Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
I still believe pensioner-hate was seeded by Russian trolls. It worked. It's now mainstream. One chap recently suggested ditching the triple lock and making pensioners survive on NMW, which would of course double the pension.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the age where I shall be a millionaire pensioner. Does the government send a cheque or a wheelbarrow-load of doubloons?
The state pension system is beyond the wheelbarrow stage and, in my experience works reasonably well in admin terms.
What doesn't work is the current debate. Very wealthy pensioners don't need it at all, the massive middling sort - most people - need it because they have legitimately planned around it. £12,500 (£25K for couples) off an income of £1m is not much. Take it off £30-70K and it's a lot.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
Step one should be to tax (including NI as tax) pensioners by the same system as workers. A fundamental rule should be that working never attracts higher tax rates than not working. And this should apply to benefits junkies too.
If someone’s only income is benefits and then you tax those benefits, then the money is just going around in a small circle. What’s the point of that?
The point of taxability is effective benefit withdrawal as people who are receiving them get richer.
Treat all benefits as income and tax all income the same.
For admins sake, fix the personal tax allowance to the state pension.
Taxation systems go through cycles of simplification (like "tax all income the same") and then complexification (because life is complex and there are lots of reasons for specific rules). There are obvious reasons not to tax all income the same, which is why we don't. Disability living allowance, for example, is meant to cover specific costs, so why tax it?
Because the state needs paying for.
Going to work is meant to cover specific costs, like buying food and paying for shelter.
We tax it because the state needs paying for.
All income should be treated exactly the same.
We tax because the state needs paying for, but we're talking about taxing benefits from the state, so the money is just going around in a small circle. You have not engaged with the specific example given. Why tax something like Personal Independence Payment?
Underdiscussed trend that shows up in The Economist's new poll tracker - Lib Dems voters going Green. It's their biggest single bleed off since the 2024 election, now at 17 pc and apparently on upward trajectory.
A few weeks back I wrote about this in Morning Call - LDs having their lunch stolen by the Grns in urban areas where they were once the natural progressive alternative to Labour
I mentioned it on here that the Lib Dems in Sheffield are losing votes to the Greens.
This ward in Newcastle has voted 45% LD back to 2018. All the signage is for the Greens. No evidence of LD at all other than a solitary Focus leaflet (which was regular even during non election time).
What would people feel about an unconditional basic payment to all families with children, the same size as the state pension? Child poverty = 31%, pensioner poverty = 16%.
Child benefit is that payment, albeit at a lower rate to the state pension, and now means-tested (introducing an anomalously high marginal rate of taxation for parents between £50k-60k, which distorts people's decision-making in that income band).
it has been cut by 15% relative to CPI since 2010. I think the state pension has increased by 57% relative to CPI since 2010.
In 2024, the total fertility rate (TFR) was 1.41 children per woman for England and Wales compared to 1.42 in 2023. The 2024 TFR represents the lowest value on record for the 3rd year in a row.
Restore the two child universal credit benefit cap, means test the triple lock and increase standard child benefit from the savings
Tax all benefits income like any other operson's income is taxed, anything above the tax allowance should be taxed and they should at least pay eth reduced NI rates.
If someone is severely disabled and needs extra money in support, what's the point of giving that money and then taking it away again? Some benefits are for specific purposes and it's a bit pointless taxing them.
if people who work are taxed above a certain level of income then it should apply to all, let people see that there are many people on benefits getting better than 60K salaries etc. A benefit is income after all.
PS: you do not need to be severely disabled to be getting lareg amounts , the one the other week caught running around the world was getting well over 2K in her hand and free house , council tax etc due to anxiety. Based on that most of us should eb getting a shedload for anxiety over working and struggling to pay bills.
The optics of Labour MPs voting to drag elderly military veterans back through the courts yesterday while being whipped to vote against Keir Starmer being investigated by the Parliamentary Priviledges Committee today are politically toxic! I also saw reports yesterday that Al Carns the Labour Veterans Minister would conveniently miss this important vote, if he did what a bloody dereliction of duty towards those he is supposed to serving and protecting in his Government post after everything they have been through already!
Johnny Mercer as Veterans Minister in the last Conservative government fought tooth and nail for the plight of veterans at the risk of his own Ministeral career where as this Labour Minister remains not only invisible but missing in action when it matters!
What's the thesis here? The armed forces should be able to do whatever the fuck they like?
The British state is incredibly pusillanimous about investigating and prosecuting misdeeds by service personnel, particularly if it happened somewhere remote, hot and dusty.
I’m not sure what relevance ‘elderly’ has in all the media reports of these lads being asked to justify their actions. I was unaware of any dispensation in law for for answering to serious crimes just because those accused have a bus pass. Not for the first time I'll link to the piece on Bloody Sunday by Douglas Murray (who's a Speccie twat but therefore all the more persuasive).
'Under questioning in 2003, the short and stocky F — then in late middle age — was reduced to monosyllabic answers, generally of either ‘yes’ or ‘no’. He claimed to remember almost nothing of the day, despite it being his first visit to Londonderry and — by his own admission — the most shots he had fired on any deployment up to that date. Under devastating questioning, F was shown to have killed at least four people that day. One of them was Patrick Doherty, shot through a buttock as he was crawling away. One more killing which soldier F had ‘forgotten’ about when first questioned by the RMP.
Then, while Doherty lay crying in agony, a 41-year-old man called Barney McGuigan stepped out from behind a block of flats to try to get help for the dying man. McGuigan was waving a white handkerchief. According to the testimony of numerous witnesses, including an officer from another regiment stationed on the city walls, soldier F — positioned on the other side of the road — got down on one knee and shot McGuigan through the head. No one who saw the mortuary photos of the exit wound in McGuigan’s face will forget what just that one bullet of soldier F’s did.'
It does strike me however that HMG prefers this weary argument over ancient history than face the IED of currently and recently serving special forces shooting loads of unarmed civilians out of hand.
Are we still aiming to prosecute IRA members? Or is there an amnesty for them?
There is no general amnesty for IRA members.
Is there a de facto one? Is anyone going after them in the way the soldiers are being investigated?
There are open investigations of historic crimes, as well as new investigations of post-GFA splinter groups. There is an ICRIR investigation into the Guildford Pub bombings, for example: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce9zlnyjzd4o
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
I still believe pensioner-hate was seeded by Russian trolls. It worked. It's now mainstream. One chap recently suggested ditching the triple lock and making pensioners survive on NMW, which would of course double the pension.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the age where I shall be a millionaire pensioner. Does the government send a cheque or a wheelbarrow-load of doubloons?
The state pension system is beyond the wheelbarrow stage and, in my experience works reasonably well in admin terms.
What doesn't work is the current debate. Very wealthy pensioners don't need it at all, the massive middling sort - most people - need it because they have legitimately planned around it. £12,500 (£25K for couples) off an income of £1m is not much. Take it off £30-70K and it's a lot.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
Step one should be to tax (including NI as tax) pensioners by the same system as workers. A fundamental rule should be that working never attracts higher tax rates than not working. And this should apply to benefits junkies too.
If someone’s only income is benefits and then you tax those benefits, then the money is just going around in a small circle. What’s the point of that?
The point of taxability is effective benefit withdrawal as people who are receiving them get richer.
Treat all benefits as income and tax all income the same.
For admins sake, fix the personal tax allowance to the state pension.
Taxation systems go through cycles of simplification (like "tax all income the same") and then complexification (because life is complex and there are lots of reasons for specific rules). There are obvious reasons not to tax all income the same, which is why we don't. Disability living allowance, for example, is meant to cover specific costs, so why tax it?
Because the state needs paying for.
Going to work is meant to cover specific costs, like buying food and paying for shelter.
We tax it because the state needs paying for.
All income should be treated exactly the same.
We tax because the state needs paying for, but we're talking about taxing benefits from the state, so the money is just going around in a small circle. You have not engaged with the specific example given. Why tax something like Personal Independence Payment?
I have engaged, you just don't like the answer.
It should be taxed for the same reason that all other income is taxed.
Yes it is somewhat circular, but you can make the same argument about levying income tax on employees of the state too, though it'd only be a closed circle if we have flat taxes with a flat tax rate, which we don't.
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
I still believe pensioner-hate was seeded by Russian trolls. It worked. It's now mainstream. One chap recently suggested ditching the triple lock and making pensioners survive on NMW, which would of course double the pension.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the age where I shall be a millionaire pensioner. Does the government send a cheque or a wheelbarrow-load of doubloons?
The state pension system is beyond the wheelbarrow stage and, in my experience works reasonably well in admin terms.
What doesn't work is the current debate. Very wealthy pensioners don't need it at all, the massive middling sort - most people - need it because they have legitimately planned around it. £12,500 (£25K for couples) off an income of £1m is not much. Take it off £30-70K and it's a lot.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
Step one should be to tax (including NI as tax) pensioners by the same system as workers. A fundamental rule should be that working never attracts higher tax rates than not working. And this should apply to benefits junkies too.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
As it should be.
People should be incentivised to work, save, invest and pay tax.
An absence of poor pensioners would indicate that the economic balance of the country was wrong.
I don't agree. Many people (say 20% of the population) are literally unable to break out of a marginal existence due to ill-health, poor upbringing, and simple bad luck. Obviously people with other significant income shouldn't get the full state pension as well, and the Green Party proposal to drop down to a double lock (pensions rise annually by the higher of inflation or average earnings, removing the pledge to increase them by 2.5%) makes sense to me, and I'd go further and means-test the pension altogether. Yes, that means that some contributions don't get paid back because you're too wealthy, but that's also true of taxation generally, and you should count yourself lucky. Conversely, if someone has nothing except the basic pension and benefit top-up, I'm glad to support it.
Means-testing always sounds like an easy answer, but it creates bad incentives in the system. In this case it would reduce the incentive for those in the middle two quartiles to save for their own retirement, because the government would claw back from them what they managed to save.
Really? How many of the middle two quartiles actually want to live on £10k per year in retirement rather than save for a better one purely to shove two fingers up at HMG?
Means-testing will reduce the return they get on saving for their retirement. It would be entirely rational to save less in response. It's not a binary thing where they will not save at all, but it will make spending now look like a relatively better option.
Why would you expect people to do otherwise?
If I want a 30-40k a year retirement (I do) and I were fully confident (I am not) in a non means tested state pension then I'd plan to save privately for 20-30k and rely on the 10k from state pension to do the rest. I don't think it sustainable so am planning more like 25-35k privately and can manage the gap by timing retirement age.
Your suggestion that because I don't think I'm going to get 10k from the government if I have my own pension I should just settle for £10k a year when I'd like 30-40k a year makes absolutely zero sense to me. I accept that some people have this viewpoint but I find it baffling and self destructive - living on that amount when you don't have to is not winning by getting one over the system.
No but it does mean that you “over save” sucking money out of the economy
Underdiscussed trend that shows up in The Economist's new poll tracker - Lib Dems voters going Green. It's their biggest single bleed off since the 2024 election, now at 17 pc and apparently on upward trajectory.
A few weeks back I wrote about this in Morning Call - LDs having their lunch stolen by the Grns in urban areas where they were once the natural progressive alternative to Labour
I mentioned it on here that the Lib Dems in Sheffield are losing votes to the Greens.
Proof if ever it was needed people vote more on vibes than policies.
That's somewhat dismissive. People are voting Green because the structure of the economy is visibly broken for them and they don't blame immigration for it. Not dissimilar to Brexit voters but from a 180° viewpoint.
Anyone remember @Charles (not the king)? There was a Charles Hoare commenting on BP's quarterly results on the Today programme this morning. Same bloke? Possibly not - Charles's area of expertise was health sector related as I recall
Last active on PB in May 2022, apparently.
Isn't it poor form to dox even former PBers ?
(As I recall, that was what prompted his flounce in the first place.)
Maybe but didn't he sort of dox himself with what he posted?
I liked @Charles, at least to an extent: our lives were so different there were few points of contract. He was an endless source of info/gossip about old English money and their society and I liked listening to him. But he was appallingly indiscreet about his personal identity and his family's. He even gave his father's detailed obituary.
It drives me scatty when people give their personal details: at best it's unnecessary, at worst it's dangerous. @Charles gave so much information you could have walked up to his front door and posted birthday cards.
I think everyone has different levels of concern about whether their online 'anonymous' postings are ever linked to IRL. I would stand by anything I have posted, and feel I have nothing to fear from being identified. But others feel differently, and that's up to them. Where I think it odd is to post lots of identifying stuff and still get upset about doxxing - a certain flint knapper on here is so transparently a certain person that I think its all a bit joke or at best plausible deniability.
Maintaining plausible deniability might be important for some people's occupations. Silly, perhaps, but it's no great effort to humour them.
We need confirmation Powell passed vetting in full, now.
I will press in the chamber today.
This was asked at PMQs last week but not necessarily answered:-
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con) Q4. We know that the Prime Minister has been playing fast and loose with ministerial appointments in his chumocracy, so I want to ask him about the first one. [Interruption.] Labour Members’ boos mean nothing to me; I have seen what makes them cheer. Jonathan Powell was appointed the Prime Minister’s special envoy to the British Indian Ocean Territory on 6 September, but throughout August he held meetings with Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office officials and was given access to classified information, including a minute of a meeting between the Prime Minister and the then Foreign Secretary, who is sat next to him on the Front Bench. My question is very simple: when was Jonathan Powell appointed the Prime Minister’s special envoy to the British Indian Ocean Territory, and what security clearance did he have upon that appointment?
Underdiscussed trend that shows up in The Economist's new poll tracker - Lib Dems voters going Green. It's their biggest single bleed off since the 2024 election, now at 17 pc and apparently on upward trajectory.
A few weeks back I wrote about this in Morning Call - LDs having their lunch stolen by the Grns in urban areas where they were once the natural progressive alternative to Labour
Heard Daisy Cooper on the radio the other day, wouldn't say she sounded particularly "progressive" tbh. More pragmatic unashamedly pro trade, pro EU centrism. Million miles from the Greens.
Sooner or later the gulf between the eco-warriors and middle-aged environmentalists that used to be the core green activist and vote, and the wave of radical Corbynistas that Polanski has attracted, will come to a head. He’s getting away with it currently as all successful leaders do, since members will put up with a lot if their party is winning stuff. That won’t last for ever.
I'm not sure about that. Even "middle age environmentalists" who are Green Party members are usually very reliably left wing. They won't be put off by the arrival of asylum seekers from the outer reaches of the Labour Party.
After some reflection on holiday, I have left the party. I can see where it's going under ZP and it's not for me. If they want to have a "conversation" about policies like leaving NATO and abolishing the monarchy then they can fuck off and have it without me.
Two paragraphs that seem to stand in marked contradiction!
Anyone remember @Charles (not the king)? There was a Charles Hoare commenting on BP's quarterly results on the Today programme this morning. Same bloke? Possibly not - Charles's area of expertise was health sector related as I recall
Last active on PB in May 2022, apparently.
I remember Charles.
One of Edward Thomas's lesser know works.
We did Edward Thomas for O-level. Luckily word came through from the other two English classes that their teachers were 99 per cent sure that Adlestrop would be the poem that came up on the paper. They were right.
