Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

One year on from the election – politicalbetting.com

1246

Comments

  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 6,534

    Leon said:

    “Man who raped child and attempted to rape woman in west London park is jailed for life”

    https://x.com/standardnews/status/1941165936356049280?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

    “Navroop Singh, 24”

    Terrible, but I sense a subtext.
    Spit it out, man.
    Is it that he's not a Muslim?
  • eekeek Posts: 30,530
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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 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 taxable income over £35k, to remove it for legal tax dodgers like you would require HMRC to employ lots of extra administrators to trace all the extra tax minimised 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
    Hang on - he hasn't

    The single thing he has done is take his taxed earnings and saved them in an ISA...
  • ohnotnowohnotnow Posts: 5,005

    Leon said:

    “Man who raped child and attempted to rape woman in west London park is jailed for life”

    https://x.com/standardnews/status/1941165936356049280?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

    “Navroop Singh, 24”

    Terrible, but I sense a subtext.
    Spit it out, man.
    I think he's more of a 'swallow it whole' than 'spit it out' kinda guy.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 36,127
    Amazing tennis from Emma Raducanu at the moment. Saving about 7 break points.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,583
    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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 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 taxable income over £35k, to remove it for legal tax dodgers like you would require HMRC to employ lots of extra administrators to trace all the extra tax minimised 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
    Hang on - he hasn't

    The single thing he has done is take his taxed earnings and saved them in an ISA...
    To legally minimise tax in retirement
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,037
    Taz said:

    viewcode said:

    Sky breaking news

    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.
    I would extend it to include NIMBYs.
    Well that’s the Lib Dem’s fucked then.
    If only it were just them.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 31,529
    edited July 4
    Andy_JS said:

    Amazing tennis from Emma Raducanu at the moment. Saving about 7 break points.

    Oh dear. Is she injured now? ETA looks OK, just slipped on the grass.
  • TazTaz Posts: 19,485
    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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 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 taxable income over £35k, to remove it for legal tax dodgers like you would require HMRC to employ lots of extra administrators to trace all the extra tax minimised 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
    Hang on - he hasn't

    The single thing he has done is take his taxed earnings and saved them in an ISA...
    Does that make most of us Tax Dodgers then ?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 65,987
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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?
    @HYUFD is not worth arguing with

    He is wrong and should apologise to you

    And you do not need to justify yourself
  • LeonLeon Posts: 62,525

    Leon said:

    “Man who raped child and attempted to rape woman in west London park is jailed for life”

    https://x.com/standardnews/status/1941165936356049280?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

    “Navroop Singh, 24”

    Terrible, but I sense a subtext.
    Spit it out, man.
    Oh sorry, you want a context? Uhm, ok. Shall we look and see what country now has the highest incidence of rape in the world? Here you go



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 65,987
    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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 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 taxable income over £35k, to remove it for legal tax dodgers like you would require HMRC to employ lots of extra administrators to trace all the extra tax minimised 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
    Hang on - he hasn't

    The single thing he has done is take his taxed earnings and saved them in an ISA...
    To legally minimise tax in retirement
    And you wouldn't

    You are so tedious at times

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 55,448
    edited July 4
    a
    Taz said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Taz said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    While the header is undeniably bad for Starmer, this polling out today is more positive:

    https://bsky.app/profile/yougov.co.uk/post/3lt5ldggzy22h

    Not much love for the alternative either.

    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.
    Perhaps it says something that my thought sequence on seeing “Britain First” is

    - Lord Rothomere
    - Type 142
    - Lady Houston
    - S6.B
    - R
    - Griffon
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,827
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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 are utterly bonkers. There is no tax dodgy or avoidance at all. There is nothing for HMRC to trace.

    @HYUFD are you seriously telling me you don't have a pension? Are you seriously saying everyone who invests in a pension is a tax dodger? Cos that is all I have done.

    Are you saying everyone who buys a house is a tax dodger because that is all I have done.

    Are you saying that everyone who takes out an ISA is a tax dodger, because that is all I have done.

    Other than also buying some shares and putting money into savings accounts I have done nothing else.

    Where is the tax dodging?

    You are nuts.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,583
    edited July 4
    Taz said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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 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 taxable income over £35k, to remove it for legal tax dodgers like you would require HMRC to employ lots of extra administrators to trace all the extra tax minimised 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
    Hang on - he hasn't

    The single thing he has done is take his taxed earnings and saved them in an ISA...
    Does that make most of us Tax Dodgers then ?
    Yes typical bourgeois middle class home counties Liberal legally tax dodging hypocrites.

    To be truly virtuous you inherit a few million, marry a rich spouse and buy a mansion in Hampstead and villa in Tuscany then pay tax on all your income with no ISAs etc for the rest of your life and you would have voted for Corbyn and read the Guardian
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,583
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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 are utterly bonkers. There is no tax dodgy or avoidance at all. There is nothing for HMRC to trace.

    @HYUFD are you seriously telling me you don't have a pension? Are you seriously saying everyone who invests in a pension is a tax dodger? Cos that is all I have done.

    Are you saying everyone who buys a house is a tax dodger because that is all I have done.

    Are you saying that everyone who takes out an ISA is a tax dodger, because that is all I have done.

    Other than also buying some shares and putting money into savings accounts I have done nothing else.

    Where is the tax dodging?

    You are nuts.
    There is, all the extra retirement income you minimised tax on, yes that includes ISAs and shares
  • TazTaz Posts: 19,485
    HYUFD said:

    Taz said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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 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 taxable income over £35k, to remove it for legal tax dodgers like you would require HMRC to employ lots of extra administrators to trace all the extra tax minimised 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
    Hang on - he hasn't

    The single thing he has done is take his taxed earnings and saved them in an ISA...
    Does that make most of us Tax Dodgers then ?
    Yes typical bourgeois Liberal legally tax dodging hypocrites.

    To be truly virtuous you inherit a few million, marry a rich spouse and buy a mansion in Hampstead and villa in Tuscany then pay tax on all your income with no ISAs etc for the rest of your life and you would have voted for Corbyn and read the Guardian
    I was born with a plastic spoon in my mouth.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 62,525
    edited July 4
    It is completely extraordinary: the UK now has the highest recorded rate of rape in the entire world, tripling (at least) in a decade, and you hear not a peep about it from mainstream media
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 65,987
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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 are utterly bonkers. There is no tax dodgy or avoidance at all. There is nothing for HMRC to trace.

    @HYUFD are you seriously telling me you don't have a pension? Are you seriously saying everyone who invests in a pension is a tax dodger? Cos that is all I have done.

    Are you saying everyone who buys a house is a tax dodger because that is all I have done.

    Are you saying that everyone who takes out an ISA is a tax dodger, because that is all I have done.

    Other than also buying some shares and putting money into savings accounts I have done nothing else.

    Where is the tax dodging?

    You are nuts.
    There is, all the extra retirement income you minimised tax on, yes that includes ISAs and shares
    It's legal and you are just wrong to imply anything else
  • eekeek Posts: 30,530
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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 are utterly bonkers. There is no tax dodgy or avoidance at all. There is nothing for HMRC to trace.

    @HYUFD are you seriously telling me you don't have a pension? Are you seriously saying everyone who invests in a pension is a tax dodger? Cos that is all I have done.

    Are you saying everyone who buys a house is a tax dodger because that is all I have done.

    Are you saying that everyone who takes out an ISA is a tax dodger, because that is all I have done.

    Other than also buying some shares and putting money into savings accounts I have done nothing else.

    Where is the tax dodging?

    You are nuts.
    There is, all the extra retirement income you minimised tax on, yes that includes ISAs and shares
    Nope - that's income that was taxed in the past which he has invested in an ISA to spend at a later point...
  • TazTaz Posts: 19,485

    a

    Taz said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Taz said:

    MaxPB said:

    Foxy said:

    While the header is undeniably bad for Starmer, this polling out today is more positive:

    https://bsky.app/profile/yougov.co.uk/post/3lt5ldggzy22h

    Not much love for the alternative either.

    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.
    Perhaps it says something that my thought sequence on seeing “Britain First” is

    - Lord Rothomere
    - Type 142
    - Lady Houston
    - S6.B
    - R
    - Griffon
    I’ll be honest. I haven’t a clue what that means.

    However when I think of the Far Right ‘Britain First’ given they’re all piss heads I think ‘Britains Thirst’ is more fitting.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,583
    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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 are utterly bonkers. There is no tax dodgy or avoidance at all. There is nothing for HMRC to trace.

