FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > French Retirement age of 64
French Retirement age of 64
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Morning Are the French correct to stand up for their right to retire at an age they can enjoy life. We are 67 going tona probable 69 yet the average life expectancy is reducing. Should we be on the streets fighting for our rights!" Scrub that 62 going to 64... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Morning Are the French correct to stand up for their right to retire at an age they can enjoy life. We are 67 going tona probable 69 yet the average life expectancy is reducing. Should we be on the streets fighting for our rights!" Yes we should but it should not be an age it should be years worked. As some one going to Uni might not start work till 23 25, I started work at 16 so after 45 years I'll be 61 and happy to retire you only need 35 years NI to claim full state pension. According to Gov.uk | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Morning Are the French correct to stand up for their right to retire at an age they can enjoy life. We are 67 going tona probable 69 yet the average life expectancy is reducing. Should we be on the streets fighting for our rights!" The British don't do that kind of thing. We quietly accept what we're told and complain in the pub, the living rooms and social media platforms of the nation. That's how we've arrived at this point | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Morning Are the French correct to stand up for their right to retire at an age they can enjoy life. We are 67 going tona probable 69 yet the average life expectancy is reducing. Should we be on the streets fighting for our rights! Yes we should but it should not be an age it should be years worked. As some one going to Uni might not start work till 23 25, I started work at 16 so after 45 years I'll be 61 and happy to retire you only need 35 years NI to claim full state pension. According to Gov.uk" that's the frnch approach too. 42 years of work. Looks like the French are having similar funding challenges as us. There are less than 2 workers per retiree. That means (in simple terms) your taxes have to pay for half of someone's pension. That would mean a c 33pc tax rate just the pay pensions (Of course there are other taxes. And state pension is capped. ) It looks like the tax to pay pensions is over 15pc (split between employee and employer) UK NI is less and covers more than just pensions. That said I get why the French are striking. They ahev a stringer social contract than we Brits. So the effect of changes are going to have bigger impacts. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
I’m retiring early anyway but viva la revolution and all that.
The French don’t mess about when it comes to civil disobedience that’s for sure. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is economics and algebra. People used to die much younger. A relatively short period to pay a pension and relatively little medical and elderly care. More younger, working, people to pay. Now we live decades longer and the retired population larger than the working one. It isn't sustainable. If we live longer we are going to have to work for longer. That sucks, bit a reality. Perhaps more part time an less physical to at least offset the costs. Bringing a structure to days and social interactions may also be healthier?" People do live longer but also meany more start work later in life so should both retire at the same age. This is also discouraging young people talking up Apprenticeships as they are incuragged to go to college and university. So not starting work till 25 ish.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"a few people are living longer but many of us will not. often people who live a long time remain economically active adding to the economy. its just government spin " In 1950 average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women. Now 84 and 86. I have not seen any information to indicate that older people generate new economic activity in later life rather than spending what they receive. It changes the sector's in which the money is spent though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The propoganda coming out of the government now is that working for money is preferable to retirement. Jeremy Hunt referred to the 'cliff edge of retirement ' We laughed our heads off. Unless you have a fulfilling job that you really love, retirement is so much better than working. I understand why retirement ages need to increase, over my working life mine went from 60 to 66. I didn't like it but I reluctantly accepted that it had to happen "Quite. The spin is pitiful. I think we do get the reality, but not sure why the French don't... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is economics and algebra. People used to die much younger. A relatively short period to pay a pension and relatively little medical and elderly care. More younger, working, people to pay. Now we live decades longer and the retired population larger than the working one. It isn't sustainable. If we live longer we are going to have to work for longer. That sucks, bit a reality. Perhaps more part time an less physical to at least offset the costs. Bringing a structure to days and social interactions may also be healthier? People do live longer but also meany more start work later in life so should both retire at the same age. This is also discouraging young people talking up Apprenticeships as they are incuragged to go to college and university. So not starting work till 25 ish.." Are degrees seven years long now? 21 or 22 starting work after a full time degree. You could be working throughout that time though to pay your way through. The point of apprenticeships is to work at the same time as studying. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The propoganda coming out of the government now is that working for money is preferable to retirement. Jeremy Hunt referred to the 'cliff edge of retirement ' We laughed our heads off. Unless you have a fulfilling job that you really love, retirement is so much better than working. I understand why retirement ages need to increase, over my working life mine went from 60 to 66. I didn't like it but I reluctantly accepted that it had to happen
Quite. The spin is pitiful.
I think we do get the reality, but not sure why the French don't..."I admire the French and the way they don't just accept what they don't like. We were staying in a fairly rural area once when the farmers got annoyed about imported water melons. They went to the local SuperU and chucked all the imported melons out on the street. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Morning Are the French correct to stand up for their right to retire at an age they can enjoy life. We are 67 going tona probable 69 yet the average life expectancy is reducing. Should we be on the streets fighting for our rights!" We're not really allowed to freely protest here anymore. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Morning Are the French correct to stand up for their right to retire at an age they can enjoy life. We are 67 going tona probable 69 yet the average life expectancy is reducing. Should we be on the streets fighting for our rights! We're not really allowed to freely protest here anymore." Explain | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is economics and algebra. People used to die much younger. A relatively short period to pay a pension and relatively little medical and elderly care. More younger, working, people to pay. Now we live decades longer and the retired population larger than the working one. It isn't sustainable. If we live longer we are going to have to work for longer. That sucks, bit a reality. Perhaps more part time an less physical to at least offset the costs. Bringing a structure to days and social interactions may also be healthier? People do live longer but also meany more start work later in life so should both retire at the same age. This is also discouraging young people talking up Apprenticeships as they are incuragged to go to college and university. So not starting work till 25 ish.. Are degrees seven years long now? 21 or 22 starting work after a full time degree. You could be working throughout that time though to pay your way through. The point of apprenticeships is to work at the same time as studying." Most I know leave school at 16 then 2 years at collage to get A levels Lots do a gap year but even with out it's 3years at uni + a year to do masters so 21 is general the youngest. Lots do another degree after that.. Not meany I know work when doing a degree as there is not always time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"a few people are living longer but many of us will not. often people who live a long time remain economically active adding to the economy. its just government spin In 1950 average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women. Now 84 and 86. I have not seen any information to indicate that older people generate new economic activity in later life rather than spending what they receive. It changes the sector's in which the money is spent though." the 1950 figures were low because of wars & TB that killed a lot of very young people, there have always been quite a few people who lived into their 80s. If you make it into your 60s you have paid a lot into the system & are now being ripped off. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"a few people are living longer but many of us will not. often people who live a long time remain economically active adding to the economy. its just government spin In 1950 average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women. Now 84 and 86. I have not seen any information to indicate that older people generate new economic activity in later life rather than spending what they receive. It changes the sector's in which the money is spent though. the 1950 figures were low because of wars & TB that killed a lot of very young people, there have always been quite a few people who lived into their 80s. If you make it into your 60s you have paid a lot into the system & are now being ripped off. " plus child mortality. Although irrc when state pension was fusry introduced it was something like one on three who claimed and only got a few years. Most worked till they dropped. It was more like very old age insurance than the expectation of today. The goal posts have been moved slowly over time. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Morning Are the French correct to stand up for their right to retire at an age they can enjoy life. We are 67 going tona probable 69 yet the average life expectancy is reducing. Should we be on the streets fighting for our rights! We're not really allowed to freely protest here anymore. Explain " Public Order Bill | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"a few people are living longer but many of us will not. often people who live a long time remain economically active adding to the economy. its just government spin In 1950 average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women. Now 84 and 86. I have not seen any information to indicate that older people generate new economic activity in later life rather than spending what they receive. It changes the sector's in which the money is spent though. the 1950 figures were low because of wars & TB that killed a lot of very young people, there have always been quite a few people who lived into their 80s. If you make it into your 60s you have paid a lot into the system & are now being ripped off. " I don't agree that anyone is being "ripped-off". You may have paid "a lot in" but you are very likely to be taking more out in pension, medical and care. The cost and extent of treatment now compared to even the 1970s is immeasurably different. We are, also, healthier for longer and more capable of work. It's either later retirement or more tax on the fewer people working. The only other option would be a subsidy from a sovereign wealth fund, but that has and oil tanker sailed decades ago... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Retirement at 62 fine if you can afford it. It's not like the state pension is going to give you the ability to live a life of leisure and do what you want. 62 until you die living frugally seems like a very dull existence. I'd rather earn enough to still have the odd holiday and so on. Unfortunately due to some very bad financial choices I'm going to have to work until I'm 70. If I live that long having started working at 15 that's 55years in the building trade hard manual labour. I'll retire one day die the next." And that is what the government want work till you drop... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"a few people are living longer but many of us will not. often people who live a long time remain economically active adding to the economy. its just government spin In 1950 average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women. Now 84 and 86. I have not seen any information to indicate that older people generate new economic activity in later life rather than spending what they receive. It changes the sector's in which the money is spent though. the 1950 figures were low because of wars & TB that killed a lot of very young people, there have always been quite a few people who lived into their 80s. If you make it into your 60s you have paid a lot into the system & are now being ripped off. I don't agree that anyone is being "ripped-off". You may have paid "a lot in" but you are very likely to be taking more out in pension, medical and care. The cost and extent of treatment now compared to even the 1970s is immeasurably different. We are, also, healthier for longer and more capable of work. It's either later retirement or more tax on the fewer people working. The only other option would be a subsidy from a sovereign wealth fund, but that has and oil tanker sailed decades ago..." Medical I pay for privately care is pore so have a plan in place, pension also have private as for the state one I will probably retire at 55 die at 65 like my father so get fuck all from the state. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"a few people are living longer but many of us will not. often people who live a long time remain economically active adding to the economy. its just government spin In 1950 average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women. Now 84 and 86. I have not seen any information to indicate that older people generate new economic activity in later life rather than spending what they receive. It changes the sector's in which the money is spent though. the 1950 figures were low because of wars & TB that killed a lot of very young people, there have always been quite a few people who lived into their 80s. If you make it into your 60s you have paid a lot into the system & are now being ripped off. I don't agree that anyone is being "ripped-off". You may have paid "a lot in" but you are very likely to be taking more out in pension, medical and care. The cost and extent of treatment now compared to even the 1970s is immeasurably different. We are, also, healthier for longer and more capable of work. It's either later retirement or more tax on the fewer people working. The only other option would be a subsidy from a sovereign wealth fund, but that has and oil tanker sailed decades ago... Medical I pay for privately care is pore so have a plan in place, pension also have private as for the state one I will probably retire at 55 die at 65 like my father so get fuck all from the state." Hence the workplace pension requirement. People still opt out though because they aren't earning enough day-to-day even though it's effectively "free" money. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"a few people are living longer but many of us will not. often people who live a long time remain economically active adding to the economy. its just government spin In 1950 average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women. Now 84 and 86. I have not seen any information to indicate that older people generate new economic activity in later life rather than spending what they receive. It changes the sector's in which the money is spent though." Total out-of-context rubbish. People were living much longer than that on average in the UK in 1950. Plenty of sites attest to this. You have simply searched, then copied and pasted an image from the first results return, relating to the ONS site, which was referring to the number of survivors by age, from the Period Life Tables, England and Wales. For females. If you had bothered to interrogate the site more fully, you would have discovered that in 1950 : Life expectancy at birth was 66 Median age at death was 71 Modal age at death was 76 By 2010 this had risen to 79, 82 and 85 respectively. A significant increase but not the dramatic, almost doubling in life expectancy, increase you were trying to paint to make your point. As regards the OP, hats off to Macron for dragging France into some sort of reality, because 62 was far too young and unsustainable for their economy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"a few people are living longer but many of us will not. often people who live a long time remain economically active adding to the economy. its just government spin In 1950 average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women. Now 84 and 86. I have not seen any information to indicate that older people generate new economic activity in later life rather than spending what they receive. It changes the sector's in which the money is spent though. Total out-of-context rubbish. People were living much longer than that on average in the UK in 1950. Plenty of sites attest to this. You have simply searched, then copied and pasted an image from the first results return, relating to the ONS site, which was referring to the number of survivors by age, from the Period Life Tables, England and Wales. For females. If you had bothered to interrogate the site more fully, you would have discovered that in 1950 : Life expectancy at birth was 66 Median age at death was 71 Modal age at death was 76 By 2010 this had risen to 79, 82 and 85 respectively. A significant increase but not the dramatic, almost doubling in life expectancy, increase you were trying to paint to make your point. As regards the OP, hats off to Macron for dragging France into some sort of reality, because 62 was far too young and unsustainable for their economy "It's good that your irrational dislike of me has started making you look at data with more attention. It would be good if you did the same to data that you present, but this is a good starting point. Given the topic, it is reasonable to point out the modal age of death in 1950, but that misses the fact that the elderly represented a much smaller proportion of the population. That is another factor that shifts the mean much higher now than then. I was not, actually "trying to paint" a doubling of life expectancy as the only point. I wouldn't characterise the existing retirement age as "too young". It does seem to be a necessity though. That was my original point. Sorry that you have had to agree. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"a few people are living longer but many of us will not. often people who live a long time remain economically active adding to the economy. its just government spin In 1950 average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women. Now 84 and 86. I have not seen any information to indicate that older people generate new economic activity in later life rather than spending what they receive. It changes the sector's in which the money is spent though. Total out-of-context rubbish. People were living much longer than that on average in the UK in 1950. Plenty of sites attest to this. You have simply searched, then copied and pasted an image from the first results return, relating to the ONS site, which was referring to the number of survivors by age, from the Period Life Tables, England and Wales. For females. If you had bothered to interrogate the site more fully, you would have discovered that in 1950 : Life expectancy at birth was 66 Median age at death was 71 Modal age at death was 76 By 2010 this had risen to 79, 82 and 85 respectively. A significant increase but not the dramatic, almost doubling in life expectancy, increase you were trying to paint to make your point. As regards the OP, hats off to Macron for dragging France into some sort of reality, because 62 was far too young and unsustainable for their economy
It's good that your irrational dislike of me has started making you look at data with more attention. It would be good if you did the same to data that you present, but this is a good starting point.
Given the topic, it is reasonable to point out the modal age of death in 1950, but that misses the fact that the elderly represented a much smaller proportion of the population. That is another factor that shifts the mean much higher now than then.
I was not, actually "trying to paint" a doubling of life expectancy as the only point.
