Skimming through last night's thread on the issue of statistics involving reported sexual assaults in the UK as a bunch of men on here dissected the possible reasons and implications behind the figures in the UK and I was struck by the fact that there was absolutely no female imput into the debate on here. But not only that, no one whatever their political leanings asked the most important question facing women in the UK today. So lads, give your head a wobble and simple ask women in the UK if they feel safer today than they did even a decade or two ago in the UK and hopefully the answer might shift a few you out of your political comfort zone to ask the right questions about why that might be?
That's a good point; but 'feeling' and 'being' safer are two different things.
Anecdotally, the 60s, 70s and 80s were not exactly safe times for women on Britain's streets.
Uh oh, Dr. Naomi Wolf. 8 NYT Bestsellers. DPhil, Poetry is a-visiting these shores again.
Dr. Naomi Wolf. 8 NYT Bestsellers. DPhil, Poetry. @naomirwolf Insane. This whole island appears to be geoengineered with dozens of lines of particulate; in the US it is typically several.
“Irish people living in the UK will be able to apply for British citizenship under a new easier, cheaper route.
Applicants will be subject to a more streamlined application process and won't be required to demonstrate knowledge of English language or sit the Life in the UK test.”
Asylum seeker in Ireland? Come on over to Britain. We don’t ask questions
Skimming through last night's thread on the issue of statistics involving reported sexual assaults in the UK as a bunch of men on here dissected the possible reasons and implications behind the figures in the UK and I was struck by the fact that there was absolutely no female imput into the debate on here. But not only that, no one whatever their political leanings asked the most important question facing women in the UK today. So lads, give your head a wobble and simple ask women in the UK if they feel safer today than they did even a decade or two ago in the UK and hopefully the answer might shift a few you out of your political comfort zone to ask the right questions about why that might be?
Can someone explain to me why we don’t want asylum seekers to have jobs? In a country where it’s very easy to find menial work (so it’s not like they’re taking jobs off others) what we ought to have is asylum seekers allowed to work - and if we still want to be a bit nasty, maybe tax them at 50% from £0 or something to pay for their room and board.
There must be something I’m missing (I doubt it’s incentives, cause the major prize is being allowed to stay, and the minor prize of working illegally for a couple of years then being deported isn’t really different to working legally and contributing tax).
Because it would be too much of a loophole in the visa system. Asylum claims take a very long time to process and if you let people work formally then it will be exploited, plus it will make it harder to turn claims down because people will use all the human rights arguments we're familiar with to argue that they are already settled here.
I did think these were the arguments but I'm not convinced by either of them.
Surely the fix is to get asylum decisions down from taking years to a couple of weeks. For the initial decision, that's easily enough done - fill in the form when you claim asylum, stating who you are, where you are from, why you are claiming asylum, someone assess that information and makes a decision. Don't fully co-operate with this process, instant deportation, regardless of the merits of your case, and we take your biometric data and will never under any circumstances ever permit you to come back.
The problem is that currently there are nearly infinite grounds to appeal all this into the court system, which takes forever - and fixing that means ripping up the HRA.
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.
Given our current low fertility rate they certainly should, indeed child tax credits and child benefit should be increased if anything
Seems like you want Government handouts for everyone - at least as long as they are MIddle Class.
No I want increased child benefit and child credits for working class parents as well, our fertility rate at 1.57 is well below replacement level
But the evidence is that neither of those things make any difference.
I have talked to a fair few women about children and childbirth, and not having more kids is not all about money and careers.
One woman I know well was put off having kids by the horror stories her mother gave her about pregnancy. Both now regret this. Three women got to have one/two kids, but were told for health reasons another pregnancy might be unhealthy for them (one was seriously ill giving birth to their second). Another apparently loves kids and being pregnant, and is on five or six (I've lost count...)
The image many of us have of women 'glowing' in pregnancy may be true for some. For others, and depending on the stage of pregnancy, it is uncomfortable, painful, restricting and sometimes dangerous, even nowadays.
And that's just pregnancy.
There were eight couples in out NCT class 11 years ago. I *think* two couples/women only had one child. Four couples have had two, and one woman three (by two different fathers after the first abandoned her when their baby was a few months old...), and one had had many more.
Reporter: One of the words you used is widely viewed as an antisemitic phrase…
Trump: I’ve never heard it that way to me. It’s someone who is a money lender at high rates. You view it differently than me. I’ve never heard that. https://x.com/Acyn/status/1941168209299935392
Skimming through last night's thread on the issue of statistics involving reported sexual assaults in the UK as a bunch of men on here dissected the possible reasons and implications behind the figures in the UK and I was struck by the fact that there was absolutely no female imput into the debate on here. But not only that, no one whatever their political leanings asked the most important question facing women in the UK today. So lads, give your head a wobble and simple ask women in the UK if they feel safer today than they did even a decade or two ago in the UK and hopefully the answer might shift a few you out of your political comfort zone to ask the right questions about why that might be?
It was just our regular low IQ troll, trying to turn crimes that arise from the behaviour of men into a justification for one of his usual, pitiful, sad little racist rants.
I see you’ve amply proved @fitalass’ point, like the tragic, lonely, dog-loving saddo that you are, by completely talking over her words and ignoring her actual experience
PB has a man problem - she’s right. And it’s mainly trainspottery old men like you
Skimming through last night's thread on the issue of statistics involving reported sexual assaults in the UK as a bunch of men on here dissected the possible reasons and implications behind the figures in the UK and I was struck by the fact that there was absolutely no female imput into the debate on here. But not only that, no one whatever their political leanings asked the most important question facing women in the UK today. So lads, give your head a wobble and simple ask women in the UK if they feel safer today than they did even a decade or two ago in the UK and hopefully the answer might shift a few you out of your political comfort zone to ask the right questions about why that might be?
Well said
👏
Yes: it was so much better when sexual abuse was hidden and tolerated.
TRUMP: And we are putting up wind. It does not work, aside from ruining our fields and valleys and killing all the birds. Being very weak and expensive, all made in China. I have never seen a wind farm in China. Why is that? https://x.com/Acyn/status/1941251628386148485
Skimming through last night's thread on the issue of statistics involving reported sexual assaults in the UK as a bunch of men on here dissected the possible reasons and implications behind the figures in the UK and I was struck by the fact that there was absolutely no female imput into the debate on here. But not only that, no one whatever their political leanings asked the most important question facing women in the UK today. So lads, give your head a wobble and simple ask women in the UK if they feel safer today than they did even a decade or two ago in the UK and hopefully the answer might shift a few you out of your political comfort zone to ask the right questions about why that might be?