We had RS Thomas...
Pity the poor sods who had Sean Thomas.
Might have been an improvement.
The Wodehouse crack about a ray of sunshine and a Scotsman with a grievance applied in spades to old RS.
Underdiscussed trend that shows up in The Economist's new poll tracker - Lib Dems voters going Green. It's their biggest single bleed off since the 2024 election, now at 17 pc and apparently on upward trajectory.
A few weeks back I wrote about this in Morning Call - LDs having their lunch stolen by the Grns in urban areas where they were once the natural progressive alternative to Labour
I mentioned it on here that the Lib Dems in Sheffield are losing votes to the Greens.
This ward in Newcastle has voted 45% LD back to 2018. All the signage is for the Greens. No evidence of LD at all other than a solitary Focus leaflet (which was regular even during non election time).
Underdiscussed trend that shows up in The Economist's new poll tracker - Lib Dems voters going Green. It's their biggest single bleed off since the 2024 election, now at 17 pc and apparently on upward trajectory.
A few weeks back I wrote about this in Morning Call - LDs having their lunch stolen by the Grns in urban areas where they were once the natural progressive alternative to Labour
I mentioned it on here that the Lib Dems in Sheffield are losing votes to the Greens.
This ward in Newcastle has voted 45% LD back to 2018. All the signage is for the Greens. No evidence of LD at all other than a solitary Focus leaflet (which was regular even during non election time).
We need confirmation Powell passed vetting in full, now.
I will press in the chamber today.
This was asked at PMQs last week but not necessarily answered:-
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con) Q4. We know that the Prime Minister has been playing fast and loose with ministerial appointments in his chumocracy, so I want to ask him about the first one. [Interruption.] Labour Members’ boos mean nothing to me; I have seen what makes them cheer. Jonathan Powell was appointed the Prime Minister’s special envoy to the British Indian Ocean Territory on 6 September, but throughout August he held meetings with Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office officials and was given access to classified information, including a minute of a meeting between the Prime Minister and the then Foreign Secretary, who is sat next to him on the Front Bench. My question is very simple: when was Jonathan Powell appointed the Prime Minister’s special envoy to the British Indian Ocean Territory, and what security clearance did he have upon that appointment?
The optics of Labour MPs voting to drag elderly military veterans back through the courts yesterday while being whipped to vote against Keir Starmer being investigated by the Parliamentary Priviledges Committee today are politically toxic! I also saw reports yesterday that Al Carns the Labour Veterans Minister would conveniently miss this important vote, if he did what a bloody dereliction of duty towards those he is supposed to serving and protecting in his Government post after everything they have been through already!
Johnny Mercer as Veterans Minister in the last Conservative government fought tooth and nail for the plight of veterans at the risk of his own Ministeral career where as this Labour Minister remains not only invisible but missing in action when it matters!
What's the thesis here? The armed forces should be able to do whatever the fuck they like?
The British state is incredibly pusillanimous about investigating and prosecuting misdeeds by service personnel, particularly if it happened somewhere remote, hot and dusty.
I’m not sure what relevance ‘elderly’ has in all the media reports of these lads being asked to justify their actions. I was unaware of any dispensation in law for for answering to serious crimes just because those accused have a bus pass. Not for the first time I'll link to the piece on Bloody Sunday by Douglas Murray (who's a Speccie twat but therefore all the more persuasive).
'Under questioning in 2003, the short and stocky F — then in late middle age — was reduced to monosyllabic answers, generally of either ‘yes’ or ‘no’. He claimed to remember almost nothing of the day, despite it being his first visit to Londonderry and — by his own admission — the most shots he had fired on any deployment up to that date. Under devastating questioning, F was shown to have killed at least four people that day. One of them was Patrick Doherty, shot through a buttock as he was crawling away. One more killing which soldier F had ‘forgotten’ about when first questioned by the RMP.
Then, while Doherty lay crying in agony, a 41-year-old man called Barney McGuigan stepped out from behind a block of flats to try to get help for the dying man. McGuigan was waving a white handkerchief. According to the testimony of numerous witnesses, including an officer from another regiment stationed on the city walls, soldier F — positioned on the other side of the road — got down on one knee and shot McGuigan through the head. No one who saw the mortuary photos of the exit wound in McGuigan’s face will forget what just that one bullet of soldier F’s did.'
It does strike me however that HMG prefers this weary argument over ancient history than face the IED of currently and recently serving special forces shooting loads of unarmed civilians out of hand.
Are we still aiming to prosecute IRA members? Or is there an amnesty for them?
There is no general amnesty for IRA members.
Is there a de facto one? Is anyone going after them in the way the soldiers are being investigated?
There are open investigations of historic crimes, as well as new investigations of post-GFA splinter groups. There is an ICRIR investigation into the Guildford Pub bombings, for example: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce9zlnyjzd4o
The continuing investigations, which won’t lead to charges are part of the Peace Process.
Yes kids, the PIRA want to be investigated in a way that ends in no prosecution.
But why, you ask?
Consider the answer given to Mel Gibson in that Expendables film
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
I still believe pensioner-hate was seeded by Russian trolls. It worked. It's now mainstream. One chap recently suggested ditching the triple lock and making pensioners survive on NMW, which would of course double the pension.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the age where I shall be a millionaire pensioner. Does the government send a cheque or a wheelbarrow-load of doubloons?
The state pension system is beyond the wheelbarrow stage and, in my experience works reasonably well in admin terms.
What doesn't work is the current debate. Very wealthy pensioners don't need it at all, the massive middling sort - most people - need it because they have legitimately planned around it. £12,500 (£25K for couples) off an income of £1m is not much. Take it off £30-70K and it's a lot.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
Step one should be to tax (including NI as tax) pensioners by the same system as workers. A fundamental rule should be that working never attracts higher tax rates than not working. And this should apply to benefits junkies too.
If someone’s only income is benefits and then you tax those benefits, then the money is just going around in a small circle. What’s the point of that?
The point of taxability is effective benefit withdrawal as people who are receiving them get richer.
Treat all benefits as income and tax all income the same.
For admins sake, fix the personal tax allowance to the state pension.
Taxation systems go through cycles of simplification (like "tax all income the same") and then complexification (because life is complex and there are lots of reasons for specific rules). There are obvious reasons not to tax all income the same, which is why we don't. Disability living allowance, for example, is meant to cover specific costs, so why tax it?
Because the state needs paying for.
Going to work is meant to cover specific costs, like buying food and paying for shelter.
We tax it because the state needs paying for.
All income should be treated exactly the same.
We tax because the state needs paying for, but we're talking about taxing benefits from the state, so the money is just going around in a small circle. You have not engaged with the specific example given. Why tax something like Personal Independence Payment?
I have engaged, you just don't like the answer.
It should be taxed for the same reason that all other income is taxed.
Yes it is somewhat circular, but you can make the same argument about levying income tax on employees of the state too, though it'd only be a closed circle if we have flat taxes with a flat tax rate, which we don't.
You’re just speaking in tautologies. It should all be taxed the same because it should all be taxed the same, is your argument. Some incomes are not like other incomes!
Where does your argument stop? Some people get prescriptions for free. That’s a benefit. Should we tax that?
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
I still believe pensioner-hate was seeded by Russian trolls. It worked. It's now mainstream. One chap recently suggested ditching the triple lock and making pensioners survive on NMW, which would of course double the pension.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the age where I shall be a millionaire pensioner. Does the government send a cheque or a wheelbarrow-load of doubloons?
The state pension system is beyond the wheelbarrow stage and, in my experience works reasonably well in admin terms.
What doesn't work is the current debate. Very wealthy pensioners don't need it at all, the massive middling sort - most people - need it because they have legitimately planned around it. £12,500 (£25K for couples) off an income of £1m is not much. Take it off £30-70K and it's a lot.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
Step one should be to tax (including NI as tax) pensioners by the same system as workers. A fundamental rule should be that working never attracts higher tax rates than not working. And this should apply to benefits junkies too.
If someone’s only income is benefits and then you tax those benefits, then the money is just going around in a small circle. What’s the point of that?
The point of taxability is effective benefit withdrawal as people who are receiving them get richer.
Treat all benefits as income and tax all income the same.
For admins sake, fix the personal tax allowance to the state pension.
Taxation systems go through cycles of simplification (like "tax all income the same") and then complexification (because life is complex and there are lots of reasons for specific rules). There are obvious reasons not to tax all income the same, which is why we don't. Disability living allowance, for example, is meant to cover specific costs, so why tax it?
Because the state needs paying for.
Going to work is meant to cover specific costs, like buying food and paying for shelter.
We tax it because the state needs paying for.
All income should be treated exactly the same.
We tax because the state needs paying for, but we're talking about taxing benefits from the state, so the money is just going around in a small circle. You have not engaged with the specific example given. Why tax something like Personal Independence Payment?
I have engaged, you just don't like the answer.
It should be taxed for the same reason that all other income is taxed.
Yes it is somewhat circular, but you can make the same argument about levying income tax on employees of the state too, though it'd only be a closed circle if we have flat taxes with a flat tax rate, which we don't.
You’re just speaking in tautologies. It should all be taxed the same because it should all be taxed the same, is your argument. Some incomes are not like other incomes!
Where does your argument stop? Some people get prescriptions for free. That’s a benefit. Should we tax that?
The argument should stop when it comes to getting any money into your bank account.
Whatever money you receive, from whatever source, should be taxed at the same rate.
No income should ever be taxed less than going to work and earning it yourself is taxed. Or more importantly going to earn a living should never be taxed more than others get taxed without going to work.
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
I still believe pensioner-hate was seeded by Russian trolls. It worked. It's now mainstream. One chap recently suggested ditching the triple lock and making pensioners survive on NMW, which would of course double the pension.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the age where I shall be a millionaire pensioner. Does the government send a cheque or a wheelbarrow-load of doubloons?
The state pension system is beyond the wheelbarrow stage and, in my experience works reasonably well in admin terms.
What doesn't work is the current debate. Very wealthy pensioners don't need it at all, the massive middling sort - most people - need it because they have legitimately planned around it. £12,500 (£25K for couples) off an income of £1m is not much. Take it off £30-70K and it's a lot.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
Step one should be to tax (including NI as tax) pensioners by the same system as workers. A fundamental rule should be that working never attracts higher tax rates than not working. And this should apply to benefits junkies too.
If someone’s only income is benefits and then you tax those benefits, then the money is just going around in a small circle. What’s the point of that?
The point of taxability is effective benefit withdrawal as people who are receiving them get richer.
Treat all benefits as income and tax all income the same.
For admins sake, fix the personal tax allowance to the state pension.
Taxation systems go through cycles of simplification (like "tax all income the same") and then complexification (because life is complex and there are lots of reasons for specific rules). There are obvious reasons not to tax all income the same, which is why we don't. Disability living allowance, for example, is meant to cover specific costs, so why tax it?
Because the state needs paying for.
Going to work is meant to cover specific costs, like buying food and paying for shelter.
We tax it because the state needs paying for.
All income should be treated exactly the same.
We tax because the state needs paying for, but we're talking about taxing benefits from the state, so the money is just going around in a small circle. You have not engaged with the specific example given. Why tax something like Personal Independence Payment?
I have engaged, you just don't like the answer.
It should be taxed for the same reason that all other income is taxed.
Yes it is somewhat circular, but you can make the same argument about levying income tax on employees of the state too, though it'd only be a closed circle if we have flat taxes with a flat tax rate, which we don't.
You’re just speaking in tautologies. It should all be taxed the same because it should all be taxed the same, is your argument. Some incomes are not like other incomes!
Where does your argument stop? Some people get prescriptions for free. That’s a benefit. Should we tax that?
Should payouts under the Post Office compensation schemes be taxed?
Anyone remember @Charles (not the king)? There was a Charles Hoare commenting on BP's quarterly results on the Today programme this morning. Same bloke? Possibly not - Charles's area of expertise was health sector related as I recall
Last active on PB in May 2022, apparently.
Isn't it poor form to dox even former PBers ?
(As I recall, that was what prompted his flounce in the first place.)
Maybe but didn't he sort of dox himself with what he posted?
I liked @Charles, at least to an extent: our lives were so different there were few points of contract. He was an endless source of info/gossip about old English money and their society and I liked listening to him. But he was appallingly indiscreet about his personal identity and his family's. He even gave his father's detailed obituary.
It drives me scatty when people give their personal details: at best it's unnecessary, at worst it's dangerous. @Charles gave so much information you could have walked up to his front door and posted birthday cards.
Surely if he was as smart @squareroot2 suggested it was a conscious choice to be open rather than indiscreet?
Underdiscussed trend that shows up in The Economist's new poll tracker - Lib Dems voters going Green. It's their biggest single bleed off since the 2024 election, now at 17 pc and apparently on upward trajectory.
A few weeks back I wrote about this in Morning Call - LDs having their lunch stolen by the Grns in urban areas where they were once the natural progressive alternative to Labour
I mentioned it on here that the Lib Dems in Sheffield are losing votes to the Greens.
Proof if ever it was needed people vote more on vibes than policies.
That's somewhat dismissive. People are voting Green because the structure of the economy is visibly broken for them and they don't blame immigration for it. Not dissimilar to Brexit voters but from a 180° viewpoint.
In addition, for the large number of people who utterly despise Reform, and all they stand for, the Greens are seen as the most anti Reform party. Unfortunately for the Lib Dems, they get as little coverage as the media can legally give them, and therefore aren’t seen as being as vocally anti Reform, so are being squeezed.
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
I still believe pensioner-hate was seeded by Russian trolls. It worked. It's now mainstream. One chap recently suggested ditching the triple lock and making pensioners survive on NMW, which would of course double the pension.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the age where I shall be a millionaire pensioner. Does the government send a cheque or a wheelbarrow-load of doubloons?
The state pension system is beyond the wheelbarrow stage and, in my experience works reasonably well in admin terms.
What doesn't work is the current debate. Very wealthy pensioners don't need it at all, the massive middling sort - most people - need it because they have legitimately planned around it. £12,500 (£25K for couples) off an income of £1m is not much. Take it off £30-70K and it's a lot.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
Step one should be to tax (including NI as tax) pensioners by the same system as workers. A fundamental rule should be that working never attracts higher tax rates than not working. And this should apply to benefits junkies too.
If someone’s only income is benefits and then you tax those benefits, then the money is just going around in a small circle. What’s the point of that?
The point of taxability is effective benefit withdrawal as people who are receiving them get richer.
Treat all benefits as income and tax all income the same.
For admins sake, fix the personal tax allowance to the state pension.
Taxation systems go through cycles of simplification (like "tax all income the same") and then complexification (because life is complex and there are lots of reasons for specific rules). There are obvious reasons not to tax all income the same, which is why we don't. Disability living allowance, for example, is meant to cover specific costs, so why tax it?
Because the state needs paying for.
Going to work is meant to cover specific costs, like buying food and paying for shelter.
We tax it because the state needs paying for.
All income should be treated exactly the same.
We tax because the state needs paying for, but we're talking about taxing benefits from the state, so the money is just going around in a small circle. You have not engaged with the specific example given. Why tax something like Personal Independence Payment?