    @HYUFD are you seriously telling me you don't have a pension? Are you seriously saying everyone who invests in a pension is a tax dodger? Cos that is all I have done.

    Are you saying everyone who buys a house is a tax dodger because that is all I have done.

    Are you saying that everyone who takes out an ISA is a tax dodger, because that is all I have done.

    Other than also buying some shares and putting money into savings accounts I have done nothing else.

    Where is the tax dodging?

    You are nuts.
    There is, all the extra retirement income you minimised tax on, yes that includes ISAs and shares
    Nope - that's income that was taxed in the past which he has invested in an ISA to spend at a later point...
    And to minimise tax in retirement
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,583
    edited July 4
    Leon said:

    It is completely extraordinary: the UK now has the highest recorded rate of rape in the entire world, tripling (at least) in a decade, and you hear not a peep about it from mainstream media

    We do but then we also likely have a far higher rate of rapes being reported to police than most nations
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,432
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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 are utterly bonkers. There is no tax dodgy or avoidance at all. There is nothing for HMRC to trace.

    @HYUFD are you seriously telling me you don't have a pension? Are you seriously saying everyone who invests in a pension is a tax dodger? Cos that is all I have done.

    Are you saying everyone who buys a house is a tax dodger because that is all I have done.

    Are you saying that everyone who takes out an ISA is a tax dodger, because that is all I have done.

    Other than also buying some shares and putting money into savings accounts I have done nothing else.

    Where is the tax dodging?

    You are nuts.
    This is not news.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 44,206
    Leon said:

    It is completely extraordinary: the UK now has the highest recorded rate of rape in the entire world, tripling (at least) in a decade, and you hear not a peep about it from mainstream media

    Shocking.
    I bet quite a lot of them get off as well.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,827

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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 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 taxable income over £35k, to remove it for legal tax dodgers like you would require HMRC to employ lots of extra administrators to trace all the extra tax minimised 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
    Hang on - he hasn't

    The single thing he has done is take his taxed earnings and saved them in an ISA...
    To legally minimise tax in retirement
    And you wouldn't

    You are so tedious at times

    But the stupid thing is I didn't. Not at all. I have done nothing to avoid tax in retirement.

    I have done nothing to reduce my tax in retirement unless you count taking out a pension and investing in ISAs. You know what everyone does. In fact the Government makes you do the former now for goodness sake. It is compulsory.

    It is not my fault that the Govt is so stupid it gives me the WFA when it really shouldn't and as a consequence @hyufd accuses me of being a tax avoider when I have done nothing to avoid tax and will voluntarily give it away. I mean what more can I do to make @hyufd happy.

    And he seems to think that if only HMRC had the resources they would find a pot of money to tax of mine. Sadly my affairs are not that complicated. They know it all.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 19,556
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    “Man who raped child and attempted to rape woman in west London park is jailed for life”

    https://x.com/standardnews/status/1941165936356049280?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

    “Navroop Singh, 24”

    Terrible, but I sense a subtext.
    Spit it out, man.
    Oh sorry, you want a context? Uhm, ok. Shall we look and see what country now has the highest incidence of rape in the world? Here you go



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics
    Those statistics are of reported rapes. Given how few rapes are reported it's actually encouraging to see Britain at the top, as it suggests that women are more likely to report rapes here than elsewhere, and that's surely the first step to tackling the problem and reducing incidence.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 62,525
    edited July 4
    eek said:

    Leon said:

    It is completely extraordinary: the UK now has the highest recorded rate of rape in the entire world, tripling (at least) in a decade, and you hear not a peep about it from mainstream media

    Your problem there is that you making the assumption that our rates are high because of issues, when the reality could equally be that other countries are lower because it's just not reported..

    Ahhh yes of course. It’s just that we have a very different way of reporting

    Trouble is, that’s what they said about Sweden until the rape statistics got so insanely bad and undeniable they were forced to admit the problem was…. elsewhere

    We are on the same trajectory
  • boulayboulay Posts: 6,415
    Leon said:

    It is completely extraordinary: the UK now has the highest recorded rate of rape in the entire world, tripling (at least) in a decade, and you hear not a peep about it from mainstream media

    Whilst your theory on why this might be could be correct it could also be the case that years of campaigns to encourage women to report rapes has been successful and women feel (this is a different argument) that there is a good chance that they will get treated seriously and get justice, help, treatment etc.

    Now I can’t be arsed to look up the figures but I’m not sure that Grenada, Botswana and Lesotho are hosting many immigrants from certain backwards cultures so their figures can’t be blamed on that.

    Sweden might fit into your theory, they might also have very good public information campaigns to encourage women to report rapes.

    I might be massively wrong but France and England have a pretty similar culture and immigration situation and yet somehow we appear on that table to have nearly double the incidence of rape to France.

    Are Frenchmen so alluring that women throw themselves at them and it’s just the ugly incel Anglos driven to rape because they have no style and panache? Are the immigrants we get in the same sort of numbers just more “rapey”?

    I that table asks many more questions than it provides answers. And you know I’m not a centrist dad etc so not looking to excuse and cover any element in society.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 36,127
    Leon said:

    It is completely extraordinary: the UK now has the highest recorded rate of rape in the entire world, tripling (at least) in a decade, and you hear not a peep about it from mainstream media

    Most countries in the world won't have reliable statistics of course.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 62,525
    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    It is completely extraordinary: the UK now has the highest recorded rate of rape in the entire world, tripling (at least) in a decade, and you hear not a peep about it from mainstream media

    Whilst your theory on why this might be could be correct it could also be the case that years of campaigns to encourage women to report rapes has been successful and women feel (this is a different argument) that there is a good chance that they will get treated seriously and get justice, help, treatment etc.

    Now I can’t be arsed to look up the figures but I’m not sure that Grenada, Botswana and Lesotho are hosting many immigrants from certain backwards cultures so their figures can’t be blamed on that.

    Sweden might fit into your theory, they might also have very good public information campaigns to encourage women to report rapes.

    I might be massively wrong but France and England have a pretty similar culture and immigration situation and yet somehow we appear on that table to have nearly double the incidence of rape to France.

    Are Frenchmen so alluring that women throw themselves at them and it’s just the ugly incel Anglos driven to rape because they have no style and panache? Are the immigrants we get in the same sort of numbers just more “rapey”?

    I that table asks many more questions than it provides answers. And you know I’m not a centrist dad etc so not looking to excuse and cover any element in society.
    It’s just pathetic
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,037
    edited July 4

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    “Man who raped child and attempted to rape woman in west London park is jailed for life”

    https://x.com/standardnews/status/1941165936356049280?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

    “Navroop Singh, 24”

    Terrible, but I sense a subtext.
    Spit it out, man.
    Oh sorry, you want a context? Uhm, ok. Shall we look and see what country now has the highest incidence of rape in the world? Here you go



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics
    Those statistics are of reported rapes. Given how few rapes are reported it's actually encouraging to see Britain at the top, as it suggests that women are more likely to report rapes here than elsewhere, and that's surely the first step to tackling the problem and reducing incidence.
    That might be true, but it is the classic issue of any crime statistic - if it goes down that is good, as crime is being tackled, if it goes up that might also be good as more is being reported which previously was not.

    How do we know which is true at any point in time?
  • TazTaz Posts: 19,485
    I’ve long said we should do the same, or similar, here.

    To help pay their pensions when they retire. Cannot access it for 60 years. It could supplant, longer term, the state pension.

    If they wanted to the could DCA it over a few years to spread risk, but this may possibly compromise returns.