Well said
👏
Yes: it was so much better when sexual abuse was hidden and tolerated.
I am happy for you to argue directly with @fitalass rather than me. She made the point, not I
Skimming through last night's thread on the issue of statistics involving reported sexual assaults in the UK as a bunch of men on here dissected the possible reasons and implications behind the figures in the UK and I was struck by the fact that there was absolutely no female imput into the debate on here. But not only that, no one whatever their political leanings asked the most important question facing women in the UK today. So lads, give your head a wobble and simple ask women in the UK if they feel safer today than they did even a decade or two ago in the UK and hopefully the answer might shift a few you out of your political comfort zone to ask the right questions about why that might be?
That's a good point; but 'feeling' and 'being' safer are two different things.
Anecdotally, the 60s, 70s and 80s were not exactly safe times for women on Britain's streets.
The British Crime Survey shows a decline in sexual assault and rape in the last 20 years.
Uh oh, Dr. Naomi Wolf. 8 NYT Bestsellers. DPhil, Poetry is a-visiting these shores again.
Dr. Naomi Wolf. 8 NYT Bestsellers. DPhil, Poetry. @naomirwolf Insane. This whole island appears to be geoengineered with dozens of lines of particulate; in the US it is typically several.
Skimming through last night's thread on the issue of statistics involving reported sexual assaults in the UK as a bunch of men on here dissected the possible reasons and implications behind the figures in the UK and I was struck by the fact that there was absolutely no female imput into the debate on here. But not only that, no one whatever their political leanings asked the most important question facing women in the UK today. So lads, give your head a wobble and simple ask women in the UK if they feel safer today than they did even a decade or two ago in the UK and hopefully the answer might shift a few you out of your political comfort zone to ask the right questions about why that might be?
Why do you think that the British Crime Survey shows such a significant decline in rape and sexual assault in the last 20 years?
“Irish people living in the UK will be able to apply for British citizenship under a new easier, cheaper route.
Applicants will be subject to a more streamlined application process and won't be required to demonstrate knowledge of English language or sit the Life in the UK test.”
Asylum seeker in Ireland? Come on over to Britain. We don’t ask questions
“Irish people living in the UK will be able to apply for British citizenship under a new easier, cheaper route.
Applicants will be subject to a more streamlined application process and won't be required to demonstrate knowledge of English language or sit the Life in the UK test.”
Asylum seeker in Ireland? Come on over to Britain. We don’t ask questions
Ireland now has a gdp per capita significantly higher than we do under FG and FF, why would an asylum seeker want to make the leap from there to poor old Starmer's Labour UK? Even Dublin is buzzing and with less crime than London
It doesn't provide a route for an asylum seeker in Ireland to mine to Britain, unless they've lived long enough in Ireland to gain Irish citizenship.
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.
Given our current low fertility rate they certainly should, indeed child tax credits and child benefit should be increased if anything
Seems like you want Government handouts for everyone - at least as long as they are MIddle Class.
No I want increased child benefit and child credits for working class parents as well, our fertility rate at 1.57 is well below replacement level
But the evidence is that neither of those things make any difference.
I have talked to a fair few women about children and childbirth, and not having more kids is not all about money and careers.
One woman I know well was put off having kids by the horror stories her mother gave her about pregnancy. Both now regret this. Three women got to have one/two kids, but were told for health reasons another pregnancy might be unhealthy for them (one was seriously ill giving birth to their second). Another apparently loves kids and being pregnant, and is on five or six (I've lost count...)
The image many of us have of women 'glowing' in pregnancy may be true for some. For others, and depending on the stage of pregnancy, it is uncomfortable, painful, restricting and sometimes dangerous, even nowadays.
And that's just pregnancy.
There were eight couples in out NCT class 11 years ago. I *think* two couples/women only had one child. Four couples have had two, and one woman three (by two different fathers after the first abandoned her when their baby was a few months old...), and one had had many more.
I’ve just been on a group trip around the Rhodopes with a bunch of old British geeky Remainers-who-love-moths
At first it was like vacationing with PB but after a while they really grew on me. Kind, funny (if you were patient), fascinating stories
What struck me at the end was how many of them had one or no kids and, of those who did have kids, the kids were not providing grandkids
TRUMP: And we are putting up wind. It does not work, aside from ruining our fields and valleys and killing all the birds. Being very weak and expensive, all made in China. I have never seen a wind farm in China. Why is that? https://x.com/Acyn/status/1941251628386148485
It's a little bit like some posters: he has an opinion and then reality is twisted to fit.
“Irish people living in the UK will be able to apply for British citizenship under a new easier, cheaper route.
Applicants will be subject to a more streamlined application process and won't be required to demonstrate knowledge of English language or sit the Life in the UK test.”
Asylum seeker in Ireland? Come on over to Britain. We don’t ask questions
This is for Irish citizens, people who already have full residence rights in Britain. It makes zero difference to immigration.
You're so ignorant.
If it makes no difference, why is the Home Office making the citizenship test easier, and dropping the requirement for English language skills and knowledge of life in the UK?
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.
Given our current low fertility rate they certainly should, indeed child tax credits and child benefit should be increased if anything
Seems like you want Government handouts for everyone - at least as long as they are MIddle Class.
No I want increased child benefit and child credits for working class parents as well, our fertility rate at 1.57 is well below replacement level
But the evidence is that neither of those things make any difference.
I have talked to a fair few women about children and childbirth, and not having more kids is not all about money and careers.
One woman I know well was put off having kids by the horror stories her mother gave her about pregnancy. Both now regret this. Three women got to have one/two kids, but were told for health reasons another pregnancy might be unhealthy for them (one was seriously ill giving birth to their second). Another apparently loves kids and being pregnant, and is on five or six (I've lost count...)
The image many of us have of women 'glowing' in pregnancy may be true for some. For others, and depending on the stage of pregnancy, it is uncomfortable, painful, restricting and sometimes dangerous, even nowadays.
And that's just pregnancy.
There were eight couples in out NCT class 11 years ago. I *think* two couples/women only had one child. Four couples have had two, and one woman three (by two different fathers after the first abandoned her when their baby was a few months old...), and one had had many more.