I have engaged, you just don't like the answer.
It should be taxed for the same reason that all other income is taxed.
Yes it is somewhat circular, but you can make the same argument about levying income tax on employees of the state too, though it'd only be a closed circle if we have flat taxes with a flat tax rate, which we don't.
You’re just speaking in tautologies. It should all be taxed the same because it should all be taxed the same, is your argument. Some incomes are not like other incomes!
Where does your argument stop? Some people get prescriptions for free. That’s a benefit. Should we tax that?
Be gentle, it wasn’t so long ago he wanted to abolish PIP entirely because he didn’t realise it was different to the motability scheme.
It took a week of people trying to explain it (hat tip Benpointer) before he worked it out, and ended his uncharacteristic and misplaced attack on motorists.
Underdiscussed trend that shows up in The Economist's new poll tracker - Lib Dems voters going Green. It's their biggest single bleed off since the 2024 election, now at 17 pc and apparently on upward trajectory.
A few weeks back I wrote about this in Morning Call - LDs having their lunch stolen by the Grns in urban areas where they were once the natural progressive alternative to Labour
I mentioned it on here that the Lib Dems in Sheffield are losing votes to the Greens.
Proof if ever it was needed people vote more on vibes than policies.
That's somewhat dismissive. People are voting Green because the structure of the economy is visibly broken for them and they don't blame immigration for it. Not dissimilar to Brexit voters but from a 180° viewpoint.
Some of them are. I think there is still a sizeable NOTA vote which historically went to the LDs regardless of policies of party or preferences of voter and now goes to LDs (or indeed Reform).
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
I still believe pensioner-hate was seeded by Russian trolls. It worked. It's now mainstream. One chap recently suggested ditching the triple lock and making pensioners survive on NMW, which would of course double the pension.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the age where I shall be a millionaire pensioner. Does the government send a cheque or a wheelbarrow-load of doubloons?
The state pension system is beyond the wheelbarrow stage and, in my experience works reasonably well in admin terms.
What doesn't work is the current debate. Very wealthy pensioners don't need it at all, the massive middling sort - most people - need it because they have legitimately planned around it. £12,500 (£25K for couples) off an income of £1m is not much. Take it off £30-70K and it's a lot.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
Step one should be to tax (including NI as tax) pensioners by the same system as workers. A fundamental rule should be that working never attracts higher tax rates than not working. And this should apply to benefits junkies too.
If someone’s only income is benefits and then you tax those benefits, then the money is just going around in a small circle. What’s the point of that?
The point of taxability is effective benefit withdrawal as people who are receiving them get richer.
Treat all benefits as income and tax all income the same.
For admins sake, fix the personal tax allowance to the state pension.
Taxation systems go through cycles of simplification (like "tax all income the same") and then complexification (because life is complex and there are lots of reasons for specific rules). There are obvious reasons not to tax all income the same, which is why we don't. Disability living allowance, for example, is meant to cover specific costs, so why tax it?
Because the state needs paying for.
Going to work is meant to cover specific costs, like buying food and paying for shelter.
We tax it because the state needs paying for.
All income should be treated exactly the same.
We tax because the state needs paying for, but we're talking about taxing benefits from the state, so the money is just going around in a small circle. You have not engaged with the specific example given. Why tax something like Personal Independence Payment?
I have engaged, you just don't like the answer.
It should be taxed for the same reason that all other income is taxed.
Yes it is somewhat circular, but you can make the same argument about levying income tax on employees of the state too, though it'd only be a closed circle if we have flat taxes with a flat tax rate, which we don't.
You’re just speaking in tautologies. It should all be taxed the same because it should all be taxed the same, is your argument. Some incomes are not like other incomes!
Where does your argument stop? Some people get prescriptions for free. That’s a benefit. Should we tax that?
The argument should stop when it comes to getting any money into your bank account.
Whatever money you receive, from whatever source, should be taxed at the same rate.
No income should ever be taxed less than going to work and earning it yourself is taxed. Or more importantly going to earn a living should never be taxed more than others get taxed without going to work.
If my Mum gave me £50 as a birthday present, should that have been taxed?
If I lent someone £1000 and they re-paid me, should that be taxed?
Underdiscussed trend that shows up in The Economist's new poll tracker - Lib Dems voters going Green. It's their biggest single bleed off since the 2024 election, now at 17 pc and apparently on upward trajectory.
A few weeks back I wrote about this in Morning Call - LDs having their lunch stolen by the Grns in urban areas where they were once the natural progressive alternative to Labour
I mentioned it on here that the Lib Dems in Sheffield are losing votes to the Greens.
This ward in Newcastle has voted 45% LD back to 2018. All the signage is for the Greens. No evidence of LD at all other than a solitary Focus leaflet (which was regular even during non election time).
Lib Dems. Losing here!
Sorry for the duplicate post earlier. We seem to have Asda budget vanilla today, instead of Waitrose No.1 Madagascan vanilla.
Underdiscussed trend that shows up in The Economist's new poll tracker - Lib Dems voters going Green. It's their biggest single bleed off since the 2024 election, now at 17 pc and apparently on upward trajectory.
A few weeks back I wrote about this in Morning Call - LDs having their lunch stolen by the Grns in urban areas where they were once the natural progressive alternative to Labour
I mentioned it on here that the Lib Dems in Sheffield are losing votes to the Greens.
This ward in Newcastle has voted 45% LD back to 2018. All the signage is for the Greens. No evidence of LD at all other than a solitary Focus leaflet (which was regular even during non election time).
What’s your feeling now for the toon in the locals ? Reform ? green/lab coalition.
I cycled through it today and saw no literature or posters at all.
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
I still believe pensioner-hate was seeded by Russian trolls. It worked. It's now mainstream. One chap recently suggested ditching the triple lock and making pensioners survive on NMW, which would of course double the pension.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the age where I shall be a millionaire pensioner. Does the government send a cheque or a wheelbarrow-load of doubloons?
The state pension system is beyond the wheelbarrow stage and, in my experience works reasonably well in admin terms.
What doesn't work is the current debate. Very wealthy pensioners don't need it at all, the massive middling sort - most people - need it because they have legitimately planned around it. £12,500 (£25K for couples) off an income of £1m is not much. Take it off £30-70K and it's a lot.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
Step one should be to tax (including NI as tax) pensioners by the same system as workers. A fundamental rule should be that working never attracts higher tax rates than not working. And this should apply to benefits junkies too.
If someone’s only income is benefits and then you tax those benefits, then the money is just going around in a small circle. What’s the point of that?
The point of taxability is effective benefit withdrawal as people who are receiving them get richer.
Treat all benefits as income and tax all income the same.
For admins sake, fix the personal tax allowance to the state pension.
Taxation systems go through cycles of simplification (like "tax all income the same") and then complexification (because life is complex and there are lots of reasons for specific rules). There are obvious reasons not to tax all income the same, which is why we don't. Disability living allowance, for example, is meant to cover specific costs, so why tax it?
Because the state needs paying for.
Going to work is meant to cover specific costs, like buying food and paying for shelter.
We tax it because the state needs paying for.
All income should be treated exactly the same.
We tax because the state needs paying for, but we're talking about taxing benefits from the state, so the money is just going around in a small circle. You have not engaged with the specific example given. Why tax something like Personal Independence Payment?
I have engaged, you just don't like the answer.
It should be taxed for the same reason that all other income is taxed.
Yes it is somewhat circular, but you can make the same argument about levying income tax on employees of the state too, though it'd only be a closed circle if we have flat taxes with a flat tax rate, which we don't.
You’re just speaking in tautologies. It should all be taxed the same because it should all be taxed the same, is your argument. Some incomes are not like other incomes!
Where does your argument stop? Some people get prescriptions for free. That’s a benefit. Should we tax that?
The argument should stop when it comes to getting any money into your bank account.
Whatever money you receive, from whatever source, should be taxed at the same rate.
No income should ever be taxed less than going to work and earning it yourself is taxed. Or more importantly going to earn a living should never be taxed more than others get taxed without going to work.
If my Mum gave me £50 as a birthday present, should that have been taxed?
If I lent someone £1000 and they re-paid me, should that be taxed?
Gifts already can attract tax in the UK, although it is convoluted and IHT. As I would simplify taxation and merge income tax and IHT (and NICs and many others) together, then I would say yes, above the gift allowance. A gift allowance makes sense.
A repaid loan is not income, it is your own money being repaid, so patently the answer is no.
Underdiscussed trend that shows up in The Economist's new poll tracker - Lib Dems voters going Green. It's their biggest single bleed off since the 2024 election, now at 17 pc and apparently on upward trajectory.
A few weeks back I wrote about this in Morning Call - LDs having their lunch stolen by the Grns in urban areas where they were once the natural progressive alternative to Labour
I mentioned it on here that the Lib Dems in Sheffield are losing votes to the Greens.
This ward in Newcastle has voted 45% LD back to 2018. All the signage is for the Greens. No evidence of LD at all other than a solitary Focus leaflet (which was regular even during non election time).
What’s your feeling now for the toon in the locals ? Reform ? green/lab coalition.
I cycled through it today and saw no literature or posters at all.
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
I still believe pensioner-hate was seeded by Russian trolls. It worked. It's now mainstream. One chap recently suggested ditching the triple lock and making pensioners survive on NMW, which would of course double the pension.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the age where I shall be a millionaire pensioner. Does the government send a cheque or a wheelbarrow-load of doubloons?
The state pension system is beyond the wheelbarrow stage and, in my experience works reasonably well in admin terms.
What doesn't work is the current debate. Very wealthy pensioners don't need it at all, the massive middling sort - most people - need it because they have legitimately planned around it. £12,500 (£25K for couples) off an income of £1m is not much. Take it off £30-70K and it's a lot.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
Step one should be to tax (including NI as tax) pensioners by the same system as workers. A fundamental rule should be that working never attracts higher tax rates than not working. And this should apply to benefits junkies too.
If someone’s only income is benefits and then you tax those benefits, then the money is just going around in a small circle. What’s the point of that?
The point of taxability is effective benefit withdrawal as people who are receiving them get richer.
Treat all benefits as income and tax all income the same.
For admins sake, fix the personal tax allowance to the state pension.
Taxation systems go through cycles of simplification (like "tax all income the same") and then complexification (because life is complex and there are lots of reasons for specific rules). There are obvious reasons not to tax all income the same, which is why we don't. Disability living allowance, for example, is meant to cover specific costs, so why tax it?
Because the state needs paying for.
Going to work is meant to cover specific costs, like buying food and paying for shelter.
We tax it because the state needs paying for.
All income should be treated exactly the same.
We tax because the state needs paying for, but we're talking about taxing benefits from the state, so the money is just going around in a small circle. You have not engaged with the specific example given. Why tax something like Personal Independence Payment?
I have engaged, you just don't like the answer.
It should be taxed for the same reason that all other income is taxed.
Yes it is somewhat circular, but you can make the same argument about levying income tax on employees of the state too, though it'd only be a closed circle if we have flat taxes with a flat tax rate, which we don't.
You’re just speaking in tautologies. It should all be taxed the same because it should all be taxed the same, is your argument. Some incomes are not like other incomes!
Where does your argument stop? Some people get prescriptions for free. That’s a benefit. Should we tax that?
The argument should stop when it comes to getting any money into your bank account.
Whatever money you receive, from whatever source, should be taxed at the same rate.
No income should ever be taxed less than going to work and earning it yourself is taxed. Or more importantly going to earn a living should never be taxed more than others get taxed without going to work.
If my Mum gave me £50 as a birthday present, should that have been taxed?
If I lent someone £1000 and they re-paid me, should that be taxed?
As I understand it, gifts other than from family are taxable. A friend did a "missionary" year after university and found that gifts from church members were taxable (he was an accountant which is probably why he bothered to find out!)
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
I still believe pensioner-hate was seeded by Russian trolls. It worked. It's now mainstream. One chap recently suggested ditching the triple lock and making pensioners survive on NMW, which would of course double the pension.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the age where I shall be a millionaire pensioner. Does the government send a cheque or a wheelbarrow-load of doubloons?
The state pension system is beyond the wheelbarrow stage and, in my experience works reasonably well in admin terms.
What doesn't work is the current debate. Very wealthy pensioners don't need it at all, the massive middling sort - most people - need it because they have legitimately planned around it. £12,500 (£25K for couples) off an income of £1m is not much. Take it off £30-70K and it's a lot.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
Step one should be to tax (including NI as tax) pensioners by the same system as workers. A fundamental rule should be that working never attracts higher tax rates than not working. And this should apply to benefits junkies too.
If someone’s only income is benefits and then you tax those benefits, then the money is just going around in a small circle. What’s the point of that?
The point of taxability is effective benefit withdrawal as people who are receiving them get richer.
Treat all benefits as income and tax all income the same.
For admins sake, fix the personal tax allowance to the state pension.
Taxation systems go through cycles of simplification (like "tax all income the same") and then complexification (because life is complex and there are lots of reasons for specific rules). There are obvious reasons not to tax all income the same, which is why we don't. Disability living allowance, for example, is meant to cover specific costs, so why tax it?
Because the state needs paying for.
Going to work is meant to cover specific costs, like buying food and paying for shelter.
We tax it because the state needs paying for.
All income should be treated exactly the same.
We tax because the state needs paying for, but we're talking about taxing benefits from the state, so the money is just going around in a small circle. You have not engaged with the specific example given. Why tax something like Personal Independence Payment?
I have engaged, you just don't like the answer.
It should be taxed for the same reason that all other income is taxed.
Yes it is somewhat circular, but you can make the same argument about levying income tax on employees of the state too, though it'd only be a closed circle if we have flat taxes with a flat tax rate, which we don't.
You’re just speaking in tautologies. It should all be taxed the same because it should all be taxed the same, is your argument. Some incomes are not like other incomes!
Where does your argument stop? Some people get prescriptions for free. That’s a benefit. Should we tax that?
The argument should stop when it comes to getting any money into your bank account.
Whatever money you receive, from whatever source, should be taxed at the same rate.
No income should ever be taxed less than going to work and earning it yourself is taxed. Or more importantly going to earn a living should never be taxed more than others get taxed without going to work.
If my Mum gave me £50 as a birthday present, should that have been taxed?
If I lent someone £1000 and they re-paid me, should that be taxed?
Gifts already can attract tax in the UK, although it is convoluted and IHT. As I would simplify taxation and merge income tax and IHT (and NICs and many others) together, then I would say yes, above the gift allowance. A gift allowance makes sense.
A repaid loan is not income, it is your own money being repaid, so patently the answer is no.
You said, “The argument should stop when it comes to getting any money into your bank account.” I’m glad you now acknowledge that you don’t mean that.
If you have a gift allowance, you are also treating one income differently from another. Again, I’m glad you are now resiling from your earlier absolutism.
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
I still believe pensioner-hate was seeded by Russian trolls. It worked. It's now mainstream. One chap recently suggested ditching the triple lock and making pensioners survive on NMW, which would of course double the pension.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the age where I shall be a millionaire pensioner. Does the government send a cheque or a wheelbarrow-load of doubloons?