    ‘Every U.S. child to get a $1,000 S&P 500 starter account at birth once President Trump signs the ‘BBB’ bill.‘

    https://x.com/updatenews724/status/1941222853648716123?s=61
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 5,915
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    “Man who raped child and attempted to rape woman in west London park is jailed for life”

    https://x.com/standardnews/status/1941165936356049280?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

    “Navroop Singh, 24”

    Terrible, but I sense a subtext.
    Spit it out, man.
    Oh sorry, you want a context? Uhm, ok. Shall we look and see what country now has the highest incidence of rape in the world? Here you go



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics
    Scotland. Bottom of the league as usual.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 62,525

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    “Man who raped child and attempted to rape woman in west London park is jailed for life”

    https://x.com/standardnews/status/1941165936356049280?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

    “Navroop Singh, 24”

    Terrible, but I sense a subtext.
    Spit it out, man.
    Oh sorry, you want a context? Uhm, ok. Shall we look and see what country now has the highest incidence of rape in the world? Here you go



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics
    Those statistics are of reported rapes. Given how few rapes are reported it's actually encouraging to see Britain at the top, as it suggests that women are more likely to report rapes here than elsewhere, and that's surely the first step to tackling the problem and reducing incidence.
    Sweet Jesus Christ I’m going to preserve this reply in amber, like a Mesozoic freak mosquito, so it can be admired in future centuries in its pristine weirdness

    This opener is especially brilliant

    “Those statistics are of reported rapes. Given how few rapes are reported it's actually encouraging to see Britain at the top”
  • TazTaz Posts: 19,485
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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 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 taxable income over £35k, to remove it for legal tax dodgers like you would require HMRC to employ lots of extra administrators to trace all the extra tax minimised 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
    Hang on - he hasn't

    The single thing he has done is take his taxed earnings and saved them in an ISA...
    To legally minimise tax in retirement
    And you wouldn't

    You are so tedious at times

    But the stupid thing is I didn't. Not at all. I have done nothing to avoid tax in retirement.

    I have done nothing to reduce my tax in retirement unless you count taking out a pension and investing in ISAs. You know what everyone does. In fact the Government makes you do the former now for goodness sake. It is compulsory.

    It is not my fault that the Govt is so stupid it gives me the WFA when it really shouldn't and as a consequence @hyufd accuses me of being a tax avoider when I have done nothing to avoid tax and will voluntarily give it away. I mean what more can I do to make @hyufd happy.

    And he seems to think that if only HMRC had the resources they would find a pot of money to tax of mine. Sadly my affairs are not that complicated. They know it all.
    I may be missing something here but I’m really struggling to see, in this spat, what you’ve done that is in any way wrong or any different to what millions of us do 🤷‍♂️
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 36,127

    Andy_JS said:

    Amazing tennis from Emma Raducanu at the moment. Saving about 7 break points.

    Oh dear. Is she injured now? ETA looks OK, just slipped on the grass.
    She'll probably never play a better set and lose than that one.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,432
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Battlebus said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
    Still a tax. Doesn't matter what you do with it. Indeed most early taxes in England originated in the need to pay for specific things - mostly wars. Pitt introduced Income Tax to help cover the costs of the wars with France. Just because they are supposed to pay for a specific thing doesn't make them any less a tax. And NI is no different.
  • BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 6,463
    I think we should definitely celebrate Top Of World Rape Chart Day because it shows how empowered our women are

    WTAF?!
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 65,987
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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 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 taxable income over £35k, to remove it for legal tax dodgers like you would require HMRC to employ lots of extra administrators to trace all the extra tax minimised 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
    Hang on - he hasn't

    The single thing he has done is take his taxed earnings and saved them in an ISA...
    To legally minimise tax in retirement
    And you wouldn't

    You are so tedious at times

    But the stupid thing is I didn't. Not at all. I have done nothing to avoid tax in retirement.

    I have done nothing to reduce my tax in retirement unless you count taking out a pension and investing in ISAs. You know what everyone does. In fact the Government makes you do the former now for goodness sake. It is compulsory.

    It is not my fault that the Govt is so stupid it gives me the WFA when it really shouldn't and as a consequence @hyufd accuses me of being a tax avoider when I have done nothing to avoid tax and will voluntarily give it away. I mean what more can I do to make @hyufd happy.

    And he seems to think that if only HMRC had the resources they would find a pot of money to tax of mine. Sadly my affairs are not that complicated. They know it all.
    This forum knows that you have no need to explain your legitimate investment decisions and frankly @HYUFD is simply out of order, but as most of us know he is simply incapable of admitting he is wrong or to do the right thing and apologise
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,583
    edited July 4
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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 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 taxable income over £35k, to remove it for legal tax dodgers like you would require HMRC to employ lots of extra administrators to trace all the extra tax minimised 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
    Hang on - he hasn't

    The single thing he has done is take his taxed earnings and saved them in an ISA...
    To legally minimise tax in retirement
    And you wouldn't

    You are so tedious at times

    But the stupid thing is I didn't. Not at all. I have done nothing to avoid tax in retirement.

    I have done nothing to reduce my tax in retirement unless you count taking out a pension and investing in ISAs. You know what everyone does. In fact the Government makes you do the former now for goodness sake. It is compulsory.

    It is not my fault that the Govt is so stupid it gives me the WFA when it really shouldn't and as a consequence @hyufd accuses me of being a tax avoider when I have done nothing to avoid tax and will voluntarily give it away. I mean what more can I do to make @hyufd happy.

    And he seems to think that if only HMRC had the resources they would find a pot of money to tax of mine. Sadly my affairs are not that complicated. They know it all.
    In terms of WFA they don't.

    If you are going beyond just deducting it from taxes paid on taxable income under £35k a year, you need to employ extra admins to look into income beyond that.

    Or you could just virtuously declare you have non taxable income of much more than £35k and hence will not require WFA
  • LeonLeon Posts: 62,525
    Let’s just sit back and admire the fact a PBer literally just said THIS:

    “Those statistics are of reported rapes. Given how few rapes are reported it's actually encouraging to see Britain at the top”
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 19,556
    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    “Man who raped child and attempted to rape woman in west London park is jailed for life”

    https://x.com/standardnews/status/1941165936356049280?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

    “Navroop Singh, 24”

    Terrible, but I sense a subtext.
    Spit it out, man.
    Oh sorry, you want a context? Uhm, ok. Shall we look and see what country now has the highest incidence of rape in the world? Here you go



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics
    Those statistics are of reported rapes. Given how few rapes are reported it's actually encouraging to see Britain at the top, as it suggests that women are more likely to report rapes here than elsewhere, and that's surely the first step to tackling the problem and reducing incidence.
    That might be true, but it is the classic issue of any crime statistic - if it goes down that is good, as crime is being tackled, if it goes up that might also be good as more is being reported which previously was not.

    How do we know which is true at any point in time?
    Which is the value of the British Crime Survey.
    Unfortunately, the latest release on that from the ONS website appears to be for 2020, in which only 16% of those raped had reported it to the police. So we don't know whether the change is due to an increase in the reporting rate.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,583

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Battlebus said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
    Still a tax. Doesn't matter what you do with it. Indeed most early taxes in England originated in the need to pay for specific things - mostly wars. Pitt introduced Income Tax to help cover the costs of the wars with France. Just because they are supposed to pay for a specific thing doesn't make them any less a tax. And NI is no different.
    Yes income tax was introduced to cover national defence and foreign wars not as an insurance for old age and unemployment like NI
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,432
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    “Man who raped child and attempted to rape woman in west London park is jailed for life”

    https://x.com/standardnews/status/1941165936356049280?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

    “Navroop Singh, 24”

    Terrible, but I sense a subtext.
    Spit it out, man.
    Oh sorry, you want a context? Uhm, ok. Shall we look and see what country now has the highest incidence of rape in the world? Here you go



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics
    Those statistics are of reported rapes. Given how few rapes are reported it's actually encouraging to see Britain at the top, as it suggests that women are more likely to report rapes here than elsewhere, and that's surely the first step to tackling the problem and reducing incidence.
    Sweet Jesus Christ I’m going to preserve this reply in amber, like a Mesozoic freak mosquito, so it can be admired in future centuries in its pristine weirdness

    This opener is especially brilliant

    “Those statistics are of reported rapes. Given how few rapes are reported it's actually encouraging to see Britain at the top”
    You really should read the text of your own sources.

    " Each entry is based on that country's definition of rape, which varies widely throughout the world. It does not specify whether recorded means reported, brought to trial, or convicted. It does not include cases of rape which go unreported or unrecorded"

    So as an example - a study conducted by France’s National Observatory on Crime and Criminal Justice concluded that 9 out of 10 rapes in Paris go unreported - so are not included in your statistics.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 19,556
    Leon said:

    Let’s just sit back and admire the fact a PBer literally just said THIS:

    “Those statistics are of reported rapes. Given how few rapes are reported it's actually encouraging to see Britain at the top”

    If people do not report rape, then you cannot convict rapists, you will struggle to do much to reduce rape by stopping rapists.

    So, absolutely, increasing the number of people who report rape to the police is one of the very first steps you need to take to tackle rape and rapists.