I’ve just been on a group trip around the Rhodopes with a bunch of old British geeky Remainers-who-love-moths
At first it was like vacationing with PB but after a while they really grew on me. Kind, funny (if you were patient), fascinating stories
What struck me at the end was how many of them had one or no kids and, of those who did have kids, the kids were not providing grandkids
The baby bust is very real
It's real everywhere: Singapore, despite some of the most pro-natal policies in the world is at 1.1.
Italy, despite houses being cheap as chips and everyone believing in God, is no higher.
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.
Given our current low fertility rate they certainly should, indeed child tax credits and child benefit should be increased if anything
Seems like you want Government handouts for everyone - at least as long as they are MIddle Class.
No I want increased child benefit and child credits for working class parents as well, our fertility rate at 1.57 is well below replacement level
But the evidence is that neither of those things make any difference.
I have talked to a fair few women about children and childbirth, and not having more kids is not all about money and careers.
One woman I know well was put off having kids by the horror stories her mother gave her about pregnancy. Both now regret this. Three women got to have one/two kids, but were told for health reasons another pregnancy might be unhealthy for them (one was seriously ill giving birth to their second). Another apparently loves kids and being pregnant, and is on five or six (I've lost count...)
The image many of us have of women 'glowing' in pregnancy may be true for some. For others, and depending on the stage of pregnancy, it is uncomfortable, painful, restricting and sometimes dangerous, even nowadays.
And that's just pregnancy.
There were eight couples in out NCT class 11 years ago. I *think* two couples/women only had one child. Four couples have had two, and one woman three (by two different fathers after the first abandoned her when their baby was a few months old...), and one had had many more.
I’ve just been on a group trip around the Rhodopes with a bunch of old British geeky Remainers-who-love-moths
At first it was like vacationing with PB but after a while they really grew on me. Kind, funny (if you were patient), fascinating stories
What struck me at the end was how many of them had one or no kids and, of those who did have kids, the kids were not providing grandkids
“Irish people living in the UK will be able to apply for British citizenship under a new easier, cheaper route.
Applicants will be subject to a more streamlined application process and won't be required to demonstrate knowledge of English language or sit the Life in the UK test.”
Asylum seeker in Ireland? Come on over to Britain. We don’t ask questions
Irish citizens will still require five years residency in Britain to qualify for British citizenship under this Act. The relevance to asylum seekers just isn't there, you stupid dumbarse.
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.
Given our current low fertility rate they certainly should, indeed child tax credits and child benefit should be increased if anything
Seems like you want Government handouts for everyone - at least as long as they are MIddle Class.
No I want increased child benefit and child credits for working class parents as well, our fertility rate at 1.57 is well below replacement level
But the evidence is that neither of those things make any difference.
I have talked to a fair few women about children and childbirth, and not having more kids is not all about money and careers.
One woman I know well was put off having kids by the horror stories her mother gave her about pregnancy. Both now regret this. Three women got to have one/two kids, but were told for health reasons another pregnancy might be unhealthy for them (one was seriously ill giving birth to their second). Another apparently loves kids and being pregnant, and is on five or six (I've lost count...)
The image many of us have of women 'glowing' in pregnancy may be true for some. For others, and depending on the stage of pregnancy, it is uncomfortable, painful, restricting and sometimes dangerous, even nowadays.
And that's just pregnancy.
There were eight couples in out NCT class 11 years ago. I *think* two couples/women only had one child. Four couples have had two, and one woman three (by two different fathers after the first abandoned her when their baby was a few months old...), and one had had many more.
I’ve just been on a group trip around the Rhodopes with a bunch of old British geeky Remainers-who-love-moths
At first it was like vacationing with PB but after a while they really grew on me. Kind, funny (if you were patient), fascinating stories
What struck me at the end was how many of them had one or no kids and, of those who did have kids, the kids were not providing grandkids
The baby bust is very real
It's real everywhere: Singapore, despite some of the most pro-natal policies in the world is at 1.1.
Italy, despite houses being cheap as chips and everyone believing in God, is no higher.
South Korea's birthrate is catastrophic. The North might defeat them by demography alone (given a century or so...)
Egypt's, last I heard, was falling but still high. Ironically, Egypt's one of the few countries that would really prefer a much, much lower rate as it has to import so much food, and there are increased water fears after Ethiopia's new(ish) dam.
TRUMP: And we are putting up wind. It does not work, aside from ruining our fields and valleys and killing all the birds. Being very weak and expensive, all made in China. I have never seen a wind farm in China. Why is that? https://x.com/Acyn/status/1941251628386148485
It's a little bit like some posters: he has an opinion and then reality is twisted to fit.
It's one of the dimensions of great, charismatic leadership- to persuade people that your belief is the truth.
When that power is used to fortify a belief that is true but seems implausible ("we shall never surrender"), it's one of the greatest things a human can do. When the same power is used to propagate a lie, it's a blooming disaster.
Skimming through last night's thread on the issue of statistics involving reported sexual assaults in the UK as a bunch of men on here dissected the possible reasons and implications behind the figures in the UK and I was struck by the fact that there was absolutely no female imput into the debate on here. But not only that, no one whatever their political leanings asked the most important question facing women in the UK today. So lads, give your head a wobble and simple ask women in the UK if they feel safer today than they did even a decade or two ago in the UK and hopefully the answer might shift a few you out of your political comfort zone to ask the right questions about why that might be?
That's a good point; but 'feeling' and 'being' safer are two different things.
Anecdotally, the 60s, 70s and 80s were not exactly safe times for women on Britain's streets.
Thanks for mansplaining to me what it was like to be a female in the 80s, as a student nurse and then a staff nurse back then on nights out in Aberdeen and Edinburgh, we were always even back then making sure we all got home safely from nights out as that was really important to us and we had to have great safe guards in place even then. I could dine out on the amount of times that groups of drunk men would spot and single out a lone female thinking they were being helpful when they were being anything but and causing them real distress when they were traveling on public transport or standing in taxi line!
I'm comfortable with the charge because hands free means that the brakes cannot be engaged quickly if there is eg a pedestrian wandering across with their head in their phone, and the cyclist has a duty of care under the HWC.
There are plenty of situations in cycling (or driving) where there is no credible need to apply a brake instantly, and it doesn't take long to move hands/legs from wherever (if wherever is sensible) to the controls.
Admittedly these situations are unlikely to apply in London and the particular case might be fully justified... but I don't think that it should be an automatic offence.
Whenever I see someone cycling hands-free I just think "Tosser!".