The state pension system is beyond the wheelbarrow stage and, in my experience works reasonably well in admin terms.
What doesn't work is the current debate. Very wealthy pensioners don't need it at all, the massive middling sort - most people - need it because they have legitimately planned around it. £12,500 (£25K for couples) off an income of £1m is not much. Take it off £30-70K and it's a lot.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
Step one should be to tax (including NI as tax) pensioners by the same system as workers. A fundamental rule should be that working never attracts higher tax rates than not working. And this should apply to benefits junkies too.
If someone’s only income is benefits and then you tax those benefits, then the money is just going around in a small circle. What’s the point of that?
The point of taxability is effective benefit withdrawal as people who are receiving them get richer.
Treat all benefits as income and tax all income the same.
For admins sake, fix the personal tax allowance to the state pension.
Taxation systems go through cycles of simplification (like "tax all income the same") and then complexification (because life is complex and there are lots of reasons for specific rules). There are obvious reasons not to tax all income the same, which is why we don't. Disability living allowance, for example, is meant to cover specific costs, so why tax it?
Because the state needs paying for.
Going to work is meant to cover specific costs, like buying food and paying for shelter.
We tax it because the state needs paying for.
All income should be treated exactly the same.
We tax because the state needs paying for, but we're talking about taxing benefits from the state, so the money is just going around in a small circle. You have not engaged with the specific example given. Why tax something like Personal Independence Payment?
I have engaged, you just don't like the answer.
It should be taxed for the same reason that all other income is taxed.
Yes it is somewhat circular, but you can make the same argument about levying income tax on employees of the state too, though it'd only be a closed circle if we have flat taxes with a flat tax rate, which we don't.
You’re just speaking in tautologies. It should all be taxed the same because it should all be taxed the same, is your argument. Some incomes are not like other incomes!
Where does your argument stop? Some people get prescriptions for free. That’s a benefit. Should we tax that?
The argument should stop when it comes to getting any money into your bank account.
Whatever money you receive, from whatever source, should be taxed at the same rate.
No income should ever be taxed less than going to work and earning it yourself is taxed. Or more importantly going to earn a living should never be taxed more than others get taxed without going to work.
If my Mum gave me £50 as a birthday present, should that have been taxed?
If I lent someone £1000 and they re-paid me, should that be taxed?
As I understand it, gifts other than from family are taxable. A friend did a "missionary" year after university and found that gifts from church members were taxable (he was an accountant which is probably why he bothered to find out!)
That’s not my understanding. Gifts are not taxable from the perspective of the receiver but may be taxable (IHT) from the perspective of the giver.
Underdiscussed trend that shows up in The Economist's new poll tracker - Lib Dems voters going Green. It's their biggest single bleed off since the 2024 election, now at 17 pc and apparently on upward trajectory.
A few weeks back I wrote about this in Morning Call - LDs having their lunch stolen by the Grns in urban areas where they were once the natural progressive alternative to Labour
I mentioned it on here that the Lib Dems in Sheffield are losing votes to the Greens.
This ward in Newcastle has voted 45% LD back to 2018. All the signage is for the Greens. No evidence of LD at all other than a solitary Focus leaflet (which was regular even during non election time).
What’s your feeling now for the toon in the locals ? Reform ? green/lab coalition.
I cycled through it today and saw no literature or posters at all.
I’ve had plenty of literature through the door.
Reform to win.
The Toon or your ward ?
I cycled from Battle Hill to CLS and only saw one poster in a window
For Reform in Low Fell of all places. The last place I’d expect to see it.
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
I still believe pensioner-hate was seeded by Russian trolls. It worked. It's now mainstream. One chap recently suggested ditching the triple lock and making pensioners survive on NMW, which would of course double the pension.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the age where I shall be a millionaire pensioner. Does the government send a cheque or a wheelbarrow-load of doubloons?
The state pension system is beyond the wheelbarrow stage and, in my experience works reasonably well in admin terms.
What doesn't work is the current debate. Very wealthy pensioners don't need it at all, the massive middling sort - most people - need it because they have legitimately planned around it. £12,500 (£25K for couples) off an income of £1m is not much. Take it off £30-70K and it's a lot.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
Step one should be to tax (including NI as tax) pensioners by the same system as workers. A fundamental rule should be that working never attracts higher tax rates than not working. And this should apply to benefits junkies too.
If someone’s only income is benefits and then you tax those benefits, then the money is just going around in a small circle. What’s the point of that?
The point of taxability is effective benefit withdrawal as people who are receiving them get richer.
Treat all benefits as income and tax all income the same.
For admins sake, fix the personal tax allowance to the state pension.
Taxation systems go through cycles of simplification (like "tax all income the same") and then complexification (because life is complex and there are lots of reasons for specific rules). There are obvious reasons not to tax all income the same, which is why we don't. Disability living allowance, for example, is meant to cover specific costs, so why tax it?
Because the state needs paying for.
Going to work is meant to cover specific costs, like buying food and paying for shelter.
We tax it because the state needs paying for.
All income should be treated exactly the same.
We tax because the state needs paying for, but we're talking about taxing benefits from the state, so the money is just going around in a small circle. You have not engaged with the specific example given. Why tax something like Personal Independence Payment?
I have engaged, you just don't like the answer.
It should be taxed for the same reason that all other income is taxed.
Yes it is somewhat circular, but you can make the same argument about levying income tax on employees of the state too, though it'd only be a closed circle if we have flat taxes with a flat tax rate, which we don't.
You’re just speaking in tautologies. It should all be taxed the same because it should all be taxed the same, is your argument. Some incomes are not like other incomes!
Where does your argument stop? Some people get prescriptions for free. That’s a benefit. Should we tax that?
The argument should stop when it comes to getting any money into your bank account.
Whatever money you receive, from whatever source, should be taxed at the same rate.
No income should ever be taxed less than going to work and earning it yourself is taxed. Or more importantly going to earn a living should never be taxed more than others get taxed without going to work.
If my Mum gave me £50 as a birthday present, should that have been taxed?
If I lent someone £1000 and they re-paid me, should that be taxed?
As I understand it, gifts other than from family are taxable. A friend did a "missionary" year after university and found that gifts from church members were taxable (he was an accountant which is probably why he bothered to find out!)
Sounds like tax man considered it tipping rather than gifting.
BREAK: National Security Advisor, Johnathan Powell, was appointed before going through DV clearance, Morgan McSweeney claims.
The Prime Minister's former Chief of Staff also says he was appointed before being security cleared.
My understanding was that Peter Mandelson was a rare case due to being a former Minister and member of the Lords, but this suggests something far more widespread.
Didn't someone suggest that Starmer didn't want Mandelson and had expected him to fail vetting? Or am I having an AI hallucination?
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
I still believe pensioner-hate was seeded by Russian trolls. It worked. It's now mainstream. One chap recently suggested ditching the triple lock and making pensioners survive on NMW, which would of course double the pension.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the age where I shall be a millionaire pensioner. Does the government send a cheque or a wheelbarrow-load of doubloons?
The state pension system is beyond the wheelbarrow stage and, in my experience works reasonably well in admin terms.
What doesn't work is the current debate. Very wealthy pensioners don't need it at all, the massive middling sort - most people - need it because they have legitimately planned around it. £12,500 (£25K for couples) off an income of £1m is not much. Take it off £30-70K and it's a lot.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
Step one should be to tax (including NI as tax) pensioners by the same system as workers. A fundamental rule should be that working never attracts higher tax rates than not working. And this should apply to benefits junkies too.
If someone’s only income is benefits and then you tax those benefits, then the money is just going around in a small circle. What’s the point of that?
The point of taxability is effective benefit withdrawal as people who are receiving them get richer.
Treat all benefits as income and tax all income the same.
For admins sake, fix the personal tax allowance to the state pension.
Taxation systems go through cycles of simplification (like "tax all income the same") and then complexification (because life is complex and there are lots of reasons for specific rules). There are obvious reasons not to tax all income the same, which is why we don't. Disability living allowance, for example, is meant to cover specific costs, so why tax it?
Because the state needs paying for.
Going to work is meant to cover specific costs, like buying food and paying for shelter.
We tax it because the state needs paying for.
All income should be treated exactly the same.
We tax because the state needs paying for, but we're talking about taxing benefits from the state, so the money is just going around in a small circle. You have not engaged with the specific example given. Why tax something like Personal Independence Payment?
I have engaged, you just don't like the answer.
It should be taxed for the same reason that all other income is taxed.
Yes it is somewhat circular, but you can make the same argument about levying income tax on employees of the state too, though it'd only be a closed circle if we have flat taxes with a flat tax rate, which we don't.
You’re just speaking in tautologies. It should all be taxed the same because it should all be taxed the same, is your argument. Some incomes are not like other incomes!
Where does your argument stop? Some people get prescriptions for free. That’s a benefit. Should we tax that?
The argument should stop when it comes to getting any money into your bank account.
Whatever money you receive, from whatever source, should be taxed at the same rate.
No income should ever be taxed less than going to work and earning it yourself is taxed. Or more importantly going to earn a living should never be taxed more than others get taxed without going to work.
If my Mum gave me £50 as a birthday present, should that have been taxed?
If I lent someone £1000 and they re-paid me, should that be taxed?
As I understand it, gifts other than from family are taxable. A friend did a "missionary" year after university and found that gifts from church members were taxable (he was an accountant which is probably why he bothered to find out!)
A £50 gift would come under various gift-specific allowances and not be taxed. We have a tax code that treats different sorts of income differently in lots of different ways.
Anyone remember @Charles (not the king)? There was a Charles Hoare commenting on BP's quarterly results on the Today programme this morning. Same bloke? Possibly not - Charles's area of expertise was health sector related as I recall
Last active on PB in May 2022, apparently.
Isn't it poor form to dox even former PBers ?
(As I recall, that was what prompted his flounce in the first place.)
Maybe but didn't he sort of dox himself with what he posted?
I liked @Charles, at least to an extent: our lives were so different there were few points of contract. He was an endless source of info/gossip about old English money and their society and I liked listening to him. But he was appallingly indiscreet about his personal identity and his family's. He even gave his father's detailed obituary.
It drives me scatty when people give their personal details: at best it's unnecessary, at worst it's dangerous. @Charles gave so much information you could have walked up to his front door and posted birthday cards.
Surely if he was as smart @squareroot2 suggested it was a conscious choice to be open rather than indiscreet?
No, I think it shows a wider problem with social media. Most people tend to assume they are, if not among friends, than at least in a discrete community and a discreet one. This is part of the issue with the sexualisation of images innocently posted to Facebook or Instagram, or with use of conversations for bullying or even for political advantage. Similarly people object to government ID databases but do not realise that commercial companies gather even more personal information about individuals.
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
I still believe pensioner-hate was seeded by Russian trolls. It worked. It's now mainstream. One chap recently suggested ditching the triple lock and making pensioners survive on NMW, which would of course double the pension.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the age where I shall be a millionaire pensioner. Does the government send a cheque or a wheelbarrow-load of doubloons?
The state pension system is beyond the wheelbarrow stage and, in my experience works reasonably well in admin terms.
What doesn't work is the current debate. Very wealthy pensioners don't need it at all, the massive middling sort - most people - need it because they have legitimately planned around it. £12,500 (£25K for couples) off an income of £1m is not much. Take it off £30-70K and it's a lot.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
Step one should be to tax (including NI as tax) pensioners by the same system as workers. A fundamental rule should be that working never attracts higher tax rates than not working. And this should apply to benefits junkies too.
If someone’s only income is benefits and then you tax those benefits, then the money is just going around in a small circle. What’s the point of that?
The point of taxability is effective benefit withdrawal as people who are receiving them get richer.
Treat all benefits as income and tax all income the same.
For admins sake, fix the personal tax allowance to the state pension.
Taxation systems go through cycles of simplification (like "tax all income the same") and then complexification (because life is complex and there are lots of reasons for specific rules). There are obvious reasons not to tax all income the same, which is why we don't. Disability living allowance, for example, is meant to cover specific costs, so why tax it?
Because the state needs paying for.
Going to work is meant to cover specific costs, like buying food and paying for shelter.
We tax it because the state needs paying for.
All income should be treated exactly the same.
We tax because the state needs paying for, but we're talking about taxing benefits from the state, so the money is just going around in a small circle. You have not engaged with the specific example given. Why tax something like Personal Independence Payment?
I have engaged, you just don't like the answer.
It should be taxed for the same reason that all other income is taxed.
Yes it is somewhat circular, but you can make the same argument about levying income tax on employees of the state too, though it'd only be a closed circle if we have flat taxes with a flat tax rate, which we don't.
You’re just speaking in tautologies. It should all be taxed the same because it should all be taxed the same, is your argument. Some incomes are not like other incomes!
Where does your argument stop? Some people get prescriptions for free. That’s a benefit. Should we tax that?
The argument should stop when it comes to getting any money into your bank account.
Whatever money you receive, from whatever source, should be taxed at the same rate.
No income should ever be taxed less than going to work and earning it yourself is taxed. Or more importantly going to earn a living should never be taxed more than others get taxed without going to work.
If my Mum gave me £50 as a birthday present, should that have been taxed?
If I lent someone £1000 and they re-paid me, should that be taxed?
Gifts already can attract tax in the UK, although it is convoluted and IHT. As I would simplify taxation and merge income tax and IHT (and NICs and many others) together, then I would say yes, above the gift allowance. A gift allowance makes sense.
A repaid loan is not income, it is your own money being repaid, so patently the answer is no.
You said, “The argument should stop when it comes to getting any money into your bank account.” I’m glad you now acknowledge that you don’t mean that.
If you have a gift allowance, you are also treating one income differently from another. Again, I’m glad you are now resiling from your earlier absolutism.
Also prizes are not subject to tax, usually.
Hence the comments from Andy Peters on the ITV competion in the morning, ‘it’s totally tax free cash’
Edited - I meant to say ‘not subject’ not ‘subject’ FFS
McSweeney: "The first person who put Mandelson's name forward was Mandelson."
So the official line is “A bigger boy did it and ran away”
All down the chain.
I have frequently observed that the #NU10K love Blame Tree. Blame cascades down, without anyone getting wet.
Some Japanese temples use overlapping roofs to create an almost musical sound as rain cascades from one to the next.
Blame Tree is less melodious - the trick there is for blame to run off your shoulders, onto the shoulders of the next person down. And then they do the same.
Unless, of course, they are a Prole. In which case pissing on them is just AOK.
Note that a chunk of the anger at Starmer is for landing blame’s on subordinates *heads*, not their shoulders. So they can’t pass the blame onto their juniors, in The Proper Style.
Why do you blame your pet #NU10K for things seen in all organisations and contexts? It's a rare few who rush to claim blame for themselves!
It’s a pattern at the top of public life. The OLD10K used to play the same game. Unless someone pulled their socks up.
We need to improve things, otherwise what is the point of democracy?
Given how much more successful Burnham’s Manchester is than Starmer’s UK, Manchester should take over London and become the capital. Divert Eurostar so that is runs from Manchester. Londoners can catch a connecting train to Piccadilly to travel to Europe. Cancel HS2 south of Birmingham and build it from Birmingham to Manchester and Leeds. Any Westminster government officials can apply for jobs in Manchester or become redundant. Replace the OLD10K and the NU10K with the NORTH10K.