I wouldn't characterise the existing retirement age as "too young". It does seem to be a necessity though. That was my original point. Sorry that you have had to agree."I'm still confused where 44 and 49 came from. Those feel like 1850s not 1950s. Any roads, if people stay economically active dont they get an uplift on state pension later? And so while they help fund today's cohort of state pensioners they aren't helping when they do retire ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"a few people are living longer but many of us will not. often people who live a long time remain economically active adding to the economy. its just government spin In 1950 average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women. Now 84 and 86. I have not seen any information to indicate that older people generate new economic activity in later life rather than spending what they receive. It changes the sector's in which the money is spent though. Total out-of-context rubbish. People were living much longer than that on average in the UK in 1950. Plenty of sites attest to this. You have simply searched, then copied and pasted an image from the first results return, relating to the ONS site, which was referring to the number of survivors by age, from the Period Life Tables, England and Wales. For females. If you had bothered to interrogate the site more fully, you would have discovered that in 1950 : Life expectancy at birth was 66 Median age at death was 71 Modal age at death was 76 By 2010 this had risen to 79, 82 and 85 respectively. A significant increase but not the dramatic, almost doubling in life expectancy, increase you were trying to paint to make your point. As regards the OP, hats off to Macron for dragging France into some sort of reality, because 62 was far too young and unsustainable for their economy
It's good that your irrational dislike of me has started making you look at data with more attention. It would be good if you did the same to data that you present, but this is a good starting point.
Given the topic, it is reasonable to point out the modal age of death in 1950, but that misses the fact that the elderly represented a much smaller proportion of the population. That is another factor that shifts the mean much higher now than then.
I was not, actually "trying to paint" a doubling of life expectancy as the only point.
I wouldn't characterise the existing retirement age as "too young". It does seem to be a necessity though. That was my original point. Sorry that you have had to agree."I'm finding it hard to follow this.. Are you in favour of a higher retirement age? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"a few people are living longer but many of us will not. often people who live a long time remain economically active adding to the economy. its just government spin In 1950 average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women. Now 84 and 86. I have not seen any information to indicate that older people generate new economic activity in later life rather than spending what they receive. It changes the sector's in which the money is spent though. Total out-of-context rubbish. People were living much longer than that on average in the UK in 1950. Plenty of sites attest to this. You have simply searched, then copied and pasted an image from the first results return, relating to the ONS site, which was referring to the number of survivors by age, from the Period Life Tables, England and Wales. For females. If you had bothered to interrogate the site more fully, you would have discovered that in 1950 : Life expectancy at birth was 66 Median age at death was 71 Modal age at death was 76 By 2010 this had risen to 79, 82 and 85 respectively. A significant increase but not the dramatic, almost doubling in life expectancy, increase you were trying to paint to make your point. As regards the OP, hats off to Macron for dragging France into some sort of reality, because 62 was far too young and unsustainable for their economy
It's good that your irrational dislike of me has started making you look at data with more attention. It would be good if you did the same to data that you present, but this is a good starting point.
Given the topic, it is reasonable to point out the modal age of death in 1950, but that misses the fact that the elderly represented a much smaller proportion of the population. That is another factor that shifts the mean much higher now than then.
I was not, actually "trying to paint" a doubling of life expectancy as the only point.
I wouldn't characterise the existing retirement age as "too young". It does seem to be a necessity though. That was my original point. Sorry that you have had to agree.
I'm finding it hard to follow this..
Are you in favour of a higher retirement age? "I'm not "in favour" of a higher retirement age. That is a newspaper headline statement. it has become a necessity for a number of reasons that have been laid out. If we could find a way to fund it without other services suffering then I would be delighted. Do you think it needs to be raised? Do you have any thoughts on how to fund it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"a few people are living longer but many of us will not. often people who live a long time remain economically active adding to the economy. its just government spin In 1950 average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women. Now 84 and 86. I have not seen any information to indicate that older people generate new economic activity in later life rather than spending what they receive. It changes the sector's in which the money is spent though. Total out-of-context rubbish. People were living much longer than that on average in the UK in 1950. Plenty of sites attest to this. You have simply searched, then copied and pasted an image from the first results return, relating to the ONS site, which was referring to the number of survivors by age, from the Period Life Tables, England and Wales. For females. If you had bothered to interrogate the site more fully, you would have discovered that in 1950 : Life expectancy at birth was 66 Median age at death was 71 Modal age at death was 76 By 2010 this had risen to 79, 82 and 85 respectively. A significant increase but not the dramatic, almost doubling in life expectancy, increase you were trying to paint to make your point. As regards the OP, hats off to Macron for dragging France into some sort of reality, because 62 was far too young and unsustainable for their economy
It's good that your irrational dislike of me has started making you look at data with more attention. It would be good if you did the same to data that you present, but this is a good starting point.
Given the topic, it is reasonable to point out the modal age of death in 1950, but that misses the fact that the elderly represented a much smaller proportion of the population. That is another factor that shifts the mean much higher now than then.
I was not, actually "trying to paint" a doubling of life expectancy as the only point.
I wouldn't characterise the existing retirement age as "too young". It does seem to be a necessity though. That was my original point. Sorry that you have had to agree.
I'm finding it hard to follow this..
Are you in favour of a higher retirement age?
I'm not "in favour" of a higher retirement age. That is a newspaper headline statement. it has become a necessity for a number of reasons that have been laid out.
If we could find a way to fund it without other services suffering then I would be delighted.
Do you think it needs to be raised? Do you have any thoughts on how to fund it?"If its raised more people will just end up long term sick and on PIP. So as to fuding it I don't realy see it need much funding people work 40+ years that should fund there retirement. But government after government just waste money but 1% on NI might help. But 1% on VAT of luxury goods would be a better tax. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"a few people are living longer but many of us will not. often people who live a long time remain economically active adding to the economy. its just government spin In 1950 average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women. Now 84 and 86. I have not seen any information to indicate that older people generate new economic activity in later life rather than spending what they receive. It changes the sector's in which the money is spent though. Total out-of-context rubbish. People were living much longer than that on average in the UK in 1950. Plenty of sites attest to this. You have simply searched, then copied and pasted an image from the first results return, relating to the ONS site, which was referring to the number of survivors by age, from the Period Life Tables, England and Wales. For females. If you had bothered to interrogate the site more fully, you would have discovered that in 1950 : Life expectancy at birth was 66 Median age at death was 71 Modal age at death was 76 By 2010 this had risen to 79, 82 and 85 respectively. A significant increase but not the dramatic, almost doubling in life expectancy, increase you were trying to paint to make your point. As regards the OP, hats off to Macron for dragging France into some sort of reality, because 62 was far too young and unsustainable for their economy
It's good that your irrational dislike of me has started making you look at data with more attention. It would be good if you did the same to data that you present, but this is a good starting point.
Given the topic, it is reasonable to point out the modal age of death in 1950, but that misses the fact that the elderly represented a much smaller proportion of the population. That is another factor that shifts the mean much higher now than then.
I was not, actually "trying to paint" a doubling of life expectancy as the only point.
I wouldn't characterise the existing retirement age as "too young". It does seem to be a necessity though. That was my original point. Sorry that you have had to agree.I'm still confused where 44 and 49 came from. Those feel like 1850s not 1950s.