    I stand by what I said, 100%.
  • BlancheLivermoreBlancheLivermore Posts: 6,463
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Battlebus said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
    Still a tax. Doesn't matter what you do with it. Indeed most early taxes in England originated in the need to pay for specific things - mostly wars. Pitt introduced Income Tax to help cover the costs of the wars with France. Just because they are supposed to pay for a specific thing doesn't make them any less a tax. And NI is no different.
    Yes income tax was introduced to cover national defence and foreign wars not as an insurance for old age and unemployment like NI
    The original purpose and meaning of everything must be conserved forever

    Only that is true Conservatism

  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,827
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
    Well it would be a waste of HMRC money because I don't have any tax avoided income to take me over the £35k limit. Zippo. None. I don't avoid tax. I primarily live off my capital.

    Let me ask you a question @hyufd because this is nuts: You are very anti Inheritance tax aren't you (which I am not), but for some bizarre reason you want to take my capital away from me before I die, but happy for me to keep it when I am dead. Odd.

    Why do you want to take my savings, isas, shares, houses, pension now. These aren't income, they are capital. These are things I have saved up for my retirement. happy to pay all and any of the tax generated from them.

    You seem to want to take them when I am alive, but don't want to take them when I die.

    Bizarre. They are more useful to me alive than dead.

    And finally what income do you think I have that should be taxed. Where and what is it? Because it is beyond me.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,432
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Battlebus said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
    Still a tax. Doesn't matter what you do with it. Indeed most early taxes in England originated in the need to pay for specific things - mostly wars. Pitt introduced Income Tax to help cover the costs of the wars with France. Just because they are supposed to pay for a specific thing doesn't make them any less a tax. And NI is no different.
    Yes income tax was introduced to cover national defence and foreign wars not as an insurance for old age and unemployment like NI
    And yet it expanded to cover all types of Government expenditure. Which rather proves my point.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 25,104
    Alistair Meeks got thanked by name by Marie LeConte in her substack about Hungary. The crossover episode you didn't know you needed.

    https://open.substack.com/pub/youngvulgarian/p/european-dips-a-despatch-from-budapest?utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
  • LeonLeon Posts: 62,525

    I think we should definitely celebrate Top Of World Rape Chart Day because it shows how empowered our women are

    WTAF?!

    I want us to top every global crime chart - murder, terrorism, random bombings, mutilation of children, arson, burglary, smashing heads, blowing up weasels - because that will PROVE how brilliantly aware of crime we are, not like other nations that don’t even CARE

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,583

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Battlebus said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
    Still a tax. Doesn't matter what you do with it. Indeed most early taxes in England originated in the need to pay for specific things - mostly wars. Pitt introduced Income Tax to help cover the costs of the wars with France. Just because they are supposed to pay for a specific thing doesn't make them any less a tax. And NI is no different.
    Yes income tax was introduced to cover national defence and foreign wars not as an insurance for old age and unemployment like NI
    And yet it expanded to cover all types of Government expenditure. Which rather proves my point.
    And it should not have done
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 19,556
    Leon said:

    I think we should definitely celebrate Top Of World Rape Chart Day because it shows how empowered our women are

    WTAF?!

    I want us to top every global crime chart - murder, terrorism, random bombings, mutilation of children, arson, burglary, smashing heads, blowing up weasels - because that will PROVE how brilliantly aware of crime we are, not like other nations that don’t even CARE
    Do you think a woman is more likely to be raped in Britain or in South Africa?
  • boulayboulay Posts: 6,415
    Leon said:

    I think we should definitely celebrate Top Of World Rape Chart Day because it shows how empowered our women are

    WTAF?!

    I want us to top every global crime chart - murder, terrorism, random bombings, mutilation of children, arson, burglary, smashing heads, blowing up weasels - because that will PROVE how brilliantly aware of crime we are, not like other nations that don’t even CARE

    We will never beat the Finns at blowing up weasels unfortunately.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,037
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Battlebus said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
    Still a tax. Doesn't matter what you do with it. Indeed most early taxes in England originated in the need to pay for specific things - mostly wars. Pitt introduced Income Tax to help cover the costs of the wars with France. Just because they are supposed to pay for a specific thing doesn't make them any less a tax. And NI is no different.
    Yes income tax was introduced to cover national defence and foreign wars not as an insurance for old age and unemployment like NI
    And yet it expanded to cover all types of Government expenditure. Which rather proves my point.
    And it should not have done
    But it did. And are you proposing party policy should be to reverse that?
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 5,915

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Battlebus said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
    Still a tax. Doesn't matter what you do with it. Indeed most early taxes in England originated in the need to pay for specific things - mostly wars. Pitt introduced Income Tax to help cover the costs of the wars with France. Just because they are supposed to pay for a specific thing doesn't make them any less a tax. And NI is no different.
    Yes income tax was introduced to cover national defence and foreign wars not as an insurance for old age and unemployment like NI
    The original purpose and meaning of everything must be conserved forever

    Only that is true Conservatism

    It’s a while since we’ve had such a prolonged and stubborn rant from @HYUFD. It’s just like old times!
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,583
    edited July 4
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
    Well it would be a waste of HMRC money because I don't have any tax avoided income to take me over the £35k limit. Zippo. None. I don't avoid tax. I primarily live off my capital.

    Let me ask you a question @hyufd because this is nuts: You are very anti Inheritance tax aren't you (which I am not), but for some bizarre reason you want to take my capital away from me before I die, but happy for me to keep it when I am dead. Odd.

    Why do you want to take my savings, isas, shares, houses, pension now. These aren't income, they are capital. These are things I have saved up for my retirement. happy to pay all and any of the tax generated from them.

    You seem to want to take them when I am alive, but don't want to take them when I die.

    Bizarre. They are more useful to me alive than dead.

    And finally what income do you think I have that should be taxed. Where and what is it? Because it is beyond me.
    Yes so the livings you make off your capital take you over £35k a year.

    I never said I wanted to take your capital off you or even your WFA (given the admin costs of doing so).

    You were the one whinging you still get your WFA, all you need to do is write to HMRC saying your non taxable capital is such you don't need it
  • LeonLeon Posts: 62,525
    edited July 4

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    “Man who raped child and attempted to rape woman in west London park is jailed for life”

    https://x.com/standardnews/status/1941165936356049280?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

    “Navroop Singh, 24”

    Terrible, but I sense a subtext.
    Spit it out, man.
    Oh sorry, you want a context? Uhm, ok. Shall we look and see what country now has the highest incidence of rape in the world? Here you go



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics
    Those statistics are of reported rapes. Given how few rapes are reported it's actually encouraging to see Britain at the top, as it suggests that women are more likely to report rapes here than elsewhere, and that's surely the first step to tackling the problem and reducing incidence.
    Sweet Jesus Christ I’m going to preserve this reply in amber, like a Mesozoic freak mosquito, so it can be admired in future centuries in its pristine weirdness

    This opener is especially brilliant

    “Those statistics are of reported rapes. Given how few rapes are reported it's actually encouraging to see Britain at the top”
    You really should read the text of your own sources.

    " Each entry is based on that country's definition of rape, which varies widely throughout the world. It does not specify whether recorded means reported, brought to trial, or convicted. It does not include cases of rape which go unreported or unrecorded"

    So as an example - a study conducted by France’s National Observatory on Crime and Criminal Justice concluded that 9 out of 10 rapes in Paris go unreported - so are not included in your statistics.
    “Those statistics are of reported rapes. Given how few rapes are reported it's actually encouraging to see Britain at the top [of the World Rape Chart]”

    Are you encouraged, Richard?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,037

    Leon said:

    Let’s just sit back and admire the fact a PBer literally just said THIS:

    “Those statistics are of reported rapes. Given how few rapes are reported it's actually encouraging to see Britain at the top”

    If people do not report rape, then you cannot convict rapists, you will struggle to do much to reduce rape by stopping rapists.

    So, absolutely, increasing the number of people who report rape to the police is one of the very first steps you need to take to tackle rape and rapists.

    I stand by what I said, 100%.
    Feels like one of those areas where you don't want it too low, as that is unreaslitic and so hinders actual tackling of crime, but too high and you'd question that it is merely a positive instance of better reporting.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 32,700
    Leon said:

    eek said:

    Leon said:

    It is completely extraordinary: the UK now has the highest recorded rate of rape in the entire world, tripling (at least) in a decade, and you hear not a peep about it from mainstream media

    Your problem there is that you making the assumption that our rates are high because of issues, when the reality could equally be that other countries are lower because it's just not reported..

    Ahhh yes of course. It’s just that we have a very different way of reporting

    Trouble is, that’s what they said about Sweden until the rape statistics got so insanely bad and undeniable they were forced to admit the problem was…. elsewhere

    We are on the same trajectory
    Yes it was different back in the day.