McSweeney: "The first person who put Mandelson's name forward was Mandelson."
So the official line is “A bigger boy did it and ran away”
All down the chain.
I have frequently observed that the #NU10K love Blame Tree. Blame cascades down, without anyone getting wet.
Some Japanese temples use overlapping roofs to create an almost musical sound as rain cascades from one to the next.
Blame Tree is less melodious - the trick there is for blame to run off your shoulders, onto the shoulders of the next person down. And then they do the same.
Unless, of course, they are a Prole. In which case pissing on them is just AOK.
Note that a chunk of the anger at Starmer is for landing blame’s on subordinates *heads*, not their shoulders. So they can’t pass the blame onto their juniors, in The Proper Style.
Why do you blame your pet #NU10K for things seen in all organisations and contexts? It's a rare few who rush to claim blame for themselves!
It’s a pattern at the top of public life. The OLD10K used to play the same game. Unless someone pulled their socks up.
We need to improve things, otherwise what is the point of democracy?
Given how much more successful Burnham’s Manchester is than Starmer’s UK, Manchester should take over London and become the capital. Divert Eurostar so that is runs from Manchester. Londoners can catch a connecting train to Piccadilly to travel to Europe. Cancel HS2 south of Birmingham and build it from Birmingham to Manchester and Leeds. Any Westminster government officials and apply for jobs in Manchester or become redundant. Replace the OLD10K and the NU10K with the NORTH10K.
Underdiscussed trend that shows up in The Economist's new poll tracker - Lib Dems voters going Green. It's their biggest single bleed off since the 2024 election, now at 17 pc and apparently on upward trajectory.
A few weeks back I wrote about this in Morning Call - LDs having their lunch stolen by the Grns in urban areas where they were once the natural progressive alternative to Labour
I mentioned it on here that the Lib Dems in Sheffield are losing votes to the Greens.
This ward in Newcastle has voted 45% LD back to 2018. All the signage is for the Greens. No evidence of LD at all other than a solitary Focus leaflet (which was regular even during non election time).
What’s your feeling now for the toon in the locals ? Reform ? green/lab coalition.
I cycled through it today and saw no literature or posters at all.
I’ve had plenty of literature through the door.
Reform to win.
The Toon or your ward ?
I cycled from Battle Hill to CLS and only saw one poster in a window
For Reform in Low Fell of all places. The last place I’d expect to see it.
Newcastle City Council.
Not sure about my ward to be honest. It has changed so cannot directly compare to previous results.
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
I still believe pensioner-hate was seeded by Russian trolls. It worked. It's now mainstream. One chap recently suggested ditching the triple lock and making pensioners survive on NMW, which would of course double the pension.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the age where I shall be a millionaire pensioner. Does the government send a cheque or a wheelbarrow-load of doubloons?
The state pension system is beyond the wheelbarrow stage and, in my experience works reasonably well in admin terms.
What doesn't work is the current debate. Very wealthy pensioners don't need it at all, the massive middling sort - most people - need it because they have legitimately planned around it. £12,500 (£25K for couples) off an income of £1m is not much. Take it off £30-70K and it's a lot.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
Step one should be to tax (including NI as tax) pensioners by the same system as workers. A fundamental rule should be that working never attracts higher tax rates than not working. And this should apply to benefits junkies too.
If someone’s only income is benefits and then you tax those benefits, then the money is just going around in a small circle. What’s the point of that?
The point of taxability is effective benefit withdrawal as people who are receiving them get richer.
Treat all benefits as income and tax all income the same.
For admins sake, fix the personal tax allowance to the state pension.
Taxation systems go through cycles of simplification (like "tax all income the same") and then complexification (because life is complex and there are lots of reasons for specific rules). There are obvious reasons not to tax all income the same, which is why we don't. Disability living allowance, for example, is meant to cover specific costs, so why tax it?
Because the state needs paying for.
Going to work is meant to cover specific costs, like buying food and paying for shelter.
We tax it because the state needs paying for.
All income should be treated exactly the same.
We tax because the state needs paying for, but we're talking about taxing benefits from the state, so the money is just going around in a small circle. You have not engaged with the specific example given. Why tax something like Personal Independence Payment?
I have engaged, you just don't like the answer.
It should be taxed for the same reason that all other income is taxed.
Yes it is somewhat circular, but you can make the same argument about levying income tax on employees of the state too, though it'd only be a closed circle if we have flat taxes with a flat tax rate, which we don't.
You’re just speaking in tautologies. It should all be taxed the same because it should all be taxed the same, is your argument. Some incomes are not like other incomes!
Where does your argument stop? Some people get prescriptions for free. That’s a benefit. Should we tax that?
The argument should stop when it comes to getting any money into your bank account.
Whatever money you receive, from whatever source, should be taxed at the same rate.
No income should ever be taxed less than going to work and earning it yourself is taxed. Or more importantly going to earn a living should never be taxed more than others get taxed without going to work.
If my Mum gave me £50 as a birthday present, should that have been taxed?
If I lent someone £1000 and they re-paid me, should that be taxed?
Gifts already can attract tax in the UK, although it is convoluted and IHT. As I would simplify taxation and merge income tax and IHT (and NICs and many others) together, then I would say yes, above the gift allowance. A gift allowance makes sense.
A repaid loan is not income, it is your own money being repaid, so patently the answer is no.
You said, “The argument should stop when it comes to getting any money into your bank account.” I’m glad you now acknowledge that you don’t mean that.
If you have a gift allowance, you are also treating one income differently from another. Again, I’m glad you are now resiling from your earlier absolutism.
The debate is ideological - it comes down to what we think benefits are for and how we implement a sense of fairness.
Reasonably wealthy, severely disabled PBers receive PIP, not because they need the money, but because it’s designed to compensate for the costs of their disability.
It doesn’t taper with earnings or interact with other benefits and taxes. The point is to level the playing field. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to disagree with that approach tbh and I’m conflicted with it myself.
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
I still believe pensioner-hate was seeded by Russian trolls. It worked. It's now mainstream. One chap recently suggested ditching the triple lock and making pensioners survive on NMW, which would of course double the pension.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the age where I shall be a millionaire pensioner. Does the government send a cheque or a wheelbarrow-load of doubloons?
The state pension system is beyond the wheelbarrow stage and, in my experience works reasonably well in admin terms.
What doesn't work is the current debate. Very wealthy pensioners don't need it at all, the massive middling sort - most people - need it because they have legitimately planned around it. £12,500 (£25K for couples) off an income of £1m is not much. Take it off £30-70K and it's a lot.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
Step one should be to tax (including NI as tax) pensioners by the same system as workers. A fundamental rule should be that working never attracts higher tax rates than not working. And this should apply to benefits junkies too.
If someone’s only income is benefits and then you tax those benefits, then the money is just going around in a small circle. What’s the point of that?
The point of taxability is effective benefit withdrawal as people who are receiving them get richer.
Treat all benefits as income and tax all income the same.
For admins sake, fix the personal tax allowance to the state pension.
Taxation systems go through cycles of simplification (like "tax all income the same") and then complexification (because life is complex and there are lots of reasons for specific rules). There are obvious reasons not to tax all income the same, which is why we don't. Disability living allowance, for example, is meant to cover specific costs, so why tax it?
Because the state needs paying for.
Going to work is meant to cover specific costs, like buying food and paying for shelter.
We tax it because the state needs paying for.
All income should be treated exactly the same.
We tax because the state needs paying for, but we're talking about taxing benefits from the state, so the money is just going around in a small circle. You have not engaged with the specific example given. Why tax something like Personal Independence Payment?
I have engaged, you just don't like the answer.
It should be taxed for the same reason that all other income is taxed.
Yes it is somewhat circular, but you can make the same argument about levying income tax on employees of the state too, though it'd only be a closed circle if we have flat taxes with a flat tax rate, which we don't.
You’re just speaking in tautologies. It should all be taxed the same because it should all be taxed the same, is your argument. Some incomes are not like other incomes!
Where does your argument stop? Some people get prescriptions for free. That’s a benefit. Should we tax that?
Should payouts under the Post Office compensation schemes be taxed?
It seems only fair. If the Post Office managers’ bonuses were taxed, surely the little people should also be taxed.
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
I still believe pensioner-hate was seeded by Russian trolls. It worked. It's now mainstream. One chap recently suggested ditching the triple lock and making pensioners survive on NMW, which would of course double the pension.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the age where I shall be a millionaire pensioner. Does the government send a cheque or a wheelbarrow-load of doubloons?
The state pension system is beyond the wheelbarrow stage and, in my experience works reasonably well in admin terms.
What doesn't work is the current debate. Very wealthy pensioners don't need it at all, the massive middling sort - most people - need it because they have legitimately planned around it. £12,500 (£25K for couples) off an income of £1m is not much. Take it off £30-70K and it's a lot.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
Step one should be to tax (including NI as tax) pensioners by the same system as workers. A fundamental rule should be that working never attracts higher tax rates than not working. And this should apply to benefits junkies too.
If someone’s only income is benefits and then you tax those benefits, then the money is just going around in a small circle. What’s the point of that?
The point of taxability is effective benefit withdrawal as people who are receiving them get richer.
Treat all benefits as income and tax all income the same.
For admins sake, fix the personal tax allowance to the state pension.
Taxation systems go through cycles of simplification (like "tax all income the same") and then complexification (because life is complex and there are lots of reasons for specific rules). There are obvious reasons not to tax all income the same, which is why we don't. Disability living allowance, for example, is meant to cover specific costs, so why tax it?
Because the state needs paying for.
Going to work is meant to cover specific costs, like buying food and paying for shelter.
We tax it because the state needs paying for.
All income should be treated exactly the same.
We tax because the state needs paying for, but we're talking about taxing benefits from the state, so the money is just going around in a small circle. You have not engaged with the specific example given. Why tax something like Personal Independence Payment?
I have engaged, you just don't like the answer.
It should be taxed for the same reason that all other income is taxed.
Yes it is somewhat circular, but you can make the same argument about levying income tax on employees of the state too, though it'd only be a closed circle if we have flat taxes with a flat tax rate, which we don't.
You’re just speaking in tautologies. It should all be taxed the same because it should all be taxed the same, is your argument. Some incomes are not like other incomes!
Where does your argument stop? Some people get prescriptions for free. That’s a benefit. Should we tax that?
Should payouts under the Post Office compensation schemes be taxed?
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
I still believe pensioner-hate was seeded by Russian trolls. It worked. It's now mainstream. One chap recently suggested ditching the triple lock and making pensioners survive on NMW, which would of course double the pension.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the age where I shall be a millionaire pensioner. Does the government send a cheque or a wheelbarrow-load of doubloons?
The state pension system is beyond the wheelbarrow stage and, in my experience works reasonably well in admin terms.
What doesn't work is the current debate. Very wealthy pensioners don't need it at all, the massive middling sort - most people - need it because they have legitimately planned around it. £12,500 (£25K for couples) off an income of £1m is not much. Take it off £30-70K and it's a lot.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
Step one should be to tax (including NI as tax) pensioners by the same system as workers. A fundamental rule should be that working never attracts higher tax rates than not working. And this should apply to benefits junkies too.
If someone’s only income is benefits and then you tax those benefits, then the money is just going around in a small circle. What’s the point of that?
The point of taxability is effective benefit withdrawal as people who are receiving them get richer.
Treat all benefits as income and tax all income the same.
For admins sake, fix the personal tax allowance to the state pension.
Taxation systems go through cycles of simplification (like "tax all income the same") and then complexification (because life is complex and there are lots of reasons for specific rules). There are obvious reasons not to tax all income the same, which is why we don't. Disability living allowance, for example, is meant to cover specific costs, so why tax it?
Because the state needs paying for.
Going to work is meant to cover specific costs, like buying food and paying for shelter.
We tax it because the state needs paying for.
All income should be treated exactly the same.
We tax because the state needs paying for, but we're talking about taxing benefits from the state, so the money is just going around in a small circle. You have not engaged with the specific example given. Why tax something like Personal Independence Payment?
I have engaged, you just don't like the answer.
It should be taxed for the same reason that all other income is taxed.
Yes it is somewhat circular, but you can make the same argument about levying income tax on employees of the state too, though it'd only be a closed circle if we have flat taxes with a flat tax rate, which we don't.
You’re just speaking in tautologies. It should all be taxed the same because it should all be taxed the same, is your argument. Some incomes are not like other incomes!
Where does your argument stop? Some people get prescriptions for free. That’s a benefit. Should we tax that?
The argument should stop when it comes to getting any money into your bank account.
Whatever money you receive, from whatever source, should be taxed at the same rate.
No income should ever be taxed less than going to work and earning it yourself is taxed. Or more importantly going to earn a living should never be taxed more than others get taxed without going to work.
If my Mum gave me £50 as a birthday present, should that have been taxed?
If I lent someone £1000 and they re-paid me, should that be taxed?
Gifts already can attract tax in the UK, although it is convoluted and IHT. As I would simplify taxation and merge income tax and IHT (and NICs and many others) together, then I would say yes, above the gift allowance. A gift allowance makes sense.
A repaid loan is not income, it is your own money being repaid, so patently the answer is no.
You said, “The argument should stop when it comes to getting any money into your bank account.” I’m glad you now acknowledge that you don’t mean that.
If you have a gift allowance, you are also treating one income differently from another. Again, I’m glad you are now resiling from your earlier absolutism.
Also prizes are subject to tax, usually.
Hence the comments from Andy Peters on the ITV competion in the morning, ‘it’s totally tax free cash’
Are prizes normally subject to tax? I know many countries tax prizes, and betting winnings and even gifts are taxed (including in the supposedly low-tax USA) but we do not tax the last two, and lottery and television contest winnings are given tax free. Are you saying the prize giver makes a tax settlement with HMRC behind the scenes?
McSweeney: "The first person who put Mandelson's name forward was Mandelson."
So the official line is “A bigger boy did it and ran away”
All down the chain.
I have frequently observed that the #NU10K love Blame Tree. Blame cascades down, without anyone getting wet.
Some Japanese temples use overlapping roofs to create an almost musical sound as rain cascades from one to the next.
Blame Tree is less melodious - the trick there is for blame to run off your shoulders, onto the shoulders of the next person down. And then they do the same.
Unless, of course, they are a Prole. In which case pissing on them is just AOK.
Note that a chunk of the anger at Starmer is for landing blame’s on subordinates *heads*, not their shoulders. So they can’t pass the blame onto their juniors, in The Proper Style.
Why do you blame your pet #NU10K for things seen in all organisations and contexts? It's a rare few who rush to claim blame for themselves!
It’s a pattern at the top of public life. The OLD10K used to play the same game. Unless someone pulled their socks up.
We need to improve things, otherwise what is the point of democracy?
Given how much more successful Burnham’s Manchester is than Starmer’s UK, Manchester should take over London and become the capital. Divert Eurostar so that is runs from Manchester. Londoners can catch a connecting train to Piccadilly to travel to Europe. Cancel HS2 south of Birmingham and build it from Birmingham to Manchester and Leeds. Any Westminster government officials and apply for jobs in Manchester or become redundant. Replace the OLD10K and the NU10K with the NORTH10K.