Any roads, if people stay economically active dont they get an uplift on state pension later? And so while they help fund today's cohort of state pensioners they aren't helping when they do retire ?"You are correct. I was a lazy in my check. I was using an ONS figure that indicated the age at which life expectancy starts to fall. It was mid forties in 1950 and mid sixties by 2010. Average life expectancy from birth in 1950 was 68 and 81 in 2020. You don't get an uplift in state pension after paying 35 years NI contributions unless you were born some time in the 1950s, I believe. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"a few people are living longer but many of us will not. often people who live a long time remain economically active adding to the economy. its just government spin In 1950 average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women. Now 84 and 86. I have not seen any information to indicate that older people generate new economic activity in later life rather than spending what they receive. It changes the sector's in which the money is spent though. Total out-of-context rubbish. People were living much longer than that on average in the UK in 1950. Plenty of sites attest to this. You have simply searched, then copied and pasted an image from the first results return, relating to the ONS site, which was referring to the number of survivors by age, from the Period Life Tables, England and Wales. For females. If you had bothered to interrogate the site more fully, you would have discovered that in 1950 : Life expectancy at birth was 66 Median age at death was 71 Modal age at death was 76 By 2010 this had risen to 79, 82 and 85 respectively. A significant increase but not the dramatic, almost doubling in life expectancy, increase you were trying to paint to make your point. As regards the OP, hats off to Macron for dragging France into some sort of reality, because 62 was far too young and unsustainable for their economy
It's good that your irrational dislike of me has started making you look at data with more attention. It would be good if you did the same to data that you present, but this is a good starting point.
Given the topic, it is reasonable to point out the modal age of death in 1950, but that misses the fact that the elderly represented a much smaller proportion of the population. That is another factor that shifts the mean much higher now than then.
I was not, actually "trying to paint" a doubling of life expectancy as the only point.
I wouldn't characterise the existing retirement age as "too young". It does seem to be a necessity though. That was my original point. Sorry that you have had to agree.
I'm finding it hard to follow this..
Are you in favour of a higher retirement age?
I'm not "in favour" of a higher retirement age. That is a newspaper headline statement. it has become a necessity for a number of reasons that have been laid out.
If we could find a way to fund it without other services suffering then I would be delighted.
Do you think it needs to be raised? Do you have any thoughts on how to fund it?
If its raised more people will just end up long term sick and on PIP.
So as to fuding it I don't realy see it need much funding people work 40+ years that should fund there retirement. But government after government just waste money but 1% on NI might help. But 1% on VAT of luxury goods would be a better tax."Defining a " luxury good" is very subjective. Why not just collect the taxes that rich people and big companies should actually pay? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"a few people are living longer but many of us will not. often people who live a long time remain economically active adding to the economy. its just government spin In 1950 average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women. Now 84 and 86. I have not seen any information to indicate that older people generate new economic activity in later life rather than spending what they receive. It changes the sector's in which the money is spent though. Total out-of-context rubbish. People were living much longer than that on average in the UK in 1950. Plenty of sites attest to this. You have simply searched, then copied and pasted an image from the first results return, relating to the ONS site, which was referring to the number of survivors by age, from the Period Life Tables, England and Wales. For females. If you had bothered to interrogate the site more fully, you would have discovered that in 1950 : Life expectancy at birth was 66 Median age at death was 71 Modal age at death was 76 By 2010 this had risen to 79, 82 and 85 respectively. A significant increase but not the dramatic, almost doubling in life expectancy, increase you were trying to paint to make your point. As regards the OP, hats off to Macron for dragging France into some sort of reality, because 62 was far too young and unsustainable for their economy
It's good that your irrational dislike of me has started making you look at data with more attention. It would be good if you did the same to data that you present, but this is a good starting point.
Given the topic, it is reasonable to point out the modal age of death in 1950, but that misses the fact that the elderly represented a much smaller proportion of the population. That is another factor that shifts the mean much higher now than then.
I was not, actually "trying to paint" a doubling of life expectancy as the only point.
I wouldn't characterise the existing retirement age as "too young". It does seem to be a necessity though. That was my original point. Sorry that you have had to agree.I'm still confused where 44 and 49 came from. Those feel like 1850s not 1950s.
Any roads, if people stay economically active dont they get an uplift on state pension later? And so while they help fund today's cohort of state pensioners they aren't helping when they do retire ?
You are correct. I was a lazy in my check. I was using an ONS figure that indicated the age at which life expectancy starts to fall. It was mid forties in 1950 and mid sixties by 2010.
Average life expectancy from birth in 1950 was 68 and 81 in 2020.
You don't get an uplift in state pension after paying 35 years NI contributions unless you were born some time in the 1950s, I believe."aha, it was the deferral I was on about. Your State Pension will increase every week you defer, as long as you defer for at least 9 weeks. Your State Pension increases by the equivalent of 1% for every 9 weeks you defer. This works out as just under 5.8% for every 52 weeks. The extra amount is paid with your regular State Pension payment. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you enjoy your 20s and early 30s but then have the nous to start putting a bit aside you will find it very easy to "retire" with your private pension at 50. " "Very easy"? What of the stock market crashes just before you take out your annuity? Perhaps the bond market, or something else completely outside your control? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"a few people are living longer but many of us will not. often people who live a long time remain economically active adding to the economy. its just government spin In 1950 average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women. Now 84 and 86. I have not seen any information to indicate that older people generate new economic activity in later life rather than spending what they receive. It changes the sector's in which the money is spent though. Total out-of-context rubbish. People were living much longer than that on average in the UK in 1950. Plenty of sites attest to this. You have simply searched, then copied and pasted an image from the first results return, relating to the ONS site, which was referring to the number of survivors by age, from the Period Life Tables, England and Wales. For females. If you had bothered to interrogate the site more fully, you would have discovered that in 1950 : Life expectancy at birth was 66 Median age at death was 71 Modal age at death was 76 By 2010 this had risen to 79, 82 and 85 respectively. A significant increase but not the dramatic, almost doubling in life expectancy, increase you were trying to paint to make your point. As regards the OP, hats off to Macron for dragging France into some sort of reality, because 62 was far too young and unsustainable for their economy
It's good that your irrational dislike of me has started making you look at data with more attention. It would be good if you did the same to data that you present, but this is a good starting point.
Given the topic, it is reasonable to point out the modal age of death in 1950, but that misses the fact that the elderly represented a much smaller proportion of the population. That is another factor that shifts the mean much higher now than then.
I was not, actually "trying to paint" a doubling of life expectancy as the only point.
I wouldn't characterise the existing retirement age as "too young". It does seem to be a necessity though. That was my original point. Sorry that you have had to agree.I'm still confused where 44 and 49 came from. Those feel like 1850s not 1950s.
Any roads, if people stay economically active dont they get an uplift on state pension later? And so while they help fund today's cohort of state pensioners they aren't helping when they do retire ?
You are correct. I was a lazy in my check. I was using an ONS figure that indicated the age at which life expectancy starts to fall. It was mid forties in 1950 and mid sixties by 2010.
Average life expectancy from birth in 1950 was 68 and 81 in 2020.
You don't get an uplift in state pension after paying 35 years NI contributions unless you were born some time in the 1950s, I believe.aha, it was the deferral I was on about.
Your State Pension will increase every week you defer, as long as you defer for at least 9 weeks.
Your State Pension increases by the equivalent of 1% for every 9 weeks you defer. This works out as just under 5.8% for every 52 weeks.
The extra amount is paid with your regular State Pension payment.
"I didn't actually realise that there is no limit to the uplift. 5.6% every extra year worked. Although they do keep moving the goalposts away ... Surely the UK Government would be better off publicising this more clearly than allowing the richest to get even more? That's assuming they really want keep people working for longer in the UK too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"a few people are living longer but many of us will not. often people who live a long time remain economically active adding to the economy. its just government spin In 1950 average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women. Now 84 and 86. I have not seen any information to indicate that older people generate new economic activity in later life rather than spending what they receive. It changes the sector's in which the money is spent though. Total out-of-context rubbish. People were living much longer than that on average in the UK in 1950. Plenty of sites attest to this. You have simply searched, then copied and pasted an image from the first results return, relating to the ONS site, which was referring to the number of survivors by age, from the Period Life Tables, England and Wales. For females. If you had bothered to interrogate the site more fully, you would have discovered that in 1950 : Life expectancy at birth was 66 Median age at death was 71 Modal age at death was 76 By 2010 this had risen to 79, 82 and 85 respectively. A significant increase but not the dramatic, almost doubling in life expectancy, increase you were trying to paint to make your point. As regards the OP, hats off to Macron for dragging France into some sort of reality, because 62 was far too young and unsustainable for their economy
It's good that your irrational dislike of me has started making you look at data with more attention. It would be good if you did the same to data that you present, but this is a good starting point.