    Savile, Harris and Stuart Hall all got away with their sex crimes for decades. And despite the direction you are pointing the dial, not one of them made the pilgrimage to Mecca.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,583
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Battlebus said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
    Still a tax. Doesn't matter what you do with it. Indeed most early taxes in England originated in the need to pay for specific things - mostly wars. Pitt introduced Income Tax to help cover the costs of the wars with France. Just because they are supposed to pay for a specific thing doesn't make them any less a tax. And NI is no different.
    Yes income tax was introduced to cover national defence and foreign wars not as an insurance for old age and unemployment like NI
    And yet it expanded to cover all types of Government expenditure. Which rather proves my point.
    And it should not have done
    But it did. And are you proposing party policy should be to reverse that?
    Yes
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,037
    edited July 4
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Battlebus said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
    Still a tax. Doesn't matter what you do with it. Indeed most early taxes in England originated in the need to pay for specific things - mostly wars. Pitt introduced Income Tax to help cover the costs of the wars with France. Just because they are supposed to pay for a specific thing doesn't make them any less a tax. And NI is no different.
    Yes income tax was introduced to cover national defence and foreign wars not as an insurance for old age and unemployment like NI
    And yet it expanded to cover all types of Government expenditure. Which rather proves my point.
    And it should not have done
    But it did. And are you proposing party policy should be to reverse that?
    Yes
    Fair enough. But it doesn't change what it is. Wishing it were something else does not make it so, and practical reality is more important than torturous logic around definitions.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 19,556
    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Let’s just sit back and admire the fact a PBer literally just said THIS:

    “Those statistics are of reported rapes. Given how few rapes are reported it's actually encouraging to see Britain at the top”

    If people do not report rape, then you cannot convict rapists, you will struggle to do much to reduce rape by stopping rapists.

    So, absolutely, increasing the number of people who report rape to the police is one of the very first steps you need to take to tackle rape and rapists.

    I stand by what I said, 100%.
    Feels like one of those areas where you don't want it too low, as that is unreaslitic and so hinders actual tackling of crime, but too high and you'd question that it is merely a positive instance of better reporting.
    Given that the crime survey has the reporting rate at only 16%, I would suggest that it's much easier to see large changes in the reported rate of rape by changing the reporting rate than by changing the actual incidence rate.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,827
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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 are utterly bonkers. There is no tax dodgy or avoidance at all. There is nothing for HMRC to trace.

    @HYUFD are you seriously telling me you don't have a pension? Are you seriously saying everyone who invests in a pension is a tax dodger? Cos that is all I have done.

    Are you saying everyone who buys a house is a tax dodger because that is all I have done.

    Are you saying that everyone who takes out an ISA is a tax dodger, because that is all I have done.

    Other than also buying some shares and putting money into savings accounts I have done nothing else.

    Where is the tax dodging?

    You are nuts.
    There is, all the extra retirement income you minimised tax on, yes that includes ISAs and shares
    I don't minimise my tax on shares. I pay it like everyone else. I don't pay tax on ISAs income, although I did on the capital invested, and again this is like everyone else.

    Just to get clear @hyufd are you saying that none of us should:

    a) Take out and ISA
    b) Take out a pension
    c) Buy a house

    because all are ways of avoiding tax?

    I just want to get it clear that you disapprove of all those things.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 54,847
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    “Man who raped child and attempted to rape woman in west London park is jailed for life”

    https://x.com/standardnews/status/1941165936356049280?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

    “Navroop Singh, 24”

    Terrible, but I sense a subtext.
    Spit it out, man.
    Oh sorry, you want a context? Uhm, ok. Shall we look and see what country now has the highest incidence of rape in the world? Here you go



    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics
    Those statistics are of reported rapes. Given how few rapes are reported it's actually encouraging to see Britain at the top, as it suggests that women are more likely to report rapes here than elsewhere, and that's surely the first step to tackling the problem and reducing incidence.
    Sweet Jesus Christ I’m going to preserve this reply in amber, like a Mesozoic freak mosquito, so it can be admired in future centuries in its pristine weirdness

    This opener is especially brilliant

    “Those statistics are of reported rapes. Given how few rapes are reported it's actually encouraging to see Britain at the top”
    You really should read the text of your own sources.

    " Each entry is based on that country's definition of rape, which varies widely throughout the world. It does not specify whether recorded means reported, brought to trial, or convicted. It does not include cases of rape which go unreported or unrecorded"

    So as an example - a study conducted by France’s National Observatory on Crime and Criminal Justice concluded that 9 out of 10 rapes in Paris go unreported - so are not included in your statistics.
    “Those statistics are of reported rapes. Given how few rapes are reported it's actually encouraging to see Britain at the top [of the World Rape Chart]”

    Are you encouraged, Richard?
    Wasn't your Stalker at the Speccie a, shall we say, "wannabe rapist"?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,037

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Battlebus said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
    Still a tax. Doesn't matter what you do with it. Indeed most early taxes in England originated in the need to pay for specific things - mostly wars. Pitt introduced Income Tax to help cover the costs of the wars with France. Just because they are supposed to pay for a specific thing doesn't make them any less a tax. And NI is no different.
    If calling things something else was all you needed to do I'm agog than we call anything a tax.

    Though in fairness we (or rather parties) do also use tax informally to refer to policies which are most definitely not taxes to attack opponents.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,583
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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 are utterly bonkers. There is no tax dodgy or avoidance at all. There is nothing for HMRC to trace.

    @HYUFD are you seriously telling me you don't have a pension? Are you seriously saying everyone who invests in a pension is a tax dodger? Cos that is all I have done.

    Are you saying everyone who buys a house is a tax dodger because that is all I have done.

    Are you saying that everyone who takes out an ISA is a tax dodger, because that is all I have done.

    Other than also buying some shares and putting money into savings accounts I have done nothing else.

    Where is the tax dodging?

    You are nuts.
    There is, all the extra retirement income you minimised tax on, yes that includes ISAs and shares
    I don't minimise my tax on shares. I pay it like everyone else. I don't pay tax on ISAs income, although I did on the capital invested, and again this is like everyone else.

    Just to get clear @hyufd are you saying that none of us should:

    a) Take out and ISA
    b) Take out a pension
    c) Buy a house

    because all are ways of avoiding tax?

    I just want to get it clear that you disapprove of all those things.
    No but nor should they whinge they have kept their WFA only by doing so
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 65,987
    edited July 4

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Battlebus said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
    Still a tax. Doesn't matter what you do with it. Indeed most early taxes in England originated in the need to pay for specific things - mostly wars. Pitt introduced Income Tax to help cover the costs of the wars with France. Just because they are supposed to pay for a specific thing doesn't make them any less a tax. And NI is no different.
    Yes income tax was introduced to cover national defence and foreign wars not as an insurance for old age and unemployment like NI
    The original purpose and meaning of everything must be conserved forever

    Only that is true Conservatism

    It’s a while since we’ve had such a prolonged and stubborn rant from @HYUFD. It’s just like old times!
    I do not understand why it is so hard to apologise to @kjh when nobody is remotely defending @HYUFD position which is out of order
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,037
    I feel like there is a conspiracy of silence, ironically, about players screaming when they play every point in tennis. Commentators never seem to remark upon it, when even if it is not intended to put off opponents it is demonstrably unnecessary to be quite that loud when other players do not do it.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,827
    Taz said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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 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 taxable income over £35k, to remove it for legal tax dodgers like you would require HMRC to employ lots of extra administrators to trace all the extra tax minimised 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
    Hang on - he hasn't

    The single thing he has done is take his taxed earnings and saved them in an ISA...
    To legally minimise tax in retirement
    And you wouldn't

    You are so tedious at times

    But the stupid thing is I didn't. Not at all. I have done nothing to avoid tax in retirement.

    I have done nothing to reduce my tax in retirement unless you count taking out a pension and investing in ISAs. You know what everyone does. In fact the Government makes you do the former now for goodness sake. It is compulsory.

    It is not my fault that the Govt is so stupid it gives me the WFA when it really shouldn't and as a consequence @hyufd accuses me of being a tax avoider when I have done nothing to avoid tax and will voluntarily give it away. I mean what more can I do to make @hyufd happy.