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
Where is the government brave enough to say that those with an income in excess of £35k don't actually get the OAP, or at least a diminished share of it? We are so deeply in debt and we are borrowing outrageous sums. Radical approaches need to be taken or we risk catastrophe.
Given they will have paid in via NI and state pension eligibility is based on that that won't happen, WFA never depended on NI contributions.
Though the triple lock could be ended for higher earning pensioners
The original 'contract' as set out by the post war Government was that we would pay NI to pay for pensions for the existing pensioners at the time and when we got to the point of retirement then the current workers would pay NI for our pensions.
But circumstances change. It is no longer a viable system and if we are rich enough to cope without it we should not expect existing workers earning little more than minimum wage to be paying NI to support us in our old age.
It is time for a new contract. One that recognises that the workers are not necessarily well off and pensioners are not necessarily poor and in need (or deserving) of state support.
I think there is an increasing body of opinion that has concluded we cannot continue free NHS care and the state pension to all, and these lucrative benefits do need a form of means testing
I heard yesteday of a teacher retiring on a final salary pension of £90,000 pa
Can anyone justify that teacher receiving the state pension in our current debt crisis ?
That figure simply doesn’t make sense - got any details as it’s clearly designed to be a clickbait lie
I was told it by someone who works with this person and they are in the education sector
I have no reason to believe it was clickbait
However, the general point remains that a good number of retirees have extremely generous pensions and we simply cannot expect 'workers' to pay ever higher taxes to sustain this unfairness
This is ridiculous Big G. The most a teacher gets when he retires is 50%. A full time teacher on 50000 pa, gets a max of 25000. Did they not teach percentages in your school?
Index linked, of course, and at what age ?
The actuarial value to buy such a pension is colossal.
It’s a very good deal.
Hence why DB FS schemes have generally been replaced with DB CA, usually including for existing members,
My wife has two NHS pensions.
The 95 scheme that is the former and the 2015 scheme that is the latter.
Still a very good deal though.
The old scheme if that was it denied me a widowers pension when I remarried. I lost 4k a yr. (My wife who was a GP gave yrs of service but fell ill in her 50s and died) .It's something that will grate with me from time to time when I think of it. The new scheme allows the spouse pension to remain. Grossly unfair.
Yes, there are a number of NHS pensions schemes, the 1995 (Final Salary), 2008 (Career Average) and 2015 (Career Average) but they do vary in other ways, for example accrual rates, death in service benefits, retirement ages, and benefits to spouses and partners. One reason for the 2008 scheme was to give same sex partners rights etc.
On the whole the schemes have become less generous over time (no lump sum as standard in the 2008 or 2015 scheme for example), but for some circumstances they were more generous. When the 2008 scheme was launched we were all sent a pack explaining both so we could switch if we chose.
It gets complicated at times. Mrs Foxy has time in each scheme, each with a different retirement age, ranging from 60 in the 1995 scheme to 67 in the 2015 scheme, with 20 years of whole time equivalent spread across these.
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
Where is the government brave enough to say that those with an income in excess of £35k don't actually get the OAP, or at least a diminished share of it? We are so deeply in debt and we are borrowing outrageous sums. Radical approaches need to be taken or we risk catastrophe.
Given they will have paid in via NI and state pension eligibility is based on that that won't happen, WFA never depended on NI contributions.
Though the triple lock could be ended for higher earning pensioners
The original 'contract' as set out by the post war Government was that we would pay NI to pay for pensions for the existing pensioners at the time and when we got to the point of retirement then the current workers would pay NI for our pensions.
But circumstances change. It is no longer a viable system and if we are rich enough to cope without it we should not expect existing workers earning little more than minimum wage to be paying NI to support us in our old age.
It is time for a new contract. One that recognises that the workers are not necessarily well off and pensioners are not necessarily poor and in need (or deserving) of state support.
I think there is an increasing body of opinion that has concluded we cannot continue free NHS care and the state pension to all, and these lucrative benefits do need a form of means testing
I heard yesteday of a teacher retiring on a final salary pension of £90,000 pa
Can anyone justify that teacher receiving the state pension in our current debt crisis ?
That figure simply doesn’t make sense - got any details as it’s clearly designed to be a clickbait lie
I was told it by someone who works with this person and they are in the education sector
I have no reason to believe it was clickbait
However, the general point remains that a good number of retirees have extremely generous pensions and we simply cannot expect 'workers' to pay ever higher taxes to sustain this unfairness
This is ridiculous Big G. The most a teacher gets when he retires is 50%. A full time teacher on 50000 pa, gets a max of 25000. Did they not teach percentages in your school?
Index linked, of course, and at what age ?
The actuarial value to buy such a pension is colossal.
It’s a very good deal.
Hence why DB FS schemes have generally been replaced with DB CA, usually including for existing members,
My wife has two NHS pensions.
The 95 scheme that is the former and the 2015 scheme that is the latter.
Still a very good deal though.
The old scheme if that was it denied me a widowers pension when I remarried. I lost 4k a yr. (My wife who was a GP gave yrs of service but fell ill in her 50s and died) .It's something that will grate with me from time to time when I think of it. The new scheme allows the spouse pension to remain. Grossly unfair.
Yes, there are a number of NHS pensions schemes, the 1995 (Final Salary), 2008 (Career Average) and 2015 (Career Average) but they do vary in other ways, for example accrual rates, death in service benefits, retirement ages, and benefits to spouses and partners. One reason for the 2008 scheme was to give same sex partners rights etc.
On the whole the schemes have become less generous over time (no lump sum as standard in the 2008 or 2015 scheme for example), but for some circumstances they were more generous. When the 2008 scheme was launched we were all sent a pack explaining both so we could switch if we chose.
It gets complicated at times. Mrs Foxy has time in each scheme, each with a different retirement age, ranging from 60 in the 1995 scheme to 67 in the 2015 scheme, with 20 years of whole time equivalent spread across these.
When I was still working as an IFA I volunteered to help the Pension Advice Service to advise individuals whether they were better remaining in the 1995 scheme or moving to the 2008 scheme. It depended on age, length of service, marital status, preferred retirement age and salary which was best for each individual. A good number of people used the service, which followed a seminar and discussion led by the Pension Advice Service advisers. So, informed decisions could be made by those who attended the seminars, which were held in NHS premises. Not everyone attended, though.