The problem with that idea is that Burnham hasn’t got expertise in making the hard decisions - tax vs spend.
He can endorse free unicorns for all (or ignore bond markets) because he doesn’t have tax raising powers.
This is why he is liked on the left of the Labour Party - no one likes people who say no to free unicorns.
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
I still believe pensioner-hate was seeded by Russian trolls. It worked. It's now mainstream. One chap recently suggested ditching the triple lock and making pensioners survive on NMW, which would of course double the pension.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the age where I shall be a millionaire pensioner. Does the government send a cheque or a wheelbarrow-load of doubloons?
The state pension system is beyond the wheelbarrow stage and, in my experience works reasonably well in admin terms.
What doesn't work is the current debate. Very wealthy pensioners don't need it at all, the massive middling sort - most people - need it because they have legitimately planned around it. £12,500 (£25K for couples) off an income of £1m is not much. Take it off £30-70K and it's a lot.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
Step one should be to tax (including NI as tax) pensioners by the same system as workers. A fundamental rule should be that working never attracts higher tax rates than not working. And this should apply to benefits junkies too.
If someone’s only income is benefits and then you tax those benefits, then the money is just going around in a small circle. What’s the point of that?
The point of taxability is effective benefit withdrawal as people who are receiving them get richer.
Treat all benefits as income and tax all income the same.
For admins sake, fix the personal tax allowance to the state pension.
Taxation systems go through cycles of simplification (like "tax all income the same") and then complexification (because life is complex and there are lots of reasons for specific rules). There are obvious reasons not to tax all income the same, which is why we don't. Disability living allowance, for example, is meant to cover specific costs, so why tax it?
Because the state needs paying for.
Going to work is meant to cover specific costs, like buying food and paying for shelter.
We tax it because the state needs paying for.
All income should be treated exactly the same.
We tax because the state needs paying for, but we're talking about taxing benefits from the state, so the money is just going around in a small circle. You have not engaged with the specific example given. Why tax something like Personal Independence Payment?
I have engaged, you just don't like the answer.
It should be taxed for the same reason that all other income is taxed.
Yes it is somewhat circular, but you can make the same argument about levying income tax on employees of the state too, though it'd only be a closed circle if we have flat taxes with a flat tax rate, which we don't.
You’re just speaking in tautologies. It should all be taxed the same because it should all be taxed the same, is your argument. Some incomes are not like other incomes!
Where does your argument stop? Some people get prescriptions for free. That’s a benefit. Should we tax that?
Should payouts under the Post Office compensation schemes be taxed?
It seems only fair. If the Post Office managers’ bonuses were taxed, surely the little people should also be taxed.
Things that seem manifestly unfair - charging wrongfully convicted prisoners board and lodging for their time as guests of her/his majesty.
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
I still believe pensioner-hate was seeded by Russian trolls. It worked. It's now mainstream. One chap recently suggested ditching the triple lock and making pensioners survive on NMW, which would of course double the pension.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the age where I shall be a millionaire pensioner. Does the government send a cheque or a wheelbarrow-load of doubloons?
The state pension system is beyond the wheelbarrow stage and, in my experience works reasonably well in admin terms.
What doesn't work is the current debate. Very wealthy pensioners don't need it at all, the massive middling sort - most people - need it because they have legitimately planned around it. £12,500 (£25K for couples) off an income of £1m is not much. Take it off £30-70K and it's a lot.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
Step one should be to tax (including NI as tax) pensioners by the same system as workers. A fundamental rule should be that working never attracts higher tax rates than not working. And this should apply to benefits junkies too.
If someone’s only income is benefits and then you tax those benefits, then the money is just going around in a small circle. What’s the point of that?
The point of taxability is effective benefit withdrawal as people who are receiving them get richer.
Treat all benefits as income and tax all income the same.
For admins sake, fix the personal tax allowance to the state pension.
Taxation systems go through cycles of simplification (like "tax all income the same") and then complexification (because life is complex and there are lots of reasons for specific rules). There are obvious reasons not to tax all income the same, which is why we don't. Disability living allowance, for example, is meant to cover specific costs, so why tax it?
Because the state needs paying for.
Going to work is meant to cover specific costs, like buying food and paying for shelter.
We tax it because the state needs paying for.
All income should be treated exactly the same.
We tax because the state needs paying for, but we're talking about taxing benefits from the state, so the money is just going around in a small circle. You have not engaged with the specific example given. Why tax something like Personal Independence Payment?
I have engaged, you just don't like the answer.
It should be taxed for the same reason that all other income is taxed.
Yes it is somewhat circular, but you can make the same argument about levying income tax on employees of the state too, though it'd only be a closed circle if we have flat taxes with a flat tax rate, which we don't.
You’re just speaking in tautologies. It should all be taxed the same because it should all be taxed the same, is your argument. Some incomes are not like other incomes!
Where does your argument stop? Some people get prescriptions for free. That’s a benefit. Should we tax that?
Should payouts under the Post Office compensation schemes be taxed?
It seems only fair. If the Post Office managers’ bonuses were taxed, surely the little people should also be taxed.
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
I still believe pensioner-hate was seeded by Russian trolls. It worked. It's now mainstream. One chap recently suggested ditching the triple lock and making pensioners survive on NMW, which would of course double the pension.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the age where I shall be a millionaire pensioner. Does the government send a cheque or a wheelbarrow-load of doubloons?
The state pension system is beyond the wheelbarrow stage and, in my experience works reasonably well in admin terms.
What doesn't work is the current debate. Very wealthy pensioners don't need it at all, the massive middling sort - most people - need it because they have legitimately planned around it. £12,500 (£25K for couples) off an income of £1m is not much. Take it off £30-70K and it's a lot.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
Step one should be to tax (including NI as tax) pensioners by the same system as workers. A fundamental rule should be that working never attracts higher tax rates than not working. And this should apply to benefits junkies too.
If someone’s only income is benefits and then you tax those benefits, then the money is just going around in a small circle. What’s the point of that?
The point of taxability is effective benefit withdrawal as people who are receiving them get richer.
Treat all benefits as income and tax all income the same.
For admins sake, fix the personal tax allowance to the state pension.
Taxation systems go through cycles of simplification (like "tax all income the same") and then complexification (because life is complex and there are lots of reasons for specific rules). There are obvious reasons not to tax all income the same, which is why we don't. Disability living allowance, for example, is meant to cover specific costs, so why tax it?
Because the state needs paying for.
Going to work is meant to cover specific costs, like buying food and paying for shelter.
We tax it because the state needs paying for.
All income should be treated exactly the same.
We tax because the state needs paying for, but we're talking about taxing benefits from the state, so the money is just going around in a small circle. You have not engaged with the specific example given. Why tax something like Personal Independence Payment?
I have engaged, you just don't like the answer.
It should be taxed for the same reason that all other income is taxed.
Yes it is somewhat circular, but you can make the same argument about levying income tax on employees of the state too, though it'd only be a closed circle if we have flat taxes with a flat tax rate, which we don't.
You’re just speaking in tautologies. It should all be taxed the same because it should all be taxed the same, is your argument. Some incomes are not like other incomes!
Where does your argument stop? Some people get prescriptions for free. That’s a benefit. Should we tax that?
The argument should stop when it comes to getting any money into your bank account.
Whatever money you receive, from whatever source, should be taxed at the same rate.
No income should ever be taxed less than going to work and earning it yourself is taxed. Or more importantly going to earn a living should never be taxed more than others get taxed without going to work.
If my Mum gave me £50 as a birthday present, should that have been taxed?
If I lent someone £1000 and they re-paid me, should that be taxed?
Gifts already can attract tax in the UK, although it is convoluted and IHT. As I would simplify taxation and merge income tax and IHT (and NICs and many others) together, then I would say yes, above the gift allowance. A gift allowance makes sense.
A repaid loan is not income, it is your own money being repaid, so patently the answer is no.
You said, “The argument should stop when it comes to getting any money into your bank account.” I’m glad you now acknowledge that you don’t mean that.
If you have a gift allowance, you are also treating one income differently from another. Again, I’m glad you are now resiling from your earlier absolutism.
Also prizes are subject to tax, usually.
Hence the comments from Andy Peters on the ITV competion in the morning, ‘it’s totally tax free cash’
Are prizes normally subject to tax? I know many countries tax prizes, and betting winnings and even gifts are taxed (including in the supposedly low-tax USA) but we do not tax the last two, and lottery and television contest winnings are given tax free. Are you saying the prize giver makes a tax settlement with HMRC behind the scenes?
Underdiscussed trend that shows up in The Economist's new poll tracker - Lib Dems voters going Green. It's their biggest single bleed off since the 2024 election, now at 17 pc and apparently on upward trajectory.
A few weeks back I wrote about this in Morning Call - LDs having their lunch stolen by the Grns in urban areas where they were once the natural progressive alternative to Labour
I mentioned it on here that the Lib Dems in Sheffield are losing votes to the Greens.
This ward in Newcastle has voted 45% LD back to 2018. All the signage is for the Greens. No evidence of LD at all other than a solitary Focus leaflet (which was regular even during non election time).
What’s your feeling now for the toon in the locals ? Reform ? green/lab coalition.
I cycled through it today and saw no literature or posters at all.
A cataclysm for Labour. Greens to do very well. Still fear Reform may squeak through on very split voting in many places. Enough to win? Not favourite, but far from implausible
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
I still believe pensioner-hate was seeded by Russian trolls. It worked. It's now mainstream. One chap recently suggested ditching the triple lock and making pensioners survive on NMW, which would of course double the pension.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the age where I shall be a millionaire pensioner. Does the government send a cheque or a wheelbarrow-load of doubloons?
The state pension system is beyond the wheelbarrow stage and, in my experience works reasonably well in admin terms.
What doesn't work is the current debate. Very wealthy pensioners don't need it at all, the massive middling sort - most people - need it because they have legitimately planned around it. £12,500 (£25K for couples) off an income of £1m is not much. Take it off £30-70K and it's a lot.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
Step one should be to tax (including NI as tax) pensioners by the same system as workers. A fundamental rule should be that working never attracts higher tax rates than not working. And this should apply to benefits junkies too.
If someone’s only income is benefits and then you tax those benefits, then the money is just going around in a small circle. What’s the point of that?
The point of taxability is effective benefit withdrawal as people who are receiving them get richer.
Treat all benefits as income and tax all income the same.
For admins sake, fix the personal tax allowance to the state pension.
Taxation systems go through cycles of simplification (like "tax all income the same") and then complexification (because life is complex and there are lots of reasons for specific rules). There are obvious reasons not to tax all income the same, which is why we don't. Disability living allowance, for example, is meant to cover specific costs, so why tax it?
Because the state needs paying for.
Going to work is meant to cover specific costs, like buying food and paying for shelter.
We tax it because the state needs paying for.
All income should be treated exactly the same.
We tax because the state needs paying for, but we're talking about taxing benefits from the state, so the money is just going around in a small circle. You have not engaged with the specific example given. Why tax something like Personal Independence Payment?
I have engaged, you just don't like the answer.
It should be taxed for the same reason that all other income is taxed.
Yes it is somewhat circular, but you can make the same argument about levying income tax on employees of the state too, though it'd only be a closed circle if we have flat taxes with a flat tax rate, which we don't.
You’re just speaking in tautologies. It should all be taxed the same because it should all be taxed the same, is your argument. Some incomes are not like other incomes!
Where does your argument stop? Some people get prescriptions for free. That’s a benefit. Should we tax that?
The argument should stop when it comes to getting any money into your bank account.
Whatever money you receive, from whatever source, should be taxed at the same rate.
No income should ever be taxed less than going to work and earning it yourself is taxed. Or more importantly going to earn a living should never be taxed more than others get taxed without going to work.
If my Mum gave me £50 as a birthday present, should that have been taxed?
If I lent someone £1000 and they re-paid me, should that be taxed?
Gifts already can attract tax in the UK, although it is convoluted and IHT. As I would simplify taxation and merge income tax and IHT (and NICs and many others) together, then I would say yes, above the gift allowance. A gift allowance makes sense.
A repaid loan is not income, it is your own money being repaid, so patently the answer is no.
You said, “The argument should stop when it comes to getting any money into your bank account.” I’m glad you now acknowledge that you don’t mean that.
If you have a gift allowance, you are also treating one income differently from another. Again, I’m glad you are now resiling from your earlier absolutism.
Also prizes are subject to tax, usually.
Hence the comments from Andy Peters on the ITV competion in the morning, ‘it’s totally tax free cash’
Are prizes normally subject to tax? I know many countries tax prizes, and betting winnings and even gifts are taxed (including in the supposedly low-tax USA) but we do not tax the last two, and lottery and television contest winnings are given tax free. Are you saying the prize giver makes a tax settlement with HMRC behind the scenes?
It depends. If it was exempt an employer could offer their 1000 workers the chance to enter a competition with individual 999 tax free salaries up for grabs max 1 per person.
This is not advice but roughly:
Genuine Lottery Type prizes - tax free. Employer related - typically taxed. Skill based (golf tournament etc) - badges of trade test on recipient.
It is quite often the case that local Councils run a policy of telling them that they will not be considered homeless until they spin out the process until evicted by High Court Bailiffs - which can be an extra "up to 11 months" currently.
That means that the extra months are at the LLs expense, not the Council's, that the tenant credit rating is wrecked for 6 or more years, and that their life is in a bigger mess than would otherwise be the case.
OTOH they could be a so called "professional tenant".
McSweeney: "The first person who put Mandelson's name forward was Mandelson."
So the official line is “A bigger boy did it and ran away”
All down the chain.
I have frequently observed that the #NU10K love Blame Tree. Blame cascades down, without anyone getting wet.
Some Japanese temples use overlapping roofs to create an almost musical sound as rain cascades from one to the next.
Blame Tree is less melodious - the trick there is for blame to run off your shoulders, onto the shoulders of the next person down. And then they do the same.
Unless, of course, they are a Prole. In which case pissing on them is just AOK.
Note that a chunk of the anger at Starmer is for landing blame’s on subordinates *heads*, not their shoulders. So they can’t pass the blame onto their juniors, in The Proper Style.
Why do you blame your pet #NU10K for things seen in all organisations and contexts? It's a rare few who rush to claim blame for themselves!
It’s a pattern at the top of public life. The OLD10K used to play the same game. Unless someone pulled their socks up.
We need to improve things, otherwise what is the point of democracy?
Given how much more successful Burnham’s Manchester is than Starmer’s UK, Manchester should take over London and become the capital. Divert Eurostar so that is runs from Manchester. Londoners can catch a connecting train to Piccadilly to travel to Europe. Cancel HS2 south of Birmingham and build it from Birmingham to Manchester and Leeds. Any Westminster government officials and apply for jobs in Manchester or become redundant. Replace the OLD10K and the NU10K with the NORTH10K.
The problem with that idea is that Burnham hasn’t got expertise in making the hard decisions - tax vs spend.
He can endorse free unicorns for all (or ignore bond markets) because he doesn’t have tax raising powers.