    And he seems to think that if only HMRC had the resources they would find a pot of money to tax of mine. Sadly my affairs are not that complicated. They know it all.
    I may be missing something here but I’m really struggling to see, in this spat, what you’ve done that is in any way wrong or any different to what millions of us do 🤷‍♂️
    Nope you have got it all right. Mad isn't it.

    I simply made the point that with the U turn on WFA I will now get the WFA even though I am well off and that I shouldn't and that I will give it away.

    Some may think that virtuous of me.

    Not @HYUFD. It has somehow evolved (god knows how) into me being a tax avoider. How is beyond me.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 27,843
    Taz said:

    I’ve long said we should do the same, or similar, here.

    To help pay their pensions when they retire. Cannot access it for 60 years. It could supplant, longer term, the state pension.

    If they wanted to the could DCA it over a few years to spread risk, but this may possibly compromise returns.

    ‘Every U.S. child to get a $1,000 S&P 500 starter account at birth once President Trump signs the ‘BBB’ bill.‘

    https://x.com/updatenews724/status/1941222853648716123?s=61

    Junior ISAs and Junior SIPPs could be used and then every teenager given a lifetime ISA.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 65,987
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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 are utterly bonkers. There is no tax dodgy or avoidance at all. There is nothing for HMRC to trace.

    @HYUFD are you seriously telling me you don't have a pension? Are you seriously saying everyone who invests in a pension is a tax dodger? Cos that is all I have done.

    Are you saying everyone who buys a house is a tax dodger because that is all I have done.

    Are you saying that everyone who takes out an ISA is a tax dodger, because that is all I have done.

    Other than also buying some shares and putting money into savings accounts I have done nothing else.

    Where is the tax dodging?

    You are nuts.
    There is, all the extra retirement income you minimised tax on, yes that includes ISAs and shares
    I don't minimise my tax on shares. I pay it like everyone else. I don't pay tax on ISAs income, although I did on the capital invested, and again this is like everyone else.

    Just to get clear @hyufd are you saying that none of us should:

    a) Take out and ISA
    b) Take out a pension
    c) Buy a house

    because all are ways of avoiding tax?

    I just want to get it clear that you disapprove of all those things.
    No but nor should they whinge they have kept their WFA only by doing so
    Who are they - you have been very personal to @kph not they
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,827
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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 are utterly bonkers. There is no tax dodgy or avoidance at all. There is nothing for HMRC to trace.

    @HYUFD are you seriously telling me you don't have a pension? Are you seriously saying everyone who invests in a pension is a tax dodger? Cos that is all I have done.

    Are you saying everyone who buys a house is a tax dodger because that is all I have done.

    Are you saying that everyone who takes out an ISA is a tax dodger, because that is all I have done.

    Other than also buying some shares and putting money into savings accounts I have done nothing else.

    Where is the tax dodging?

    You are nuts.
    There is, all the extra retirement income you minimised tax on, yes that includes ISAs and shares
    I don't minimise my tax on shares. I pay it like everyone else. I don't pay tax on ISAs income, although I did on the capital invested, and again this is like everyone else.

    Just to get clear @hyufd are you saying that none of us should:

    a) Take out and ISA
    b) Take out a pension
    c) Buy a house

    because all are ways of avoiding tax?

    I just want to get it clear that you disapprove of all those things.
    No but nor should they whinge they have kept their WFA only by doing so
    Yes they should, because it is wrong that I am getting it. I did not contrive to get it. It was given to me when it shouldn't be and I will give it away to charity.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 11,179
    edited July 4

    kle4 said:

    Leon said:

    Let’s just sit back and admire the fact a PBer literally just said THIS:

    “Those statistics are of reported rapes. Given how few rapes are reported it's actually encouraging to see Britain at the top”

    If people do not report rape, then you cannot convict rapists, you will struggle to do much to reduce rape by stopping rapists.

    So, absolutely, increasing the number of people who report rape to the police is one of the very first steps you need to take to tackle rape and rapists.

    I stand by what I said, 100%.
    Feels like one of those areas where you don't want it too low, as that is unreaslitic and so hinders actual tackling of crime, but too high and you'd question that it is merely a positive instance of better reporting.
    Given that the crime survey has the reporting rate at only 16%, I would suggest that it's much easier to see large changes in the reported rate of rape by changing the reporting rate than by changing the actual incidence rate.
    Yep. A highly effective police and prosecution system for sexual assault will likely see recorded rapes increase, not fall. There's been an enormous increase in reported dangerous driving as a result of Operation Snap, as another example.

    The crime survey is where you want to go for a better for feel for the actual number of sexual assaults, recorded or not. Rape appears to be flat but other sexual assaults are increasing since a low in 2014, but there has been a huge and much bigger increase in reported sexual assualt since 2013.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/sexualoffencesinenglandandwalesoverview/march2022
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,614

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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.
    That's an absolute best case scenario, given most teachers will have gone to University, and then onto teacher training college.

    According to Full Fact, then unless you work for an academy, then headteachers earn between £60k and £125k. (Albeit academy heads can earn more than £150k.).

    So, yes you can definitely earn £125k and get a £90k pension... But it's certainly not the norm, unless you (a) absolutely max out the years, and (b) end up at the very top of the profession, as the head of a secondary school.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,614

    carnforth said:

    Nick Robinson interviews Starmer for one year in office now on BBC 2

    I would rather watch Radiohead live at Glastonbury.
    That can be arranged.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,827
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
    Well it would be a waste of HMRC money because I don't have any tax avoided income to take me over the £35k limit. Zippo. None. I don't avoid tax. I primarily live off my capital.

    Let me ask you a question @hyufd because this is nuts: You are very anti Inheritance tax aren't you (which I am not), but for some bizarre reason you want to take my capital away from me before I die, but happy for me to keep it when I am dead. Odd.

    Why do you want to take my savings, isas, shares, houses, pension now. These aren't income, they are capital. These are things I have saved up for my retirement. happy to pay all and any of the tax generated from them.

    You seem to want to take them when I am alive, but don't want to take them when I die.

    Bizarre. They are more useful to me alive than dead.

    And finally what income do you think I have that should be taxed. Where and what is it? Because it is beyond me.
    Yes so the livings you make off your capital take you over £35k a year.

    I never said I wanted to take your capital off you or even your WFA (given the admin costs of doing so).

    You were the one whinging you still get your WFA, all you need to do is write to HMRC saying your non taxable capital is such you don't need it
    NOOOOO. I do not have income that takes me over £35k I spend my capital every year. My capital reduces every year as I spend it. Fortunately I have enough to take me well past any age I am likely to live

    I DO NOT HAVE INCOME THAT TAKES ME OVER £35k.

    Regarding refusing the WFA this was discussed earlier:

    a) It is not clear you can refuse it if your income is under £35k. You can declare your income is over £35k, but I am not going to start lying to HMRC. Where do you suggest I make up these figures.

    b) Even if I could refuse (which they may well allow) I am not going to allow some civil servant to decide what to do with my WFA. I will give it to a charity of my choice.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 19,388

    I think we should definitely celebrate Top Of World Rape Chart Day because it shows how empowered our women are

    WTAF?!

    Clearly it’s terrible that so many rapes are reported but there is a germ of something recthe reporting. In health and safety the worst thing to hear is ‘no incidents reported? All good’. It’s a bad thing because it means incidents are probably happening and not being reported.

    We have a cultural problem if we are seeing so many rapes as the numbers imply. However I also think we have a problem with what rape is. The idea in many peoples heads is the lone woman assaulted by a stranger with a knife. And yet most, if not almost all reported rapes will be nothing like this. We occasionally talk about consent on PB. It’s a huge issue for society.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 19,388
    kle4 said:

    I feel like there is a conspiracy of silence, ironically, about players screaming when they play every point in tennis. Commentators never seem to remark upon it, when even if it is not intended to put off opponents it is demonstrably unnecessary to be quite that loud when other players do not do it.

    My favourite is the delicate drop shot accompanied by the loud shriek. I believe players use there vocalisation partly to disguise the sound of racket on ball. Far fewer men do this.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,827

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Battlebus said:

    HYUFD said:

    DavidL said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
    Still a tax. Doesn't matter what you do with it. Indeed most early taxes in England originated in the need to pay for specific things - mostly wars. Pitt introduced Income Tax to help cover the costs of the wars with France. Just because they are supposed to pay for a specific thing doesn't make them any less a tax. And NI is no different.
    Yes income tax was introduced to cover national defence and foreign wars not as an insurance for old age and unemployment like NI
    The original purpose and meaning of everything must be conserved forever

    Only that is true Conservatism

    It’s a while since we’ve had such a prolonged and stubborn rant from @HYUFD. It’s just like old times!
    The good thing is that in the past @hyufd and I would get rather personal in these spats and although I admit I have called him an 'idiot' here (I shouldn't have) it is in good fun and I'm sure we won't fall out over it. We do get on rather well now.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,037
    Raducanu's bottle gone. Been a good fight though.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 36,127
    Raducanu should have held onto her breaks of serves.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 36,127
    kle4 said:

    I feel like there is a conspiracy of silence, ironically, about players screaming when they play every point in tennis. Commentators never seem to remark upon it, when even if it is not intended to put off opponents it is demonstrably unnecessary to be quite that loud when other players do not do it.