Can someone explain to me why we don’t want asylum seekers to have jobs? In a country where it’s very easy to find menial work (so it’s not like they’re taking jobs off others) what we ought to have is asylum seekers allowed to work - and if we still want to be a bit nasty, maybe tax them at 50% from £0 or something to pay for their room and board.
There must be something I’m missing (I doubt it’s incentives, cause the major prize is being allowed to stay, and the minor prize of working illegally for a couple of years then being deported isn’t really different to working legally and contributing tax).
Because it would be too much of a loophole in the visa system. Asylum claims take a very long time to process and if you let people work formally then it will be exploited, plus it will make it harder to turn claims down because people will use all the human rights arguments we're familiar with to argue that they are already settled here.
Basically the government causes a problem with its own laziness and incompetence, then undertakes disastrous measures meant to manage it, but which fail and cause lots of other problems in the process, then bills taxpayers bills of pounds for the cost of those measures.
Just like in the housing market, where it causes disastrous housing shortages through the planning system, then makes a fortune off the stamp duty and capital gains tax revenues for which its own catastrophic cowardice and incompetence is responsible, incidentally destroying the life chance of a generation in the process.
Unfortunately, because seeing these things needs people to think things through for more than a few seconds, neither the press nor the public will ever catch on.
Pah!
The disastrous shortage of housing is due to people not being rich enough to keep developers in the manner to which they have been accustomed.
There’s 1.5 milllion plots with planning permission sitting there waiting to be built. Developers need people to be desperate. And they ain’t desperate enough. Yet.
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.
Given our current low fertility rate they certainly should, indeed child tax credits and child benefit should be increased if anything
Seems like you want Government handouts for everyone - at least as long as they are MIddle Class.
No I want increased child benefit and child credits for working class parents as well, our fertility rate at 1.57 is well below replacement level
But the evidence is that neither of those things make any difference.
I have talked to a fair few women about children and childbirth, and not having more kids is not all about money and careers.
One woman I know well was put off having kids by the horror stories her mother gave her about pregnancy. Both now regret this. Three women got to have one/two kids, but were told for health reasons another pregnancy might be unhealthy for them (one was seriously ill giving birth to their second). Another apparently loves kids and being pregnant, and is on five or six (I've lost count...)
The image many of us have of women 'glowing' in pregnancy may be true for some. For others, and depending on the stage of pregnancy, it is uncomfortable, painful, restricting and sometimes dangerous, even nowadays.
And that's just pregnancy.
There were eight couples in out NCT class 11 years ago. I *think* two couples/women only had one child. Four couples have had two, and one woman three (by two different fathers after the first abandoned her when their baby was a few months old...), and one had had many more.
I’ve just been on a group trip around the Rhodopes with a bunch of old British geeky Remainers-who-love-moths
At first it was like vacationing with PB but after a while they really grew on me. Kind, funny (if you were patient), fascinating stories
What struck me at the end was how many of them had one or no kids and, of those who did have kids, the kids were not providing grandkids
The baby bust is very real
I know several grandparents who, after retirement, have become unpaid childminders. They don’t want to upset their children by refusing, but some even wish they hadn’t retired.
“Irish people living in the UK will be able to apply for British citizenship under a new easier, cheaper route.
Applicants will be subject to a more streamlined application process and won't be required to demonstrate knowledge of English language or sit the Life in the UK test.”
Asylum seeker in Ireland? Come on over to Britain. We don’t ask questions
This is for Irish citizens, people who already have full residence rights in Britain. It makes zero difference to immigration.
You're so ignorant.
If it makes no difference, why is the Home Office making the citizenship test easier, and dropping the requirement for English language skills and knowledge of life in the UK?
It makes zero difference to immigration because Irish citizens already have full residence rights in Britain, because British law makes it illegal to treat an Irish citizen as a foreigner.
Reducing the bureaucratic barrier to Irish citizens gaining British citizenship after five years residency in Britain simply makes the process less annoying and expensive for those new British citizens.
It's not going to lead to a flood of people exploiting what you seem to think is a new loophole in British immigration law.
Skimming through last night's thread on the issue of statistics involving reported sexual assaults in the UK as a bunch of men on here dissected the possible reasons and implications behind the figures in the UK and I was struck by the fact that there was absolutely no female imput into the debate on here. But not only that, no one whatever their political leanings asked the most important question facing women in the UK today. So lads, give your head a wobble and simple ask women in the UK if they feel safer today than they did even a decade or two ago in the UK and hopefully the answer might shift a few you out of your political comfort zone to ask the right questions about why that might be?
That's a good point; but 'feeling' and 'being' safer are two different things.
Anecdotally, the 60s, 70s and 80s were not exactly safe times for women on Britain's streets.
Thanks for mansplaining to me what it was like to be a female in the 80s, as a student nurse and then a staff nurse back then on nights out in Aberdeen and Edinburgh, we were always even back then making sure we all got home safely from nights out as that was really important to us and we had to have great safe guards in place even then. I could dine out on the amount of times that groups of drunk men would spot and single out a lone female thinking they were being helpful when they were being anything but and causing them real distress when they were traveling on public transport or standing in taxi line!
And I've heard similar stories from my own mum, and others of her generation, of what things were like in much earlier decades. Including one where a man followed my mum (also a nurse at the time) back to the nurse's accommodation and tried to follow her through the door. An anecdote I've said on here before.
In the past I've said that a female friend of ours refuses to run in the dark, even in our safeish town, and that it's terrible that she feels (reasonably so) unsafe doing something I feel perfectly safe in doing - running in the dark. So I'm not exactly anti-women on this, and I want women to feel safer on our streets.
As for 'Mansplaining': your saying that in no way invalidates what I said.
“Irish people living in the UK will be able to apply for British citizenship under a new easier, cheaper route.
Applicants will be subject to a more streamlined application process and won't be required to demonstrate knowledge of English language or sit the Life in the UK test.”
Asylum seeker in Ireland? Come on over to Britain. We don’t ask questions
This is for Irish citizens, people who already have full residence rights in Britain. It makes zero difference to immigration.
You're so ignorant.
If it makes no difference, why is the Home Office making the citizenship test easier, and dropping the requirement for English language skills and knowledge of life in the UK?
It makes zero difference to immigration because Irish citizens already have full residence rights in Britain, because British law makes it illegal to treat an Irish citizen as a foreigner.
Reducing the bureaucratic barrier to Irish citizens gaining British citizenship after five years residency in Britain simply makes the process less annoying and expensive for those new British citizens.