Given the topic, it is reasonable to point out the modal age of death in 1950, but that misses the fact that the elderly represented a much smaller proportion of the population. That is another factor that shifts the mean much higher now than then.
I was not, actually "trying to paint" a doubling of life expectancy as the only point.
I wouldn't characterise the existing retirement age as "too young". It does seem to be a necessity though. That was my original point. Sorry that you have had to agree."I don't have an irrational dislike of you. What made me look at it in more detail is that what you presented, as is quite often the case, was plainly out and out nonsense. I do check my data and don't recall any schoolboy errors, as some would see it, on this daft level. Didn't you stop to read back the absolute drivel, many might say, that you were spouting? It's not been that long since you were writing, as some would see it, total tripe and twaddle on electric cars to Mr D. A simple apology would have sufficed, but of course that doesn't come easily to lefties. You have to twist it to ' Sorry that you have had to agree' which is at once childish and petty. Increasingly I see people having to check and double check your posts, yet you vent forth with what many see as astonishing and patronising arrogance, as though you couldn't possibly be wrong. Yet again, you were! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"a few people are living longer but many of us will not. often people who live a long time remain economically active adding to the economy. its just government spin In 1950 average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women. Now 84 and 86. I have not seen any information to indicate that older people generate new economic activity in later life rather than spending what they receive. It changes the sector's in which the money is spent though. Total out-of-context rubbish. People were living much longer than that on average in the UK in 1950. Plenty of sites attest to this. You have simply searched, then copied and pasted an image from the first results return, relating to the ONS site, which was referring to the number of survivors by age, from the Period Life Tables, England and Wales. For females. If you had bothered to interrogate the site more fully, you would have discovered that in 1950 : Life expectancy at birth was 66 Median age at death was 71 Modal age at death was 76 By 2010 this had risen to 79, 82 and 85 respectively. A significant increase but not the dramatic, almost doubling in life expectancy, increase you were trying to paint to make your point. As regards the OP, hats off to Macron for dragging France into some sort of reality, because 62 was far too young and unsustainable for their economy
It's good that your irrational dislike of me has started making you look at data with more attention. It would be good if you did the same to data that you present, but this is a good starting point.
Given the topic, it is reasonable to point out the modal age of death in 1950, but that misses the fact that the elderly represented a much smaller proportion of the population. That is another factor that shifts the mean much higher now than then.
I was not, actually "trying to paint" a doubling of life expectancy as the only point.
I wouldn't characterise the existing retirement age as "too young". It does seem to be a necessity though. That was my original point. Sorry that you have had to agree.I'm still confused where 44 and 49 came from. Those feel like 1850s not 1950s.
Any roads, if people stay economically active dont they get an uplift on state pension later? And so while they help fund today's cohort of state pensioners they aren't helping when they do retire ?
You are correct. I was a lazy in my check. I was using an ONS figure that indicated the age at which life expectancy starts to fall. It was mid forties in 1950 and mid sixties by 2010.
Average life expectancy from birth in 1950 was 68 and 81 in 2020.
You don't get an uplift in state pension after paying 35 years NI contributions unless you were born some time in the 1950s, I believe."I suppose that's as good an apology as we're going to get from West London! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"a few people are living longer but many of us will not. often people who live a long time remain economically active adding to the economy. its just government spin In 1950 average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women. Now 84 and 86. I have not seen any information to indicate that older people generate new economic activity in later life rather than spending what they receive. It changes the sector's in which the money is spent though. Total out-of-context rubbish. People were living much longer than that on average in the UK in 1950. Plenty of sites attest to this. You have simply searched, then copied and pasted an image from the first results return, relating to the ONS site, which was referring to the number of survivors by age, from the Period Life Tables, England and Wales. For females. If you had bothered to interrogate the site more fully, you would have discovered that in 1950 : Life expectancy at birth was 66 Median age at death was 71 Modal age at death was 76 By 2010 this had risen to 79, 82 and 85 respectively. A significant increase but not the dramatic, almost doubling in life expectancy, increase you were trying to paint to make your point. As regards the OP, hats off to Macron for dragging France into some sort of reality, because 62 was far too young and unsustainable for their economy
It's good that your irrational dislike of me has started making you look at data with more attention. It would be good if you did the same to data that you present, but this is a good starting point.
Given the topic, it is reasonable to point out the modal age of death in 1950, but that misses the fact that the elderly represented a much smaller proportion of the population. That is another factor that shifts the mean much higher now than then.
I was not, actually "trying to paint" a doubling of life expectancy as the only point.
I wouldn't characterise the existing retirement age as "too young". It does seem to be a necessity though. That was my original point. Sorry that you have had to agree.I'm still confused where 44 and 49 came from. Those feel like 1850s not 1950s.
Any roads, if people stay economically active dont they get an uplift on state pension later? And so while they help fund today's cohort of state pensioners they aren't helping when they do retire ?
You are correct. I was a lazy in my check. I was using an ONS figure that indicated the age at which life expectancy starts to fall. It was mid forties in 1950 and mid sixties by 2010.
Average life expectancy from birth in 1950 was 68 and 81 in 2020.
You don't get an uplift in state pension after paying 35 years NI contributions unless you were born some time in the 1950s, I believe.aha, it was the deferral I was on about.
Your State Pension will increase every week you defer, as long as you defer for at least 9 weeks.
Your State Pension increases by the equivalent of 1% for every 9 weeks you defer. This works out as just under 5.8% for every 52 weeks.
The extra amount is paid with your regular State Pension payment.
I didn't actually realise that there is no limit to the uplift. 5.6% every extra year worked. Although they do keep moving the goalposts away ...
Surely the UK Government would be better off publicising this more clearly than allowing the richest to get even more?
That's assuming they really want keep people working for longer in the UK too."What on earth does 5.6% relate to? Your posts are increasingly inscrutable and difficult to rely on. It is disappointing that, when then correctly challenged, you double down, twist and wriggle or, at best, try to hide a fauxpology within a reply to someone other than the challenger. How odd. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Retirement at 62 fine if you can afford it. It's not like the state pension is going to give you the ability to live a life of leisure and do what you want. 62 until you die living frugally seems like a very dull existence. I'd rather earn enough to still have the odd holiday and so on. Unfortunately due to some very bad financial choices I'm going to have to work until I'm 70. If I live that long having started working at 15 that's 55years in the building trade hard manual labour. I'll retire one day die the next." I think there should be a two tier system those like the man above have worked in a very manual trade where the body is worked hard and old age brings more skeletal problems due to wear and tear. So 5 years earlier to receive your pension seems a fair trade off to me. I lift a pen occasionally so have no ulterior motives | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"a few people are living longer but many of us will not. often people who live a long time remain economically active adding to the economy. its just government spin In 1950 average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women. Now 84 and 86. I have not seen any information to indicate that older people generate new economic activity in later life rather than spending what they receive. It changes the sector's in which the money is spent though. Total out-of-context rubbish. People were living much longer than that on average in the UK in 1950. Plenty of sites attest to this. You have simply searched, then copied and pasted an image from the first results return, relating to the ONS site, which was referring to the number of survivors by age, from the Period Life Tables, England and Wales. For females. If you had bothered to interrogate the site more fully, you would have discovered that in 1950 : Life expectancy at birth was 66 Median age at death was 71 Modal age at death was 76 By 2010 this had risen to 79, 82 and 85 respectively. A significant increase but not the dramatic, almost doubling in life expectancy, increase you were trying to paint to make your point. As regards the OP, hats off to Macron for dragging France into some sort of reality, because 62 was far too young and unsustainable for their economy
It's good that your irrational dislike of me has started making you look at data with more attention. It would be good if you did the same to data that you present, but this is a good starting point.