This is why he is liked on the left of the Labour Party - no one likes people who say no to free unicorns.
Is that a step up on Owls? Is this Miliband's new line?
McSweeney: "The first person who put Mandelson's name forward was Mandelson."
So the official line is “A bigger boy did it and ran away”
All down the chain.
I have frequently observed that the #NU10K love Blame Tree. Blame cascades down, without anyone getting wet.
Some Japanese temples use overlapping roofs to create an almost musical sound as rain cascades from one to the next.
Blame Tree is less melodious - the trick there is for blame to run off your shoulders, onto the shoulders of the next person down. And then they do the same.
Unless, of course, they are a Prole. In which case pissing on them is just AOK.
Note that a chunk of the anger at Starmer is for landing blame’s on subordinates *heads*, not their shoulders. So they can’t pass the blame onto their juniors, in The Proper Style.
Why do you blame your pet #NU10K for things seen in all organisations and contexts? It's a rare few who rush to claim blame for themselves!
It’s a pattern at the top of public life. The OLD10K used to play the same game. Unless someone pulled their socks up.
We need to improve things, otherwise what is the point of democracy?
Given how much more successful Burnham’s Manchester is than Starmer’s UK, Manchester should take over London and become the capital. Divert Eurostar so that is runs from Manchester. Londoners can catch a connecting train to Piccadilly to travel to Europe. Cancel HS2 south of Birmingham and build it from Birmingham to Manchester and Leeds. Any Westminster government officials and apply for jobs in Manchester or become redundant. Replace the OLD10K and the NU10K with the NORTH10K.
The problem with that idea is that Burnham hasn’t got expertise in making the hard decisions - tax vs spend.
He can endorse free unicorns for all (or ignore bond markets) because he doesn’t have tax raising powers.
This is why he is liked on the left of the Labour Party - no one likes people who say no to free unicorns.
Westminster have given us ample evidence over the past 20 years and more that they also have no expertise in making the hard decisions. Manchester couldn’t possibly do worse.
McSweeney: "The first person who put Mandelson's name forward was Mandelson."
So the official line is “A bigger boy did it and ran away”
All down the chain.
I have frequently observed that the #NU10K love Blame Tree. Blame cascades down, without anyone getting wet.
Some Japanese temples use overlapping roofs to create an almost musical sound as rain cascades from one to the next.
Blame Tree is less melodious - the trick there is for blame to run off your shoulders, onto the shoulders of the next person down. And then they do the same.
Unless, of course, they are a Prole. In which case pissing on them is just AOK.
Note that a chunk of the anger at Starmer is for landing blame’s on subordinates *heads*, not their shoulders. So they can’t pass the blame onto their juniors, in The Proper Style.
Why do you blame your pet #NU10K for things seen in all organisations and contexts? It's a rare few who rush to claim blame for themselves!
It’s a pattern at the top of public life. The OLD10K used to play the same game. Unless someone pulled their socks up.
We need to improve things, otherwise what is the point of democracy?
Given how much more successful Burnham’s Manchester is than Starmer’s UK, Manchester should take over London and become the capital. Divert Eurostar so that is runs from Manchester. Londoners can catch a connecting train to Piccadilly to travel to Europe. Cancel HS2 south of Birmingham and build it from Birmingham to Manchester and Leeds. Any Westminster government officials and apply for jobs in Manchester or become redundant. Replace the OLD10K and the NU10K with the NORTH10K.
The problem with that idea is that Burnham hasn’t got expertise in making the hard decisions - tax vs spend.
He can endorse free unicorns for all (or ignore bond markets) because he doesn’t have tax raising powers.
This is why he is liked on the left of the Labour Party - no one likes people who say no to free unicorns.
Westminster have given us ample evidence over the past 20 years and more that they also have no expertise in making the hard decisions. Manchester couldn’t possibly do worse.
BREAKING: The United Arab Emirates said it quit OPEC and OPEC+, dealing a heavy blow to the oil exporting groups and their de facto leader, Saudi Arabia, at a time when the Iran war has caused a historic energy shock and unsettled the global economy
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
I still believe pensioner-hate was seeded by Russian trolls. It worked. It's now mainstream. One chap recently suggested ditching the triple lock and making pensioners survive on NMW, which would of course double the pension.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the age where I shall be a millionaire pensioner. Does the government send a cheque or a wheelbarrow-load of doubloons?
The state pension system is beyond the wheelbarrow stage and, in my experience works reasonably well in admin terms.
What doesn't work is the current debate. Very wealthy pensioners don't need it at all, the massive middling sort - most people - need it because they have legitimately planned around it. £12,500 (£25K for couples) off an income of £1m is not much. Take it off £30-70K and it's a lot.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
Step one should be to tax (including NI as tax) pensioners by the same system as workers. A fundamental rule should be that working never attracts higher tax rates than not working. And this should apply to benefits junkies too.
If someone’s only income is benefits and then you tax those benefits, then the money is just going around in a small circle. What’s the point of that?
The point of taxability is effective benefit withdrawal as people who are receiving them get richer.
Treat all benefits as income and tax all income the same.
For admins sake, fix the personal tax allowance to the state pension.
Taxation systems go through cycles of simplification (like "tax all income the same") and then complexification (because life is complex and there are lots of reasons for specific rules). There are obvious reasons not to tax all income the same, which is why we don't. Disability living allowance, for example, is meant to cover specific costs, so why tax it?
Because the state needs paying for.
Going to work is meant to cover specific costs, like buying food and paying for shelter.
We tax it because the state needs paying for.
All income should be treated exactly the same.
We tax because the state needs paying for, but we're talking about taxing benefits from the state, so the money is just going around in a small circle. You have not engaged with the specific example given. Why tax something like Personal Independence Payment?
I have engaged, you just don't like the answer.
It should be taxed for the same reason that all other income is taxed.
Yes it is somewhat circular, but you can make the same argument about levying income tax on employees of the state too, though it'd only be a closed circle if we have flat taxes with a flat tax rate, which we don't.
You’re just speaking in tautologies. It should all be taxed the same because it should all be taxed the same, is your argument. Some incomes are not like other incomes!
Where does your argument stop? Some people get prescriptions for free. That’s a benefit. Should we tax that?
Should payouts under the Post Office compensation schemes be taxed?
It seems only fair. If the Post Office managers’ bonuses were taxed, surely the little people should also be taxed.
But their bonuses were income. Compensation isn’t
Should redundancy pay offs be taxed ?
You and Turbotubbs don’t have the proper NU10K mindset. You will need to be sent for reeducation.
A driver was caught on his own dashcam punching another motorist unconscious in an "extremely aggressive and shocking" case of road rage.
The victim had suddenly stopped his car in Llanrwst, Conwy, in June because he thought something was wrong with it.
Caernarfon Crown Court was shown footage of John Lee getting out of his car and shouting, "what are you doing?" before punching the victim in front of his wife, children and elderly parents.
O/t, but how come the BBC is able to have a headline like this 'Russian superyacht sails through Strait of Hormuz despite blockade.'
Possibly with it's (sanctioned) billionaire owner on board. I can understand the Iranians letting it through, but I thought Trump's navy was on blockade duty as well?
The US navy is blockading Iranian ports, trying to stop their oil getting out.
The Iranians are supposedly blocking the Straight, but quite a lot of traffic has been getting through, especially that not related to O&G or container trade.
Not according to Lloyds List. Just 9 non-Iranian ships made it through Hormuz last week. There were 150 transits per day before the war.
I assume the 20 odd Iranian related ships were picked up by the Americans in the Indian Ocean
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
I still believe pensioner-hate was seeded by Russian trolls. It worked. It's now mainstream. One chap recently suggested ditching the triple lock and making pensioners survive on NMW, which would of course double the pension.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the age where I shall be a millionaire pensioner. Does the government send a cheque or a wheelbarrow-load of doubloons?
The state pension system is beyond the wheelbarrow stage and, in my experience works reasonably well in admin terms.
What doesn't work is the current debate. Very wealthy pensioners don't need it at all, the massive middling sort - most people - need it because they have legitimately planned around it. £12,500 (£25K for couples) off an income of £1m is not much. Take it off £30-70K and it's a lot.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
Step one should be to tax (including NI as tax) pensioners by the same system as workers. A fundamental rule should be that working never attracts higher tax rates than not working. And this should apply to benefits junkies too.
If someone’s only income is benefits and then you tax those benefits, then the money is just going around in a small circle. What’s the point of that?
The point of taxability is effective benefit withdrawal as people who are receiving them get richer.
Treat all benefits as income and tax all income the same.
For admins sake, fix the personal tax allowance to the state pension.
Taxation systems go through cycles of simplification (like "tax all income the same") and then complexification (because life is complex and there are lots of reasons for specific rules). There are obvious reasons not to tax all income the same, which is why we don't. Disability living allowance, for example, is meant to cover specific costs, so why tax it?
Because the state needs paying for.
Going to work is meant to cover specific costs, like buying food and paying for shelter.
We tax it because the state needs paying for.
All income should be treated exactly the same.
We tax because the state needs paying for, but we're talking about taxing benefits from the state, so the money is just going around in a small circle. You have not engaged with the specific example given. Why tax something like Personal Independence Payment?
I have engaged, you just don't like the answer.
It should be taxed for the same reason that all other income is taxed.
Yes it is somewhat circular, but you can make the same argument about levying income tax on employees of the state too, though it'd only be a closed circle if we have flat taxes with a flat tax rate, which we don't.
You’re just speaking in tautologies. It should all be taxed the same because it should all be taxed the same, is your argument. Some incomes are not like other incomes!
Where does your argument stop? Some people get prescriptions for free. That’s a benefit. Should we tax that?
Should payouts under the Post Office compensation schemes be taxed?
It seems only fair. If the Post Office managers’ bonuses were taxed, surely the little people should also be taxed.
But their bonuses were income. Compensation isn’t
Should redundancy pay offs be taxed ?
The answer is here if you want to search. Then you have to cross reference with any new legislation / court decisions that might affect it.
EXCL: John McDonnell will be voting in favour of the motion to refer the PM to the Privileges Committee.
Separately, I'm told other Labour MPs are concerned about having the whip suspended if they vote against the three-line whip. Labour won't tell me whether that is the case or not.
Apsana Begum (who got the Labour whip back in September) will also be voting for the motion.
EXCL: John McDonnell will be voting in favour of the motion to refer the PM to the Privileges Committee.
Separately, I'm told other Labour MPs are concerned about having the whip suspended if they vote against the three-line whip. Labour won't tell me whether that is the case or not.
Apsana Begum (who got the Labour whip back in September) will also be voting for the motion.
Underdiscussed trend that shows up in The Economist's new poll tracker - Lib Dems voters going Green. It's their biggest single bleed off since the 2024 election, now at 17 pc and apparently on upward trajectory.
A few weeks back I wrote about this in Morning Call - LDs having their lunch stolen by the Grns in urban areas where they were once the natural progressive alternative to Labour
I told you! I've been telling you this for weeks! It's an attention economy and the LDs arent generating the clicks, so to speak. Keeping your head down and hoping nobody notices you doesn't work, and @RochdalePioneers and @stodge murmuring "Well, we have a lot in common with the Conservatives" does not help.
Anyone remember @Charles (not the king)? There was a Charles Hoare commenting on BP's quarterly results on the Today programme this morning. Same bloke? Possibly not - Charles's area of expertise was health sector related as I recall
Last active on PB in May 2022, apparently.
Isn't it poor form to dox even former PBers ?
(As I recall, that was what prompted his flounce in the first place.)
Maybe but didn't he sort of dox himself with what he posted?
I liked @Charles, at least to an extent: our lives were so different there were few points of contract. He was an endless source of info/gossip about old English money and their society and I liked listening to him. But he was appallingly indiscreet about his personal identity and his family's. He even gave his father's detailed obituary.
It drives me scatty when people give their personal details: at best it's unnecessary, at worst it's dangerous. @Charles gave so much information you could have walked up to his front door and posted birthday cards.
Surely if he was as smart @squareroot2 suggested it was a conscious choice to be open rather than indiscreet?
Underdiscussed trend that shows up in The Economist's new poll tracker - Lib Dems voters going Green. It's their biggest single bleed off since the 2024 election, now at 17 pc and apparently on upward trajectory.
A few weeks back I wrote about this in Morning Call - LDs having their lunch stolen by the Grns in urban areas where they were once the natural progressive alternative to Labour
I told you! I've been telling you this for weeks! It's an attention economy and the LDs arent generating the clicks, so to speak. Keeping your head down and hoping nobody notices you doesn't work, and @RochdalePioneers and @stodge murmuring "Well, we have a lot in common with the Conservatives" does not help.
I’ve been saying this to Lib Dem’s here who think the solution was to love bomb the greens not fight them.
They are not constrained to OPEC supply cartel rules, they will produce more than they otherwise would. Globsal supply will increase slightly to the counterfactual. This will make the price lower than it otherwise would have been so it is of benefit to any country that is a net oil consumer.
Other factors will outweigh this but those are happening if the UAE is either outside or inside OPEC.
A driver was caught on his own dashcam punching another motorist unconscious in an "extremely aggressive and shocking" case of road rage.
The victim had suddenly stopped his car in Llanrwst, Conwy, in June because he thought something was wrong with it.
Caernarfon Crown Court was shown footage of John Lee getting out of his car and shouting, "what are you doing?" before punching the victim in front of his wife, children and elderly parents.
My Garmin ran out this morning just before a very close pass from a 21 bus.
Sadly I cannot report it on the Police website but I have messaged Go North East and Northumberland Police and DMd them details. The bus has rear cameras.
Listening to the privileges debate in the house there are a number of Labour mps expressing concern they will forever be labelled as preventing the house looking into the PM and objecting to being whipped into voting
It is so obvious that it will be interesting to see just how many vote for notwithstanding that threat
Listening to the privileges debate in the house there are a number of Labour mps expressing concern they will forever be labelled as preventing the house looking into the PM and objecting to being whipped into voting
It is so obvious that it will be interesting to see just how many vote for notwithstanding that threat
Not a good day to be a labour mp
Were I a Labour MP I would be voting for the privilege's committee to do their job because SKS has been clear that he's done nothing wrong so what is the problem.
The Lib Dems have transitioned from None of the Above to One of the Above.
You can only go so far by pointing at potholes and dog turds.
I think if Davey now fails to have a good night in the Tory/LD battlegrounds (some protest votes go to the Greens) he could be a casualty of these elections.
What might save him is the Reform protest vote taking more from the Tories.
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
I still believe pensioner-hate was seeded by Russian trolls. It worked. It's now mainstream. One chap recently suggested ditching the triple lock and making pensioners survive on NMW, which would of course double the pension.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the age where I shall be a millionaire pensioner. Does the government send a cheque or a wheelbarrow-load of doubloons?
The state pension system is beyond the wheelbarrow stage and, in my experience works reasonably well in admin terms.
What doesn't work is the current debate. Very wealthy pensioners don't need it at all, the massive middling sort - most people - need it because they have legitimately planned around it. £12,500 (£25K for couples) off an income of £1m is not much. Take it off £30-70K and it's a lot.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
Step one should be to tax (including NI as tax) pensioners by the same system as workers. A fundamental rule should be that working never attracts higher tax rates than not working. And this should apply to benefits junkies too.