It's not going to lead to a flood of people exploiting what you seem to think is a new loophole in British immigration law.
What is a typical motive for an Irish citizen living in the UK to take British citizenship? What does it get them?
“Irish people living in the UK will be able to apply for British citizenship under a new easier, cheaper route.
Applicants will be subject to a more streamlined application process and won't be required to demonstrate knowledge of English language or sit the Life in the UK test.”
Asylum seeker in Ireland? Come on over to Britain. We don’t ask questions
This is for Irish citizens, people who already have full residence rights in Britain. It makes zero difference to immigration.
You're so ignorant.
If it makes no difference, why is the Home Office making the citizenship test easier, and dropping the requirement for English language skills and knowledge of life in the UK?
It makes zero difference to immigration because Irish citizens already have full residence rights in Britain, because British law makes it illegal to treat an Irish citizen as a foreigner.
Reducing the bureaucratic barrier to Irish citizens gaining British citizenship after five years residency in Britain simply makes the process less annoying and expensive for those new British citizens.
It's not going to lead to a flood of people exploiting what you seem to think is a new loophole in British immigration law.
What is a typical motive for an Irish citizen living in the UK to take British citizenship? What does it get them?
That's a really interesting question for which I don't have a definite answer.
There might be a difference in how third countries treat a British citizen. Someone intending to live the rest of their life in Britain might want to make that commitment formal by taking up citizenship, particularly if they've married a Briton. It might make occasional interactions with British bureaucracy simpler for those times when people ignorant of the law are involved.
I'd imagine that the rate of Irish citizens resident in Britain taking up British citizenship is really low.
Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that
Where is the government brave enough to say that those with an income in excess of £35k don't actually get the OAP, or at least a diminished share of it? We are so deeply in debt and we are borrowing outrageous sums. Radical approaches need to be taken or we risk catastrophe.
Given they will have paid in via NI and state pension eligibility is based on that that won't happen, WFA never depended on NI contributions.
Though the triple lock could be ended for higher earning pensioners
The original 'contract' as set out by the post war Government was that we would pay NI to pay for pensions for the existing pensioners at the time and when we got to the point of retirement then the current workers would pay NI for our pensions.
But circumstances change. It is no longer a viable system and if we are rich enough to cope without it we should not expect existing workers earning little more than minimum wage to be paying NI to support us in our old age.
It is time for a new contract. One that recognises that the workers are not necessarily well off and pensioners are not necessarily poor and in need (or deserving) of state support.
I think there is an increasing body of opinion that has concluded we cannot continue free NHS care and the state pension to all, and these lucrative benefits do need a form of means testing
I heard yesteday of a teacher retiring on a final salary pension of £90,000 pa
Can anyone justify that teacher receiving the state pension in our current debt crisis ?
That figure simply doesn’t make sense - got any details as it’s clearly designed to be a clickbait lie
I was told it by someone who works with this person and they are in the education sector
I have no reason to believe it was clickbait
However, the general point remains that a good number of retirees have extremely generous pensions and we simply cannot expect 'workers' to pay ever higher taxes to sustain this unfairness
This is ridiculous Big G. The most a teacher gets when he retires is 50%. A full time teacher on 50000 pa, gets a max of 25000. Did they not teach percentages in your school?
Index linked, of course, and at what age ?
The actuarial value to buy such a pension is colossal.
It’s a very good deal.
Hence why DB FS schemes have generally been replaced with DB CA, usually including for existing members,
My wife has two NHS pensions.
The 95 scheme that is the former and the 2015 scheme that is the latter.
Still a very good deal though.
The old scheme if that was it denied me a widowers pension when I remarried. I lost 4k a yr. (My wife who was a GP gave yrs of service but fell ill in her 50s and died) .It's something that will grate with me from time to time when I think of it. The new scheme allows the spouse pension to remain. Grossly unfair.
Yes, there are a number of NHS pensions schemes, the 1995 (Final Salary), 2008 (Career Average) and 2015 (Career Average) but they do vary in other ways, for example accrual rates, death in service benefits, retirement ages, and benefits to spouses and partners. One reason for the 2008 scheme was to give same sex partners rights etc.
On the whole the schemes have become less generous over time (no lump sum as standard in the 2008 or 2015 scheme for example), but for some circumstances they were more generous. When the 2008 scheme was launched we were all sent a pack explaining both so we could switch if we chose.
It gets complicated at times. Mrs Foxy has time in each scheme, each with a different retirement age, ranging from 60 in the 1995 scheme to 67 in the 2015 scheme, with 20 years of whole time equivalent spread across these.
It was the same when the 2015 scheme was launched, a booklet came out, and there was guidance as to whether or not it was better to switch or remain.
My wife remained in the 95 scheme as she plans to access her 95 scheme this year. There was a point at which is was better to switch, if you were accessing after 60 IIRC.
It sounds as if she has the right under the Mcloud judgement to have some of her time in the 2015 scheme (we were all migrated to it) re-credited to the 1995 scheme. I did this, and due to the complec way both schemes interact with the Annual Allowance am due a tax refund of about £5000. It could be more than that in some circumstances. I know a good specialist firm that can calculate this if she is interested. Their advice has saved me tens of thousands by timing my partial retirement optimally.
That’s already happened. We did it too. She had around 5 years, IIrC, moved over to the 95 Scheme
Can someone explain to me why we don’t want asylum seekers to have jobs? In a country where it’s very easy to find menial work (so it’s not like they’re taking jobs off others) what we ought to have is asylum seekers allowed to work - and if we still want to be a bit nasty, maybe tax them at 50% from £0 or something to pay for their room and board.
There must be something I’m missing (I doubt it’s incentives, cause the major prize is being allowed to stay, and the minor prize of working illegally for a couple of years then being deported isn’t really different to working legally and contributing tax).
Because it would be too much of a loophole in the visa system. Asylum claims take a very long time to process and if you let people work formally then it will be exploited, plus it will make it harder to turn claims down because people will use all the human rights arguments we're familiar with to argue that they are already settled here.
Basically the government causes a problem with its own laziness and incompetence, then undertakes disastrous measures meant to manage it, but which fail and cause lots of other problems in the process, then bills taxpayers bills of pounds for the cost of those measures.
Just like in the housing market, where it causes disastrous housing shortages through the planning system, then makes a fortune off the stamp duty and capital gains tax revenues for which its own catastrophic cowardice and incompetence is responsible, incidentally destroying the life chance of a generation in the process.