Given the topic, it is reasonable to point out the modal age of death in 1950, but that misses the fact that the elderly represented a much smaller proportion of the population. That is another factor that shifts the mean much higher now than then.
I was not, actually "trying to paint" a doubling of life expectancy as the only point.
I wouldn't characterise the existing retirement age as "too young". It does seem to be a necessity though. That was my original point. Sorry that you have had to agree.
I don't have an irrational dislike of you. What made me look at it in more detail is that what you presented, as is quite often the case, was plainly out and out nonsense. I do check my data and don't recall any schoolboy errors, as some would see it, on this daft level. Didn't you stop to read back the absolute drivel, many might say, that you were spouting? It's not been that long since you were writing, as some would see it, total tripe and twaddle on electric cars to Mr D.
A simple apology would have sufficed, but of course that doesn't come easily to lefties. You have to twist it to ' Sorry that you have had to agree' which is at once childish and petty.
Increasingly I see people having to check and double check your posts, yet you vent forth with what many see as astonishing and patronising arrogance, as though you couldn't possibly be wrong.
Yet again, you were! ""People" very rarely have to double check my posts and I can acknowledge when there is an error. You carry on repeating whatever you want and avoiding addressing questions that don't suit the position that you're trying to take. Insult as you wish in your own petty way. I'm not bothered. None of this post from you addressed the OP. Just spam. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"a few people are living longer but many of us will not. often people who live a long time remain economically active adding to the economy. its just government spin In 1950 average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women. Now 84 and 86. I have not seen any information to indicate that older people generate new economic activity in later life rather than spending what they receive. It changes the sector's in which the money is spent though. Total out-of-context rubbish. People were living much longer than that on average in the UK in 1950. Plenty of sites attest to this. You have simply searched, then copied and pasted an image from the first results return, relating to the ONS site, which was referring to the number of survivors by age, from the Period Life Tables, England and Wales. For females. If you had bothered to interrogate the site more fully, you would have discovered that in 1950 : Life expectancy at birth was 66 Median age at death was 71 Modal age at death was 76 By 2010 this had risen to 79, 82 and 85 respectively. A significant increase but not the dramatic, almost doubling in life expectancy, increase you were trying to paint to make your point. As regards the OP, hats off to Macron for dragging France into some sort of reality, because 62 was far too young and unsustainable for their economy
It's good that your irrational dislike of me has started making you look at data with more attention. It would be good if you did the same to data that you present, but this is a good starting point.
Given the topic, it is reasonable to point out the modal age of death in 1950, but that misses the fact that the elderly represented a much smaller proportion of the population. That is another factor that shifts the mean much higher now than then.
I was not, actually "trying to paint" a doubling of life expectancy as the only point.
I wouldn't characterise the existing retirement age as "too young". It does seem to be a necessity though. That was my original point. Sorry that you have had to agree.I'm still confused where 44 and 49 came from. Those feel like 1850s not 1950s.
Any roads, if people stay economically active dont they get an uplift on state pension later? And so while they help fund today's cohort of state pensioners they aren't helping when they do retire ?
You are correct. I was a lazy in my check. I was using an ONS figure that indicated the age at which life expectancy starts to fall. It was mid forties in 1950 and mid sixties by 2010.
Average life expectancy from birth in 1950 was 68 and 81 in 2020.
You don't get an uplift in state pension after paying 35 years NI contributions unless you were born some time in the 1950s, I believe.aha, it was the deferral I was on about.
Your State Pension will increase every week you defer, as long as you defer for at least 9 weeks.
Your State Pension increases by the equivalent of 1% for every 9 weeks you defer. This works out as just under 5.8% for every 52 weeks.
The extra amount is paid with your regular State Pension payment.
I didn't actually realise that there is no limit to the uplift. 5.6% every extra year worked. Although they do keep moving the goalposts away ...
Surely the UK Government would be better off publicising this more clearly than allowing the richest to get even more?
That's assuming they really want keep people working for longer in the UK too.
What on earth does 5.6% relate to? Your posts are increasingly inscrutable and difficult to rely on. It is disappointing that, when then correctly challenged, you double down, twist and wriggle or, at best, try to hide a fauxpology within a reply to someone other than the challenger. How odd.
"5.6% is a typo that most people would ignore as not especially important to the point being made. You continue to seem somewhat obsessed with my posts. Do try to calm yourself. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"a few people are living longer but many of us will not. often people who live a long time remain economically active adding to the economy. its just government spin In 1950 average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women. Now 84 and 86. I have not seen any information to indicate that older people generate new economic activity in later life rather than spending what they receive. It changes the sector's in which the money is spent though. Total out-of-context rubbish. People were living much longer than that on average in the UK in 1950. Plenty of sites attest to this. You have simply searched, then copied and pasted an image from the first results return, relating to the ONS site, which was referring to the number of survivors by age, from the Period Life Tables, England and Wales. For females. If you had bothered to interrogate the site more fully, you would have discovered that in 1950 : Life expectancy at birth was 66 Median age at death was 71 Modal age at death was 76 By 2010 this had risen to 79, 82 and 85 respectively. A significant increase but not the dramatic, almost doubling in life expectancy, increase you were trying to paint to make your point. As regards the OP, hats off to Macron for dragging France into some sort of reality, because 62 was far too young and unsustainable for their economy
It's good that your irrational dislike of me has started making you look at data with more attention. It would be good if you did the same to data that you present, but this is a good starting point.
Given the topic, it is reasonable to point out the modal age of death in 1950, but that misses the fact that the elderly represented a much smaller proportion of the population. That is another factor that shifts the mean much higher now than then.
I was not, actually "trying to paint" a doubling of life expectancy as the only point.
I wouldn't characterise the existing retirement age as "too young". It does seem to be a necessity though. That was my original point. Sorry that you have had to agree.
I'm finding it hard to follow this..
Are you in favour of a higher retirement age?
I'm not "in favour" of a higher retirement age. That is a newspaper headline statement. it has become a necessity for a number of reasons that have been laid out.
If we could find a way to fund it without other services suffering then I would be delighted.
Do you think it needs to be raised? Do you have any thoughts on how to fund it?
If its raised more people will just end up long term sick and on PIP.
So as to fuding it I don't realy see it need much funding people work 40+ years that should fund there retirement. But government after government just waste money but 1% on NI might help. But 1% on VAT of luxury goods would be a better tax.
Defining a " luxury good" is very subjective.
Why not just collect the taxes that rich people and big companies should actually pay?
Becomes the will work round it.
So for me a luxury item wold.
A. Have a brand name. And I gont mean tesco.
B. Cost more then £200.
C. Be a luxury TV, hand bag, watch jewellery, Phone, Computer.
This might also make some by pre loved items helping to reduce waste.
