, I probably wished I hadn’t gone in … [on] a tough day in the office. But, you know, it is what it is. But I think most people can relate to that – that they’ve had tough days.”
Someone joining the scheme before 2007 has a divisor of 1/80 plus a three-times lump sum, and a retirement age of 60. Someone who joined since 2007 has a retirement age of 65, and a divisor of 1/60, with no additional lump sum. Since 2012 I believe joiners are now on CA, not FS.
The 95 scheme that is the former and the 2015 scheme that is the latter.
Still a very good deal though.
No protest has ever succeed by being completely legal and peaceful. So it’s a moral right to destroy ULEZ cameras, in the face of a neon fascist imperialist capitalist racist government led by a white man.
?
Do I win a cookie?
Hmmm…
Is that from the wrong cue card stack? I keep getting muddled up who I’m supposed to hate and who to cheer.
RFM: 27%(=)
LAB: 26% (+2)
CON: 19% (-1)
LDM: 12% (-1)
GRN: 8% (=)
Changes from their last poll at the end May/beginning June.
Interesting to see in later polls the effect if any
Mystic Smeg
It is a tax like any other and should be viewed as such. Part of living in society is paying for to support those less fortunate than yourselves because it is both the moral thing to do and the way to stop them coming round and burnng your house down because they are starving and desperate.
That is how we should view NI and the state pension, not as a product we have paid into and from which we expect a commensurate return.
That is what it should be ringfenced to fund
If you want to see how popular Jenrick, Badenoch and the rest of them are look at the national polls.
So Kemi and the DUP/TUV have the balance of power between whether Farage or Starmer becomes PM
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/usercode.py?scotcontrol=N&CON=19&LAB=26&LIB=12&Reform=27&Green=8&UKIP=&TVCON=&TVLAB=&TVLIB=&TVReform=&TVGreen=&TVUKIP=&SCOTCON=&SCOTLAB=&SCOTLIB=&SCOTReform=&SCOTGreen=&SCOTUKIP=&SCOTNAT=&display=AllChanged&regorseat=(none)&boundary=2024base
By your own admission you have bought ISAs, used 25% of your pension etc to avoid paying tax on it in retirement.
Hence making it much harder for HMRC to remove your WFA without employing extra administrators to trace all that tax free extra income you have.
I didn't necessarily say that was a negative but a factual tax dodge it is
Mind you the tearful Reeves might harvest a sympathy vote and the Government have capitulated on all their Nasty Party baggage. I suspect those outraged at the absolute carnage are already on board with Reform or the Tories.
That Green 8% could be compromised when Magic Grandad gets his sh*t together. Corbyn consequences seem to be diametrically opposed to his intent.
It's an apt representation of the complete state of denial we're in.
I remember being told at the time Labour can't be any worse. And here we are.
@kjh has not tax dodged and you owe him an apology
The fact is trying to trace all his income given so much avoids tax would cost more for HMRC to trace as a result than just giving him his WFA still
If by the next GE Cleverly or Stride had replaced Kemi as Tory leader though could they back Starmer over Farage in return for some concessions on tax and spend? Not completely impossible
You cannot tax dodge if it is legal
Just say sorry for once
Like 1974. A crap incoming govt with a crap legacy from a crap out going govt.
I even had some moron DM me and call me a Tory shill, in spite of never voting for them. Never would either.
I stand by my comparison.
Labour should not have boxed themselves in and should have got the bad stuff out of the way immediately. Reverse the NI changes, reform the triple lock and any other things they need to do.
Now we’re going to have tax increases in the autumn and we have a govt so weak it cannot even cut a small chunk off the burgeoning benefits bill.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/03/nyregion/mamdani-columbia-black-application.html
The 25% lump sum pension was a common way to pay off your mortgage, it's still a decent reason for saving money into a pension.
Likewise ISA's are designed to encourage people to save....
Why?
I went labour, as opposed to not voting at all, as I did think Reeves and Starmer had some fiscal discipline. Let’s face it, we’ve not seen it from the Tories. The two NI cuts from Hunt prior to the election were hugely reckless.
In 2017 and 2019 my vote was a personal vote for Kevan Jones, who I like, rather than an endorsement of Labour.
But polemicists on the right have always enjoyed finding alleged hypocrisy on the left.
I'm not sure i find you that socially left either. You're pretty sceptical of mass migration and Wokery, as i recall.
If kjh wants to whinge about still getting his WFA he should not have invested in so many ways of avoiding tax on his retirement income
One of my pension funds has lost the equivalent of 20+ years of WFA as a consequence of this week's tantrums and loss of control. Hopefully as temporarily as the Trump effect in the spring.
I know quite a few lefties who would welcome net zero migration but were also aghast at Starmer cutting the aid budget. I think that's a consistent position too, and one I'm moving towards.
https://x.com/standardnews/status/1941165936356049280?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
“Navroop Singh, 24”
Or don’t talk to the other members and elected representatives that much.
Mass migration of minimum wage workers with economically inactive dependents, who will never be a positive benefit to the economy in financial terms I object to. The recent changes to allow low grade office workers to come here, when we have youngsters who cannot get entry level jobs, I object to.
Not putting in place the infrastructure we need, I object to.
Mass inward migration of skilled workers who will help the economy and be a positive contributor I’m happy clappy about.
Never vote Conservative, well to be honest I voted for them once for a local councillor, Allan Bainbridge, but that was for him and what he did for the ward. He lost.
But nationally what will the Conservatives ever offer me or my area. From 2010 to 2024 they did sod all for areas like ours. Investment in transport and infrastructure in the North East was pitiful in comparison to the rest of the U.K.
Nor do I whinge about receiving WFA without recognising that the only reason I do so is because of said legal tax dodging keeping my taxable annual income in retirement below the £35k mark where WFA is cut off
My MP gets it. Too many don’t.
This is bonkers stuff @hyufd. It is not my fault that the govt cocks up and gives me WFA which I don't deserve and which I will give away.
Tell me what should I have done differently?
WFA has been removed for all those with taxable income over £35k, to remove it for legal tax dodging pensioners like you as well would require HMRC to employ lots of extra administrators to trace all the extra tax avoided income you get and find enough to get you over the £35k threshold.
Which would end up costing the HMRC more than any savings made from finally removing your WFA in the end
Spit it out, man.