    If you watch Navratilova v Evert it's amazing how they don't make any noise when playing shots.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 6,534
    Just Cam Norrie now. He might win the next one, but probably meets Alcaraz in the quarters.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,583
    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
    Well it would be a waste of HMRC money because I don't have any tax avoided income to take me over the £35k limit. Zippo. None. I don't avoid tax. I primarily live off my capital.

    Let me ask you a question @hyufd because this is nuts: You are very anti Inheritance tax aren't you (which I am not), but for some bizarre reason you want to take my capital away from me before I die, but happy for me to keep it when I am dead. Odd.

    Why do you want to take my savings, isas, shares, houses, pension now. These aren't income, they are capital. These are things I have saved up for my retirement. happy to pay all and any of the tax generated from them.

    You seem to want to take them when I am alive, but don't want to take them when I die.

    Bizarre. They are more useful to me alive than dead.

    And finally what income do you think I have that should be taxed. Where and what is it? Because it is beyond me.
    Yes so the livings you make off your capital take you over £35k a year.

    I never said I wanted to take your capital off you or even your WFA (given the admin costs of doing so).

    You were the one whinging you still get your WFA, all you need to do is write to HMRC saying your non taxable capital is such you don't need it
    NOOOOO. I do not have income that takes me over £35k I spend my capital every year. My capital reduces every year as I spend it. Fortunately I have enough to take me well past any age I am likely to live

    I DO NOT HAVE INCOME THAT TAKES ME OVER £35k.

    Regarding refusing the WFA this was discussed earlier:

    a) It is not clear you can refuse it if your income is under £35k. You can declare your income is over £35k, but I am not going to start lying to HMRC. Where do you suggest I make up these figures.

    b) Even if I could refuse (which they may well allow) I am not going to allow some civil servant to decide what to do with my WFA. I will give it to a charity of my choice.
    You have capital that you spend every year, so effectively your income is well over £35k a year.

    You can write to HMRC saying you don't want your WFA even if your taxable income is under £35k a year and I am sure they would remove you from the list. Yet as you said you don't want to
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 39,152
    carnforth said:

    Just Cam Norrie now. He might win the next one, but probably meets Alcaraz in the quarters.

    Kartal
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 60,614
    Personally, I'm just impressed that @Leon has moved on from Muslims to Sikhs. By this time next week, he'll have discovered a Zoroastrian once shoplifted from a SPAR in Worthing.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 19,388
    carnforth said:

    Just Cam Norrie now. He might win the next one, but probably meets Alcaraz in the quarters.

    Sonny Kartal too.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 36,127
    carnforth said:

    Just Cam Norrie now. He might win the next one, but probably meets Alcaraz in the quarters.

    For some reason I can't warm to his style of play. Maybe that might change.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 36,127
    carnforth said:

    Just Cam Norrie now. He might win the next one, but probably meets Alcaraz in the quarters.

    Don't forget about Sonay Kartal.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,432
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
    Well it would be a waste of HMRC money because I don't have any tax avoided income to take me over the £35k limit. Zippo. None. I don't avoid tax. I primarily live off my capital.

    Let me ask you a question @hyufd because this is nuts: You are very anti Inheritance tax aren't you (which I am not), but for some bizarre reason you want to take my capital away from me before I die, but happy for me to keep it when I am dead. Odd.

    Why do you want to take my savings, isas, shares, houses, pension now. These aren't income, they are capital. These are things I have saved up for my retirement. happy to pay all and any of the tax generated from them.

    You seem to want to take them when I am alive, but don't want to take them when I die.

    Bizarre. They are more useful to me alive than dead.

    And finally what income do you think I have that should be taxed. Where and what is it? Because it is beyond me.
    Yes so the livings you make off your capital take you over £35k a year.

    I never said I wanted to take your capital off you or even your WFA (given the admin costs of doing so).

    You were the one whinging you still get your WFA, all you need to do is write to HMRC saying your non taxable capital is such you don't need it
    NOOOOO. I do not have income that takes me over £35k I spend my capital every year. My capital reduces every year as I spend it. Fortunately I have enough to take me well past any age I am likely to live

    I DO NOT HAVE INCOME THAT TAKES ME OVER £35k.

    Regarding refusing the WFA this was discussed earlier:

    a) It is not clear you can refuse it if your income is under £35k. You can declare your income is over £35k, but I am not going to start lying to HMRC. Where do you suggest I make up these figures.

    b) Even if I could refuse (which they may well allow) I am not going to allow some civil servant to decide what to do with my WFA. I will give it to a charity of my choice.
    You have capital that you spend every year, so effectively your income is well over £35k a year.

    You can write to HMRC saying you don't want your WFA even if your taxable income is under £35k a year and I am sure they would remove you from the list. Yet as you said you don't want to
    Actually you probably can't. My wife and I had this with Child Tax Credits when we refused to take them. They forced us to fill out all the forms anyway under threat of prosecution and then sent us the money anyway. We donated it to charity. The following year they tried to force us to fill out the forms again and this time we went to our MP when they were threatening to prosecute. He eventually got them to back down.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,076
    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
    Well it would be a waste of HMRC money because I don't have any tax avoided income to take me over the £35k limit. Zippo. None. I don't avoid tax. I primarily live off my capital.

    Let me ask you a question @hyufd because this is nuts: You are very anti Inheritance tax aren't you (which I am not), but for some bizarre reason you want to take my capital away from me before I die, but happy for me to keep it when I am dead. Odd.

    Why do you want to take my savings, isas, shares, houses, pension now. These aren't income, they are capital. These are things I have saved up for my retirement. happy to pay all and any of the tax generated from them.

    You seem to want to take them when I am alive, but don't want to take them when I die.

    Bizarre. They are more useful to me alive than dead.

    And finally what income do you think I have that should be taxed. Where and what is it? Because it is beyond me.
    Yes so the livings you make off your capital take you over £35k a year.

    I never said I wanted to take your capital off you or even your WFA (given the admin costs of doing so).

    You were the one whinging you still get your WFA, all you need to do is write to HMRC saying your non taxable capital is such you don't need it
    NOOOOO. I do not have income that takes me over £35k I spend my capital every year. My capital reduces every year as I spend it. Fortunately I have enough to take me well past any age I am likely to live

    I DO NOT HAVE INCOME THAT TAKES ME OVER £35k.

    Regarding refusing the WFA this was discussed earlier:

    a) It is not clear you can refuse it if your income is under £35k. You can declare your income is over £35k, but I am not going to start lying to HMRC. Where do you suggest I make up these figures.

    b) Even if I could refuse (which they may well allow) I am not going to allow some civil servant to decide what to do with my WFA. I will give it to a charity of my choice.
    You have capital that you spend every year, so effectively your income is well over £35k a year.

    You can write to HMRC saying you don't want your WFA even if your taxable income is under £35k a year and I am sure they would remove you from the list. Yet as you said you don't want to
    Spending your savings (as opposed to interest on your savings) is not income.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,583

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
    Well it would be a waste of HMRC money because I don't have any tax avoided income to take me over the £35k limit. Zippo. None. I don't avoid tax. I primarily live off my capital.

    Let me ask you a question @hyufd because this is nuts: You are very anti Inheritance tax aren't you (which I am not), but for some bizarre reason you want to take my capital away from me before I die, but happy for me to keep it when I am dead. Odd.

    Why do you want to take my savings, isas, shares, houses, pension now. These aren't income, they are capital. These are things I have saved up for my retirement. happy to pay all and any of the tax generated from them.

    You seem to want to take them when I am alive, but don't want to take them when I die.

    Bizarre. They are more useful to me alive than dead.

    And finally what income do you think I have that should be taxed. Where and what is it? Because it is beyond me.
    Yes so the livings you make off your capital take you over £35k a year.

    I never said I wanted to take your capital off you or even your WFA (given the admin costs of doing so).