Unfortunately, because seeing these things needs people to think things through for more than a few seconds, neither the press nor the public will ever catch on.
Pah!
The disastrous shortage of housing is due to people not being rich enough to keep developers in the manner to which they have been accustomed.
There’s 1.5 milllion plots with planning permission sitting there waiting to be built. Developers need people to be desperate. And they ain’t desperate enough. Yet.
Planning is not the problem.
Developers limit supply - the fix to the housing market is to increase supply which requires increased incentives for builders to start and finish the projects they have permission for.
Now ideally I would have the dutch approach of local authorities building the infrastructure with the plots then sold with stringent delivery requirements but that's separate to the above.
Can someone explain to me why we don’t want asylum seekers to have jobs? In a country where it’s very easy to find menial work (so it’s not like they’re taking jobs off others) what we ought to have is asylum seekers allowed to work - and if we still want to be a bit nasty, maybe tax them at 50% from £0 or something to pay for their room and board.
There must be something I’m missing (I doubt it’s incentives, cause the major prize is being allowed to stay, and the minor prize of working illegally for a couple of years then being deported isn’t really different to working legally and contributing tax).
Because it would be too much of a loophole in the visa system. Asylum claims take a very long time to process and if you let people work formally then it will be exploited, plus it will make it harder to turn claims down because people will use all the human rights arguments we're familiar with to argue that they are already settled here.
Basically the government causes a problem with its own laziness and incompetence, then undertakes disastrous measures meant to manage it, but which fail and cause lots of other problems in the process, then bills taxpayers bills of pounds for the cost of those measures.
Just like in the housing market, where it causes disastrous housing shortages through the planning system, then makes a fortune off the stamp duty and capital gains tax revenues for which its own catastrophic cowardice and incompetence is responsible, incidentally destroying the life chance of a generation in the process.
Unfortunately, because seeing these things needs people to think things through for more than a few seconds, neither the press nor the public will ever catch on.
Pah!
The disastrous shortage of housing is due to people not being rich enough to keep developers in the manner to which they have been accustomed.
There’s 1.5 milllion plots with planning permission sitting there waiting to be built. Developers need people to be desperate. And they ain’t desperate enough. Yet.
Planning is not the problem.
Developers limit supply - the fix to the housing market is to increase supply which requires increased incentives for builders to start and finish the projects they have permission for.
Now ideally I would have the dutch approach of local authorities building the infrastructure with the plots then sold with stringent delivery requirements but that's separate to the above.
Wanting to build on it is not the only reason to obtain Planning Permission.
It is also, for example, a way of showing a potential purchaser for your piece of land that they should look at that ahead of 28 other alternatives.
It is often a way of shifting the balance in the risk-value spectrum.
Its clear that America has become a much angrier place in the Trump era, and it was only a few months ago that he was threatening to annex Greenland and wanted to make Canada the 51st State. But is there really even a small possibility of the State of California seceding from the US due to political polarization reaching breaking point within 10 years?
"California could secede from the US, sparking a second Civil War within the next 10 years, a political expert has revealed.
Professor Benjamin Cohen from the University of California-Santa Barbara warned that the possibility of political polarization reaching a violent breaking point throughout the US was 'substantially greater than zero.'
In one scenario, the political economist and author of 20 books envisioned California declaring its independence from the US in 2035, amid growing friction with the federal government - prompting the next president to take drastic action."
Not happening. The US can’t afford to lose California and would use force to retain it
AIUI (not my area) attempted unilateral secession was part of the constitutional reason for the Civil War, and the Supreme Court ruled that it was not constitutional, requiring the consent of the other states.
In Texas v. White (1869), the Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional, while commenting that revolution or consent of the states could lead to a successful secession. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States
Obviously since it is an established precedent with 150 years standing, Mr Trump would just ignore it if it was inconvenient for him, as he has done with all the rest, and as in many cases the Maga Supreme Court would come up with some weasel words to explain why his action was justifiable.
“Irish people living in the UK will be able to apply for British citizenship under a new easier, cheaper route.
Applicants will be subject to a more streamlined application process and won't be required to demonstrate knowledge of English language or sit the Life in the UK test.”
Asylum seeker in Ireland? Come on over to Britain. We don’t ask questions
This is for Irish citizens, people who already have full residence rights in Britain. It makes zero difference to immigration.
You're so ignorant.
If it makes no difference, why is the Home Office making the citizenship test easier, and dropping the requirement for English language skills and knowledge of life in the UK?
It makes zero difference to immigration because Irish citizens already have full residence rights in Britain, because British law makes it illegal to treat an Irish citizen as a foreigner.
Reducing the bureaucratic barrier to Irish citizens gaining British citizenship after five years residency in Britain simply makes the process less annoying and expensive for those new British citizens.
It's not going to lead to a flood of people exploiting what you seem to think is a new loophole in British immigration law.
What is a typical motive for an Irish citizen living in the UK to take British citizenship? What does it get them?
Full access to the NHS, even if not "ordinarily resident" in the UK?
“Irish people living in the UK will be able to apply for British citizenship under a new easier, cheaper route.
Applicants will be subject to a more streamlined application process and won't be required to demonstrate knowledge of English language or sit the Life in the UK test.”
Asylum seeker in Ireland? Come on over to Britain. We don’t ask questions
This is for Irish citizens, people who already have full residence rights in Britain. It makes zero difference to immigration.
You're so ignorant.
If it makes no difference, why is the Home Office making the citizenship test easier, and dropping the requirement for English language skills and knowledge of life in the UK?
It makes zero difference to immigration because Irish citizens already have full residence rights in Britain, because British law makes it illegal to treat an Irish citizen as a foreigner.
Reducing the bureaucratic barrier to Irish citizens gaining British citizenship after five years residency in Britain simply makes the process less annoying and expensive for those new British citizens.
It's not going to lead to a flood of people exploiting what you seem to think is a new loophole in British immigration law.
What is a typical motive for an Irish citizen living in the UK to take British citizenship? What does it get them?
Full access to the NHS, even if not "ordinarily resident" in the UK?
You can't get British citizenship without five years residence in Britain, so it would be a pretty weird move to live in Britain for five years, and then gain British citizenship for the purpose of having access to the NHS after you've moved somewhere else.
The Irish healthcare system has its problems, particularly for those who cannot afford private insurance, but the NHS isn't that good.