"Why create a whole new tax to police and evade if we cannot apply what we already have? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s a question of generational justice for me that as we all live longer, people should work longer for their state pension and not expect younger workers to sustain an increasing burden. Given UK house prices and the increasingly precarious nature of work contracts, introduced by New Labour, the boomers already possess more wealth than younger workers can even hope to generate for themselves. Only the French continue to resist this reality. Macron, surprisingly for some, has it right here "This is the fault of one political party? What did the Labour party do to "introduce" precarious work contracts? Why has the Conservative Government not done anything about them if that is the case? Has any colour of Government done anything to make house prices more affordable? Increased death duties will rebalance wealth in the long term. That seems to upset people though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"a few people are living longer but many of us will not. often people who live a long time remain economically active adding to the economy. its just government spin In 1950 average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women. Now 84 and 86. I have not seen any information to indicate that older people generate new economic activity in later life rather than spending what they receive. It changes the sector's in which the money is spent though. Total out-of-context rubbish. People were living much longer than that on average in the UK in 1950. Plenty of sites attest to this. You have simply searched, then copied and pasted an image from the first results return, relating to the ONS site, which was referring to the number of survivors by age, from the Period Life Tables, England and Wales. For females. If you had bothered to interrogate the site more fully, you would have discovered that in 1950 : Life expectancy at birth was 66 Median age at death was 71 Modal age at death was 76 By 2010 this had risen to 79, 82 and 85 respectively. A significant increase but not the dramatic, almost doubling in life expectancy, increase you were trying to paint to make your point. As regards the OP, hats off to Macron for dragging France into some sort of reality, because 62 was far too young and unsustainable for their economy
It's good that your irrational dislike of me has started making you look at data with more attention. It would be good if you did the same to data that you present, but this is a good starting point.
Given the topic, it is reasonable to point out the modal age of death in 1950, but that misses the fact that the elderly represented a much smaller proportion of the population. That is another factor that shifts the mean much higher now than then.
I was not, actually "trying to paint" a doubling of life expectancy as the only point.
I wouldn't characterise the existing retirement age as "too young". It does seem to be a necessity though. That was my original point. Sorry that you have had to agree.
I'm finding it hard to follow this..
Are you in favour of a higher retirement age?
I'm not "in favour" of a higher retirement age. That is a newspaper headline statement. it has become a necessity for a number of reasons that have been laid out.
If we could find a way to fund it without other services suffering then I would be delighted.
Do you think it needs to be raised? Do you have any thoughts on how to fund it?
If its raised more people will just end up long term sick and on PIP.
So as to fuding it I don't realy see it need much funding people work 40+ years that should fund there retirement. But government after government just waste money but 1% on NI might help. But 1% on VAT of luxury goods would be a better tax.
Defining a " luxury good" is very subjective.
Why not just collect the taxes that rich people and big companies should actually pay?
Becomes the will work round it.
So for me a luxury item wold.
A. Have a brand name. And I gont mean tesco.
B. Cost more then £200.
C. Be a luxury TV, hand bag, watch jewellery, Phone, Computer.
This might also make some by pre loved items helping to reduce waste.
Why create a whole new tax to police and evade if we cannot apply what we already have?"The shops will police this as they do all VAT at different rats as they are. How would you evade this when in a shop buying a £1000 TV ask if they do a discount for cash. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It’s a question of generational justice for me that as we all live longer, people should work longer for their state pension and not expect younger workers to sustain an increasing burden. Given UK house prices and the increasingly precarious nature of work contracts, introduced by New Labour, the boomers already possess more wealth than younger workers can even hope to generate for themselves. Only the French continue to resist this reality. Macron, surprisingly for some, has it right here
This is the fault of one political party?
What did the Labour party do to "introduce" precarious work contracts?
Why has the Conservative Government not done anything about them if that is the case?
Has any colour of Government done anything to make house prices more affordable?
Increased death duties will rebalance wealth in the long term. That seems to upset people though."How would you make house prices more afordable. There not that expensive now except in London. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Retirement at 62 fine if you can afford it. It's not like the state pension is going to give you the ability to live a life of leisure and do what you want. 62 until you die living frugally seems like a very dull existence. I'd rather earn enough to still have the odd holiday and so on. Unfortunately due to some very bad financial choices I'm going to have to work until I'm 70. If I live that long having started working at 15 that's 55years in the building trade hard manual labour. I'll retire one day die the next. I think there should be a two tier system those like the man above have worked in a very manual trade where the body is worked hard and old age brings more skeletal problems due to wear and tear. So 5 years earlier to receive your pension seems a fair trade off to me. I lift a pen occasionally so have no ulterior motives " I do not disagree, but the application becomes very complicated. What if people have multiple jobs or move from shop floor to management? Perhaps a direct state contribution to workplace pensions at the point of investment? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"a few people are living longer but many of us will not. often people who live a long time remain economically active adding to the economy. its just government spin In 1950 average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women. Now 84 and 86. I have not seen any information to indicate that older people generate new economic activity in later life rather than spending what they receive. It changes the sector's in which the money is spent though. Total out-of-context rubbish. People were living much longer than that on average in the UK in 1950. Plenty of sites attest to this. You have simply searched, then copied and pasted an image from the first results return, relating to the ONS site, which was referring to the number of survivors by age, from the Period Life Tables, England and Wales. For females. If you had bothered to interrogate the site more fully, you would have discovered that in 1950 : Life expectancy at birth was 66 Median age at death was 71 Modal age at death was 76 By 2010 this had risen to 79, 82 and 85 respectively. A significant increase but not the dramatic, almost doubling in life expectancy, increase you were trying to paint to make your point. As regards the OP, hats off to Macron for dragging France into some sort of reality, because 62 was far too young and unsustainable for their economy
It's good that your irrational dislike of me has started making you look at data with more attention. It would be good if you did the same to data that you present, but this is a good starting point.
Given the topic, it is reasonable to point out the modal age of death in 1950, but that misses the fact that the elderly represented a much smaller proportion of the population. That is another factor that shifts the mean much higher now than then.
I was not, actually "trying to paint" a doubling of life expectancy as the only point.
I wouldn't characterise the existing retirement age as "too young". It does seem to be a necessity though. That was my original point. Sorry that you have had to agree.I'm still confused where 44 and 49 came from. Those feel like 1850s not 1950s.
Any roads, if people stay economically active dont they get an uplift on state pension later? And so while they help fund today's cohort of state pensioners they aren't helping when they do retire ?
You are correct. I was a lazy in my check. I was using an ONS figure that indicated the age at which life expectancy starts to fall. It was mid forties in 1950 and mid sixties by 2010.
Average life expectancy from birth in 1950 was 68 and 81 in 2020.
You don't get an uplift in state pension after paying 35 years NI contributions unless you were born some time in the 1950s, I believe.aha, it was the deferral I was on about.
Your State Pension will increase every week you defer, as long as you defer for at least 9 weeks.
Your State Pension increases by the equivalent of 1% for every 9 weeks you defer. This works out as just under 5.8% for every 52 weeks.
The extra amount is paid with your regular State Pension payment.
I didn't actually realise that there is no limit to the uplift. 5.6% every extra year worked. Although they do keep moving the goalposts away ...
Surely the UK Government would be better off publicising this more clearly than allowing the richest to get even more?
That's assuming they really want keep people working for longer in the UK too.
What on earth does 5.6% relate to? Your posts are increasingly inscrutable and difficult to rely on. It is disappointing that, when then correctly challenged, you double down, twist and wriggle or, at best, try to hide a fauxpology within a reply to someone other than the challenger. How odd.