If someone’s only income is benefits and then you tax those benefits, then the money is just going around in a small circle. What’s the point of that?
The point of taxability is effective benefit withdrawal as people who are receiving them get richer.
Treat all benefits as income and tax all income the same.
For admins sake, fix the personal tax allowance to the state pension.
Taxation systems go through cycles of simplification (like "tax all income the same") and then complexification (because life is complex and there are lots of reasons for specific rules). There are obvious reasons not to tax all income the same, which is why we don't. Disability living allowance, for example, is meant to cover specific costs, so why tax it?
Because the state needs paying for.
Going to work is meant to cover specific costs, like buying food and paying for shelter.
We tax it because the state needs paying for.
All income should be treated exactly the same.
We tax because the state needs paying for, but we're talking about taxing benefits from the state, so the money is just going around in a small circle. You have not engaged with the specific example given. Why tax something like Personal Independence Payment?
I have engaged, you just don't like the answer.
It should be taxed for the same reason that all other income is taxed.
Yes it is somewhat circular, but you can make the same argument about levying income tax on employees of the state too, though it'd only be a closed circle if we have flat taxes with a flat tax rate, which we don't.
You’re just speaking in tautologies. It should all be taxed the same because it should all be taxed the same, is your argument. Some incomes are not like other incomes!
Where does your argument stop? Some people get prescriptions for free. That’s a benefit. Should we tax that?
The argument should stop when it comes to getting any money into your bank account.
Whatever money you receive, from whatever source, should be taxed at the same rate.
No income should ever be taxed less than going to work and earning it yourself is taxed. Or more importantly going to earn a living should never be taxed more than others get taxed without going to work.
If my Mum gave me £50 as a birthday present, should that have been taxed?
If I lent someone £1000 and they re-paid me, should that be taxed?
now you are getting silly, you did not earn that £50 and she has likely already paid tax on it. If you had dug her garden and charged £50 then yes.
Listening to the privileges debate in the house there are a number of Labour mps expressing concern they will forever be labelled as preventing the house looking into the PM and objecting to being whipped into voting
It is so obvious that it will be interesting to see just how many vote for notwithstanding that threat
Not a good day to be a labour mp
Starmer should have lanced the boil and referred himself.
Labour lose the politics of the day if it goes to a vote, whatever the outcome.
Kemi Badenoch: Triple lock pension is actually very little money for many to live on
In an exclusive interview, the Conservative leader defends the triple lock as essential for pensioners - and dismisses rival Farage's commitment as 'just words'
I still believe pensioner-hate was seeded by Russian trolls. It worked. It's now mainstream. One chap recently suggested ditching the triple lock and making pensioners survive on NMW, which would of course double the pension.
Anyway, I'm getting towards the age where I shall be a millionaire pensioner. Does the government send a cheque or a wheelbarrow-load of doubloons?
The state pension system is beyond the wheelbarrow stage and, in my experience works reasonably well in admin terms.
What doesn't work is the current debate. Very wealthy pensioners don't need it at all, the massive middling sort - most people - need it because they have legitimately planned around it. £12,500 (£25K for couples) off an income of £1m is not much. Take it off £30-70K and it's a lot.
For those with nothing else, except benefit top up and other exemptions, it is still close to proper poverty.
Step one should be to tax (including NI as tax) pensioners by the same system as workers. A fundamental rule should be that working never attracts higher tax rates than not working. And this should apply to benefits junkies too.
If someone’s only income is benefits and then you tax those benefits, then the money is just going around in a small circle. What’s the point of that?
The point of taxability is effective benefit withdrawal as people who are receiving them get richer.
Treat all benefits as income and tax all income the same.
For admins sake, fix the personal tax allowance to the state pension.
Taxation systems go through cycles of simplification (like "tax all income the same") and then complexification (because life is complex and there are lots of reasons for specific rules). There are obvious reasons not to tax all income the same, which is why we don't. Disability living allowance, for example, is meant to cover specific costs, so why tax it?
Because the state needs paying for.
Going to work is meant to cover specific costs, like buying food and paying for shelter.
We tax it because the state needs paying for.
All income should be treated exactly the same.
We tax because the state needs paying for, but we're talking about taxing benefits from the state, so the money is just going around in a small circle. You have not engaged with the specific example given. Why tax something like Personal Independence Payment?
I have engaged, you just don't like the answer.
It should be taxed for the same reason that all other income is taxed.
Yes it is somewhat circular, but you can make the same argument about levying income tax on employees of the state too, though it'd only be a closed circle if we have flat taxes with a flat tax rate, which we don't.
You’re just speaking in tautologies. It should all be taxed the same because it should all be taxed the same, is your argument. Some incomes are not like other incomes!
Where does your argument stop? Some people get prescriptions for free. That’s a benefit. Should we tax that?
Should payouts under the Post Office compensation schemes be taxed?
It seems only fair. If the Post Office managers’ bonuses were taxed, surely the little people should also be taxed.
Underdiscussed trend that shows up in The Economist's new poll tracker - Lib Dems voters going Green. It's their biggest single bleed off since the 2024 election, now at 17 pc and apparently on upward trajectory.
A few weeks back I wrote about this in Morning Call - LDs having their lunch stolen by the Grns in urban areas where they were once the natural progressive alternative to Labour
I told you! I've been telling you this for weeks! It's an attention economy and the LDs arent generating the clicks, so to speak. Keeping your head down and hoping nobody notices you doesn't work, and @RochdalePioneers and @stodge murmuring "Well, we have a lot in common with the Conservatives" does not help.
I’ve been saying this to Lib Dem’s here who think the solution was to love bomb the greens not fight them.
People will just vote green in that case.
I’ve heard this a few times on here, but which Lib Dem has been suggesting lovebombing the greens?
None of the usual ones I’m familiar with on PB. Most think they’re SWP loonies.
Listening to the privileges debate in the house there are a number of Labour mps expressing concern they will forever be labelled as preventing the house looking into the PM and objecting to being whipped into voting
It is so obvious that it will be interesting to see just how many vote for notwithstanding that threat
Not a good day to be a labour mp
Were I a Labour MP I would be voting for the privilege's committee to do their job because SKS has been clear that he's done nothing wrong so what is the problem.
That is the argument across the house
Not even Boris applied the whip when he was referred, and actually then lost his premiership
Underdiscussed trend that shows up in The Economist's new poll tracker - Lib Dems voters going Green. It's their biggest single bleed off since the 2024 election, now at 17 pc and apparently on upward trajectory.
A few weeks back I wrote about this in Morning Call - LDs having their lunch stolen by the Grns in urban areas where they were once the natural progressive alternative to Labour
I told you! I've been telling you this for weeks! It's an attention economy and the LDs arent generating the clicks, so to speak. Keeping your head down and hoping nobody notices you doesn't work, and @RochdalePioneers and @stodge murmuring "Well, we have a lot in common with the Conservatives" does not help.
I’ve been saying this to Lib Dem’s here who think the solution was to love bomb the greens not fight them.
People will just vote green in that case.
I’ve heard this a few times on here, but which Lib Dem has been suggesting lovebombing the greens?
None of the usual ones I’m familiar with on PB. Most think they’re SWP loonies.
It wont be the "actual" LDs. It will be the floating voters who considered LDs best alternative last time and Greens this time. Given its council elections they may well even vote for them if they consider them SWP loonies but are best placed as a protest vote vs Labour and/or Tories and/or Refuk.
Listening to the privileges debate in the house there are a number of Labour mps expressing concern they will forever be labelled as preventing the house looking into the PM and objecting to being whipped into voting
It is so obvious that it will be interesting to see just how many vote for notwithstanding that threat
Not a good day to be a labour mp
Were I a Labour MP I would be voting for the privilege's committee to do their job because SKS has been clear that he's done nothing wrong so what is the problem.
That is the argument across the house
Not even Boris applied the whip when he was referred, and actually then lost his premiership
Johnson applied the whip to vote to reject the report from the Privileges committee on his mate Owen Paterson. That was his first* big scandal, before Partygate, and before Pincher.
* Well, the first that did him any damage, anyway.
🚨 EXC: Britain’s ambassador to US has said that America’s only ‘special relationship’ is ‘probably Israel’
Christian Turner also said Keir Starmer was ‘clearly on the ropes’ earlier this year, & predicts Labour will ‘remove him’ if the party does ‘v badly’ in May elections
Comments
All the signage is for the Greens.
No evidence of LD at all other than a solitary Focus leaflet (which was regular even during non election time).
PS: you do not need to be severely disabled to be getting lareg amounts , the one the other week caught running around the world was getting well over 2K in her hand and free house , council tax etc due to anxiety. Based on that most of us should eb getting a shedload for anxiety over working and struggling to pay bills.
It should be taxed for the same reason that all other income is taxed.
Yes it is somewhat circular, but you can make the same argument about levying income tax on employees of the state too, though it'd only be a closed circle if we have flat taxes with a flat tax rate, which we don't.
People are voting Green because the structure of the economy is visibly broken for them and they don't blame immigration for it.
Not dissimilar to Brexit voters but from a 180° viewpoint.
Silly, perhaps, but it's no great effort to humour them.
IIRC back in 2015 there was some reticence to admit them to the Privy Council.
The Wodehouse crack about a ray of sunshine and a Scotsman with a grievance applied in spades to old RS.
Yes kids, the PIRA want to be investigated in a way that ends in no prosecution.
But why, you ask?
Consider the answer given to Mel Gibson in that Expendables film
“I am The Hague”
Where does your argument stop? Some people get prescriptions for free. That’s a benefit. Should we tax that?
Whatever money you receive, from whatever source, should be taxed at the same rate.
No income should ever be taxed less than going to work and earning it yourself is taxed. Or more importantly going to earn a living should never be taxed more than others get taxed without going to work.
You can only go so far by pointing at potholes and dog turds.
https://institute.global/insights/public-services/an-emergency-handbrake-for-uk-welfare-stabilising-spending-supporting-people
It took a week of people trying to explain it (hat tip Benpointer) before he worked it out, and ended his uncharacteristic and misplaced attack on motorists.
CATL says sodium batteries are mainstream-ready, signs massive 60 GWh deal
https://electrek.co/2026/04/27/catl-sodium-ion-battery-60gwh-energy-storage-deal/
Potentially huge implications for future electricity generation plans.
If I lent someone £1000 and they re-paid me, should that be taxed?
I cycled through it today and saw no literature or posters at all.
A repaid loan is not income, it is your own money being repaid, so patently the answer is no.
https://x.com/bbcnews/status/2049027495932936534?s=61
Reform to win.
If you have a gift allowance, you are also treating one income differently from another. Again, I’m glad you are now resiling from your earlier absolutism.
I cycled from Battle Hill to CLS and only saw one poster in a window
For Reform in Low Fell of all places. The last place I’d expect to see it.
Hence the comments from Andy Peters on the ITV competion in the morning, ‘it’s totally tax free cash’
Edited - I meant to say ‘not subject’ not ‘subject’ FFS
Not sure about my ward to be honest. It has changed so cannot directly compare to previous results.
Reasonably wealthy, severely disabled PBers receive PIP, not because they need the money, but because it’s designed to compensate for the costs of their disability.
It doesn’t taper with earnings or interact with other benefits and taxes. The point is to level the playing field. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to disagree with that approach tbh and I’m conflicted with it myself.
He can endorse free unicorns for all (or ignore bond markets) because he doesn’t have tax raising powers.
This is why he is liked on the left of the Labour Party - no one likes people who say no to free unicorns.
Should redundancy pay offs be taxed ?
They aren’t
Still fear Reform may squeak through on very split voting in many places.
Enough to win? Not favourite, but far from implausible
This is not advice but roughly:
Genuine Lottery Type prizes - tax free. Employer related - typically taxed. Skill based (golf tournament etc) - badges of trade test on recipient.
It is quite often the case that local Councils run a policy of telling them that they will not be considered homeless until they spin out the process until evicted by High Court Bailiffs - which can be an extra "up to 11 months" currently.
That means that the extra months are at the LLs expense, not the Council's, that the tenant credit rating is wrecked for 6 or more years, and that their life is in a bigger mess than would otherwise be the case.
OTOH they could be a so called "professional tenant".
BREAKING: The United Arab Emirates said it quit OPEC and OPEC+, dealing a heavy blow to the oil exporting groups and their de facto leader, Saudi Arabia, at a time when the Iran war has caused a historic energy shock and unsettled the global economy
A driver was caught on his own dashcam punching another motorist unconscious in an "extremely aggressive and shocking" case of road rage.
The victim had suddenly stopped his car in Llanrwst, Conwy, in June because he thought something was wrong with it.
Caernarfon Crown Court was shown footage of John Lee getting out of his car and shouting, "what are you doing?" before punching the victim in front of his wife, children and elderly parents.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj4px20wjeko
I assume the 20 odd Iranian related ships were picked up by the Americans in the Indian Ocean
https://www.lloydslist.com/LL1157022/Hormuz-transits-collapsed-last-week-after-brief-reopening
Enjoy.
https://www.gov.uk/find-hmrc-manuals
https://x.com/siennamarla/status/2049103057833615505
EXCL: John McDonnell will be voting in favour of the motion to refer the PM to the Privileges Committee.
Separately, I'm told other Labour MPs are concerned about having the whip suspended if they vote against the three-line whip. Labour won't tell me whether that is the case or not.
Apsana Begum (who got the Labour whip back in September) will also be voting for the motion.
https://x.com/edballs/status/63623585020915713?s=61
People will just vote green in that case.
Other factors will outweigh this but those are happening if the UAE is either outside or inside OPEC.
Sadly I cannot report it on the Police website but I have messaged Go North East and Northumberland Police and DMd them details. The bus has rear cameras.
Hopefully the bus driver will end up paying
It is so obvious that it will be interesting to see just how many vote for notwithstanding that threat
Not a good day to be a labour mp
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/may-2026/2026/04/labour-faces-a-local-election-wipeout-in-england
What might save him is the Reform protest vote taking more from the Tories.
Labour lose the politics of the day if it goes to a vote, whatever the outcome.
None of the usual ones I’m familiar with on PB. Most think they’re SWP loonies.
Not even Boris applied the whip when he was referred, and actually then lost his premiership
Con gain I reckon.
* Well, the first that did him any damage, anyway.
🚨 EXC: Britain’s ambassador to US has said that America’s only ‘special relationship’ is ‘probably Israel’
Christian Turner also said Keir Starmer was ‘clearly on the ropes’ earlier this year, & predicts Labour will ‘remove him’ if the party does ‘v badly’ in May elections
https://bsky.app/profile/lucyfisher.ft.com/post/3mkkpbr3w4k22
The UK ambo to US also criticised America’s political system for failing to hold US associates of Epstein to account
It’s ‘extraordinary’ the scandal ‘hasn’t touched anybody’ in US, he said
Leaked remarks from Feb risk embarrassing King during US visit
https://x.com/LOS_Fisher/status/2049121628894675371?s=20