No, that is great news for the Tories, if they can win back most of the 33% who now want to bring back Rishi as PM that would almost double their current voteshare
a large portion of that 33% won't vote for Kemi tho
“Irish people living in the UK will be able to apply for British citizenship under a new easier, cheaper route.
Applicants will be subject to a more streamlined application process and won't be required to demonstrate knowledge of English language or sit the Life in the UK test.”
Asylum seeker in Ireland? Come on over to Britain. We don’t ask questions
This is for Irish citizens, people who already have full residence rights in Britain. It makes zero difference to immigration.
You're so ignorant.
If it makes no difference, why is the Home Office making the citizenship test easier, and dropping the requirement for English language skills and knowledge of life in the UK?
It makes zero difference to immigration because Irish citizens already have full residence rights in Britain, because British law makes it illegal to treat an Irish citizen as a foreigner.
Reducing the bureaucratic barrier to Irish citizens gaining British citizenship after five years residency in Britain simply makes the process less annoying and expensive for those new British citizens.
It's not going to lead to a flood of people exploiting what you seem to think is a new loophole in British immigration law.
What is a typical motive for an Irish citizen living in the UK to take British citizenship? What does it get them?
Full access to the NHS, even if not "ordinarily resident" in the UK?
You can't get British citizenship without five years residence in Britain, so it would be a pretty weird move to live in Britain for five years, and then gain British citizenship for the purpose of having access to the NHS after you've moved somewhere else.
The Irish healthcare system has its problems, particularly for those who cannot afford private insurance, but the NHS isn't that good.
Or if one parent is British, or if they were born in the UK before 1982.
Comparisons I have seen have the Irish system charging for more at the point of use.
Comments
Anecdotally, the 60s, 70s and 80s were not exactly safe times for women on Britain's streets.
Dr. Naomi Wolf. 8 NYT Bestsellers. DPhil, Poetry.
@naomirwolf
Insane. This whole island appears to be geoengineered with dozens of lines of particulate; in the US it is typically several.
https://x.com/naomirwolf/status/1941044796967051453
Leon doing his usual.
👏
Don't fully co-operate with this process, instant deportation, regardless of the merits of your case, and we take your biometric data and will never under any circumstances ever permit you to come back.
The problem is that currently there are nearly infinite grounds to appeal all this into the court system, which takes forever - and fixing that means ripping up the HRA.
The US wealth-health gap exceeds all European regions studied.
https://x.com/DrDominicNg/status/1941119857090781634
One woman I know well was put off having kids by the horror stories her mother gave her about pregnancy. Both now regret this. Three women got to have one/two kids, but were told for health reasons another pregnancy might be unhealthy for them (one was seriously ill giving birth to their second). Another apparently loves kids and being pregnant, and is on five or six (I've lost count...)
The image many of us have of women 'glowing' in pregnancy may be true for some. For others, and depending on the stage of pregnancy, it is uncomfortable, painful, restricting and sometimes dangerous, even nowadays.
And that's just pregnancy.
There were eight couples in out NCT class 11 years ago. I *think* two couples/women only had one child. Four couples have had two, and one woman three (by two different fathers after the first abandoned her when their baby was a few months old...), and one had had many more.
Trump: I’ve never heard it that way to me. It’s someone who is a money lender at high rates. You view it differently than me. I’ve never heard that.
https://x.com/Acyn/status/1941168209299935392
PB has a man problem - she’s right. And it’s mainly trainspottery old men like you
TRUMP: And we are putting up wind. It does not work, aside from ruining our fields and valleys and killing all the birds. Being very weak and expensive, all made in China. I have never seen a wind farm in China. Why is that?
https://x.com/Acyn/status/1941251628386148485
Why don’t you try that?
Checks notes.
Oh, she can.
You're so ignorant.
At first it was like vacationing with PB but after a while they really grew on me. Kind, funny (if you were patient), fascinating stories
What struck me at the end was how many of them had one or no kids and, of those who did have kids, the kids were not providing grandkids
The baby bust is very real
Italy, despite houses being cheap as chips and everyone believing in God, is no higher.
NEW THREAD
Egypt's, last I heard, was falling but still high. Ironically, Egypt's one of the few countries that would really prefer a much, much lower rate as it has to import so much food, and there are increased water fears after Ethiopia's new(ish) dam.
When that power is used to fortify a belief that is true but seems implausible ("we shall never surrender"), it's one of the greatest things a human can do. When the same power is used to propagate a lie, it's a blooming disaster.
And it's really hard to tell those uses apart.
The disastrous shortage of housing is due to people not being rich enough to keep developers in the manner to which they have been accustomed.
There’s 1.5 milllion plots with planning permission sitting there waiting to be built. Developers need people to be desperate. And they ain’t desperate enough. Yet.
Planning is not the problem.
Reducing the bureaucratic barrier to Irish citizens gaining British citizenship after five years residency in Britain simply makes the process less annoying and expensive for those new British citizens.
It's not going to lead to a flood of people exploiting what you seem to think is a new loophole in British immigration law.
In the past I've said that a female friend of ours refuses to run in the dark, even in our safeish town, and that it's terrible that she feels (reasonably so) unsafe doing something I feel perfectly safe in doing - running in the dark. So I'm not exactly anti-women on this, and I want women to feel safer on our streets.
As for 'Mansplaining': your saying that in no way invalidates what I said.
There might be a difference in how third countries treat a British citizen. Someone intending to live the rest of their life in Britain might want to make that commitment formal by taking up citizenship, particularly if they've married a Briton. It might make occasional interactions with British bureaucracy simpler for those times when people ignorant of the law are involved.
I'd imagine that the rate of Irish citizens resident in Britain taking up British citizenship is really low.
Now ideally I would have the dutch approach of local authorities building the infrastructure with the plots then sold with stringent delivery requirements but that's separate to the above.
It is also, for example, a way of showing a potential purchaser for your piece of land that they should look at that ahead of 28 other alternatives.
It is often a way of shifting the balance in the risk-value spectrum.
In Texas v. White (1869), the Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional, while commenting that revolution or consent of the states could lead to a successful secession.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secession_in_the_United_States
Obviously since it is an established precedent with 150 years standing, Mr Trump would just ignore it if it was inconvenient for him, as he has done with all the rest, and as in many cases the Maga Supreme Court would come up with some weasel words to explain why his action was justifiable.
The Irish healthcare system has its problems, particularly for those who cannot afford private insurance, but the NHS isn't that good.
Comparisons I have seen have the Irish system charging for more at the point of use.