    You were the one whinging you still get your WFA, all you need to do is write to HMRC saying your non taxable capital is such you don't need it
    NOOOOO. I do not have income that takes me over £35k I spend my capital every year. My capital reduces every year as I spend it. Fortunately I have enough to take me well past any age I am likely to live

    I DO NOT HAVE INCOME THAT TAKES ME OVER £35k.

    Regarding refusing the WFA this was discussed earlier:

    a) It is not clear you can refuse it if your income is under £35k. You can declare your income is over £35k, but I am not going to start lying to HMRC. Where do you suggest I make up these figures.

    b) Even if I could refuse (which they may well allow) I am not going to allow some civil servant to decide what to do with my WFA. I will give it to a charity of my choice.
    You have capital that you spend every year, so effectively your income is well over £35k a year.

    You can write to HMRC saying you don't want your WFA even if your taxable income is under £35k a year and I am sure they would remove you from the list. Yet as you said you don't want to
    Spending your savings (as opposed to interest on your savings) is not income.
    For a pensioner it is
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 55,448
    rcs1000 said:

    Personally, I'm just impressed that @Leon has moved on from Muslims to Sikhs. By this time next week, he'll have discovered a Zoroastrian once shoplifted from a SPAR in Worthing.

    D’yah think we should tell him they just look like Sikhs? And they are really Trans Gay Illegal Immigrant Alien AIs?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,583

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
    Well it would be a waste of HMRC money because I don't have any tax avoided income to take me over the £35k limit. Zippo. None. I don't avoid tax. I primarily live off my capital.

    Let me ask you a question @hyufd because this is nuts: You are very anti Inheritance tax aren't you (which I am not), but for some bizarre reason you want to take my capital away from me before I die, but happy for me to keep it when I am dead. Odd.

    Why do you want to take my savings, isas, shares, houses, pension now. These aren't income, they are capital. These are things I have saved up for my retirement. happy to pay all and any of the tax generated from them.

    You seem to want to take them when I am alive, but don't want to take them when I die.

    Bizarre. They are more useful to me alive than dead.

    And finally what income do you think I have that should be taxed. Where and what is it? Because it is beyond me.
    Yes so the livings you make off your capital take you over £35k a year.

    I never said I wanted to take your capital off you or even your WFA (given the admin costs of doing so).

    You were the one whinging you still get your WFA, all you need to do is write to HMRC saying your non taxable capital is such you don't need it
    NOOOOO. I do not have income that takes me over £35k I spend my capital every year. My capital reduces every year as I spend it. Fortunately I have enough to take me well past any age I am likely to live

    I DO NOT HAVE INCOME THAT TAKES ME OVER £35k.

    Regarding refusing the WFA this was discussed earlier:

    a) It is not clear you can refuse it if your income is under £35k. You can declare your income is over £35k, but I am not going to start lying to HMRC. Where do you suggest I make up these figures.

    b) Even if I could refuse (which they may well allow) I am not going to allow some civil servant to decide what to do with my WFA. I will give it to a charity of my choice.
    You have capital that you spend every year, so effectively your income is well over £35k a year.

    You can write to HMRC saying you don't want your WFA even if your taxable income is under £35k a year and I am sure they would remove you from the list. Yet as you said you don't want to
    Actually you probably can't. My wife and I had this with Child Tax Credits when we refused to take them. They forced us to fill out all the forms anyway under threat of prosecution and then sent us the money anyway. We donated it to charity. The following year they tried to force us to fill out the forms again and this time we went to our MP when they were threatening to prosecute. He eventually got them to back down.
    You can earn up to £58k and still get child tax credits
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 55,448

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
    Well it would be a waste of HMRC money because I don't have any tax avoided income to take me over the £35k limit. Zippo. None. I don't avoid tax. I primarily live off my capital.

    Let me ask you a question @hyufd because this is nuts: You are very anti Inheritance tax aren't you (which I am not), but for some bizarre reason you want to take my capital away from me before I die, but happy for me to keep it when I am dead. Odd.

    Why do you want to take my savings, isas, shares, houses, pension now. These aren't income, they are capital. These are things I have saved up for my retirement. happy to pay all and any of the tax generated from them.

    You seem to want to take them when I am alive, but don't want to take them when I die.

    Bizarre. They are more useful to me alive than dead.

    And finally what income do you think I have that should be taxed. Where and what is it? Because it is beyond me.
    Yes so the livings you make off your capital take you over £35k a year.

    I never said I wanted to take your capital off you or even your WFA (given the admin costs of doing so).

    You were the one whinging you still get your WFA, all you need to do is write to HMRC saying your non taxable capital is such you don't need it
    NOOOOO. I do not have income that takes me over £35k I spend my capital every year. My capital reduces every year as I spend it. Fortunately I have enough to take me well past any age I am likely to live

    I DO NOT HAVE INCOME THAT TAKES ME OVER £35k.

    Regarding refusing the WFA this was discussed earlier:

    a) It is not clear you can refuse it if your income is under £35k. You can declare your income is over £35k, but I am not going to start lying to HMRC. Where do you suggest I make up these figures.

    b) Even if I could refuse (which they may well allow) I am not going to allow some civil servant to decide what to do with my WFA. I will give it to a charity of my choice.
    You have capital that you spend every year, so effectively your income is well over £35k a year.

    You can write to HMRC saying you don't want your WFA even if your taxable income is under £35k a year and I am sure they would remove you from the list. Yet as you said you don't want to
    Actually you probably can't. My wife and I had this with Child Tax Credits when we refused to take them. They forced us to fill out all the forms anyway under threat of prosecution and then sent us the money anyway. We donated it to charity. The following year they tried to force us to fill out the forms again and this time we went to our MP when they were threatening to prosecute. He eventually got them to back down.
    Think of the fun you could have had by keeping going.

    “BBC breaking news. Armed police have called in the SAS to deal with an extremely obdurate couple refusing to take benefits.”
  • LeonLeon Posts: 62,525
    Sofia at night is quite plez. May linger
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,432
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    eek said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    kjh said:

    HYUFD said:

    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
    Well it would be a waste of HMRC money because I don't have any tax avoided income to take me over the £35k limit. Zippo. None. I don't avoid tax. I primarily live off my capital.

    Let me ask you a question @hyufd because this is nuts: You are very anti Inheritance tax aren't you (which I am not), but for some bizarre reason you want to take my capital away from me before I die, but happy for me to keep it when I am dead. Odd.

    Why do you want to take my savings, isas, shares, houses, pension now. These aren't income, they are capital. These are things I have saved up for my retirement. happy to pay all and any of the tax generated from them.

    You seem to want to take them when I am alive, but don't want to take them when I die.

    Bizarre. They are more useful to me alive than dead.

    And finally what income do you think I have that should be taxed. Where and what is it? Because it is beyond me.
    Yes so the livings you make off your capital take you over £35k a year.

    I never said I wanted to take your capital off you or even your WFA (given the admin costs of doing so).

    You were the one whinging you still get your WFA, all you need to do is write to HMRC saying your non taxable capital is such you don't need it
    NOOOOO. I do not have income that takes me over £35k I spend my capital every year. My capital reduces every year as I spend it. Fortunately I have enough to take me well past any age I am likely to live

    I DO NOT HAVE INCOME THAT TAKES ME OVER £35k.

    Regarding refusing the WFA this was discussed earlier:

    a) It is not clear you can refuse it if your income is under £35k. You can declare your income is over £35k, but I am not going to start lying to HMRC. Where do you suggest I make up these figures.

    b) Even if I could refuse (which they may well allow) I am not going to allow some civil servant to decide what to do with my WFA. I will give it to a charity of my choice.
    You have capital that you spend every year, so effectively your income is well over £35k a year.

    You can write to HMRC saying you don't want your WFA even if your taxable income is under £35k a year and I am sure they would remove you from the list. Yet as you said you don't want to
    Actually you probably can't. My wife and I had this with Child Tax Credits when we refused to take them. They forced us to fill out all the forms anyway under threat of prosecution and then sent us the money anyway. We donated it to charity. The following year they tried to force us to fill out the forms again and this time we went to our MP when they were threatening to prosecute. He eventually got them to back down.
    You can earn up to £58k and still get child tax credits
    I know. That was what we objected to and why we refused to take them. Admittedly this was 20 years ago or more. We simply didn't believe that anyone earning that amount of money (or its equivalent 2 decades ago) should be getting Government handouts.
Sign In or Register to comment.