5.6% is a typo that most people would ignore as not especially important to the point being made.
You continue to seem somewhat obsessed with my posts. Do try to calm yourself."to clarify for all. If you don't take your state pension immediately, then it increases by 5.8pc pa. This is to encourage (I assume) people to defer. I haven't done the maths to see if this is generous or not. My quick maths is no, although maybe some compounding means it's better than it looks. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"a few people are living longer but many of us will not. often people who live a long time remain economically active adding to the economy. its just government spin In 1950 average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women. Now 84 and 86. I have not seen any information to indicate that older people generate new economic activity in later life rather than spending what they receive. It changes the sector's in which the money is spent though. Total out-of-context rubbish. People were living much longer than that on average in the UK in 1950. Plenty of sites attest to this. You have simply searched, then copied and pasted an image from the first results return, relating to the ONS site, which was referring to the number of survivors by age, from the Period Life Tables, England and Wales. For females. If you had bothered to interrogate the site more fully, you would have discovered that in 1950 : Life expectancy at birth was 66 Median age at death was 71 Modal age at death was 76 By 2010 this had risen to 79, 82 and 85 respectively. A significant increase but not the dramatic, almost doubling in life expectancy, increase you were trying to paint to make your point. As regards the OP, hats off to Macron for dragging France into some sort of reality, because 62 was far too young and unsustainable for their economy
It's good that your irrational dislike of me has started making you look at data with more attention. It would be good if you did the same to data that you present, but this is a good starting point.
Given the topic, it is reasonable to point out the modal age of death in 1950, but that misses the fact that the elderly represented a much smaller proportion of the population. That is another factor that shifts the mean much higher now than then.
I was not, actually "trying to paint" a doubling of life expectancy as the only point.
I wouldn't characterise the existing retirement age as "too young". It does seem to be a necessity though. That was my original point. Sorry that you have had to agree.I'm still confused where 44 and 49 came from. Those feel like 1850s not 1950s.
Any roads, if people stay economically active dont they get an uplift on state pension later? And so while they help fund today's cohort of state pensioners they aren't helping when they do retire ?
You are correct. I was a lazy in my check. I was using an ONS figure that indicated the age at which life expectancy starts to fall. It was mid forties in 1950 and mid sixties by 2010.
Average life expectancy from birth in 1950 was 68 and 81 in 2020.
You don't get an uplift in state pension after paying 35 years NI contributions unless you were born some time in the 1950s, I believe.aha, it was the deferral I was on about.
Your State Pension will increase every week you defer, as long as you defer for at least 9 weeks.
Your State Pension increases by the equivalent of 1% for every 9 weeks you defer. This works out as just under 5.8% for every 52 weeks.
The extra amount is paid with your regular State Pension payment.
I didn't actually realise that there is no limit to the uplift. 5.6% every extra year worked. Although they do keep moving the goalposts away ...
Surely the UK Government would be better off publicising this more clearly than allowing the richest to get even more?
That's assuming they really want keep people working for longer in the UK too.
What on earth does 5.6% relate to? Your posts are increasingly inscrutable and difficult to rely on. It is disappointing that, when then correctly challenged, you double down, twist and wriggle or, at best, try to hide a fauxpology within a reply to someone other than the challenger. How odd.
5.6% is a typo that most people would ignore as not especially important to the point being made.
You continue to seem somewhat obsessed with my posts. Do try to calm yourself.to clarify for all.
If you don't take your state pension immediately, then it increases by 5.8pc pa. This is to encourage (I assume) people to defer.
I haven't done the maths to see if this is generous or not. My quick maths is no, although maybe some compounding means it's better than it looks. "It depends on how long you live to claim the pension. You will also be earning, presumably, more than your state pension in the meantime. It's more about if you are capable of inclined to continue working and what your motivation is to retire completely. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"a few people are living longer but many of us will not. often people who live a long time remain economically active adding to the economy. its just government spin In 1950 average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women. Now 84 and 86. I have not seen any information to indicate that older people generate new economic activity in later life rather than spending what they receive. It changes the sector's in which the money is spent though. Total out-of-context rubbish. People were living much longer than that on average in the UK in 1950. Plenty of sites attest to this. You have simply searched, then copied and pasted an image from the first results return, relating to the ONS site, which was referring to the number of survivors by age, from the Period Life Tables, England and Wales. For females. If you had bothered to interrogate the site more fully, you would have discovered that in 1950 : Life expectancy at birth was 66 Median age at death was 71 Modal age at death was 76 By 2010 this had risen to 79, 82 and 85 respectively. A significant increase but not the dramatic, almost doubling in life expectancy, increase you were trying to paint to make your point. As regards the OP, hats off to Macron for dragging France into some sort of reality, because 62 was far too young and unsustainable for their economy
It's good that your irrational dislike of me has started making you look at data with more attention. It would be good if you did the same to data that you present, but this is a good starting point.
Given the topic, it is reasonable to point out the modal age of death in 1950, but that misses the fact that the elderly represented a much smaller proportion of the population. That is another factor that shifts the mean much higher now than then.
I was not, actually "trying to paint" a doubling of life expectancy as the only point.
I wouldn't characterise the existing retirement age as "too young". It does seem to be a necessity though. That was my original point. Sorry that you have had to agree.I'm still confused where 44 and 49 came from. Those feel like 1850s not 1950s.
Any roads, if people stay economically active dont they get an uplift on state pension later? And so while they help fund today's cohort of state pensioners they aren't helping when they do retire ?
You are correct. I was a lazy in my check. I was using an ONS figure that indicated the age at which life expectancy starts to fall. It was mid forties in 1950 and mid sixties by 2010.
Average life expectancy from birth in 1950 was 68 and 81 in 2020.
You don't get an uplift in state pension after paying 35 years NI contributions unless you were born some time in the 1950s, I believe.aha, it was the deferral I was on about.
Your State Pension will increase every week you defer, as long as you defer for at least 9 weeks.
Your State Pension increases by the equivalent of 1% for every 9 weeks you defer. This works out as just under 5.8% for every 52 weeks.
The extra amount is paid with your regular State Pension payment.
I didn't actually realise that there is no limit to the uplift. 5.6% every extra year worked. Although they do keep moving the goalposts away ...
Surely the UK Government would be better off publicising this more clearly than allowing the richest to get even more?
That's assuming they really want keep people working for longer in the UK too.
What on earth does 5.6% relate to? Your posts are increasingly inscrutable and difficult to rely on. It is disappointing that, when then correctly challenged, you double down, twist and wriggle or, at best, try to hide a fauxpology within a reply to someone other than the challenger. How odd.
5.6% is a typo that most people would ignore as not especially important to the point being made.
You continue to seem somewhat obsessed with my posts. Do try to calm yourself.to clarify for all.
If you don't take your state pension immediately, then it increases by 5.8pc pa. This is to encourage (I assume) people to defer.
I haven't done the maths to see if this is generous or not. My quick maths is no, although maybe some compounding means it's better than it looks.
It depends on how long you live to claim the pension. You will also be earning, presumably, more than your state pension in the meantime.
It's more about if you are capable of inclined to continue working and what your motivation is to retire completely."one can do both. Of course there is a tax play... But missing out a year to get 6pc increase feels like and 18ish break even. So touch and go. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"a few people are living longer but many of us will not. often people who live a long time remain economically active adding to the economy. its just government spin In 1950 average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women. Now 84 and 86. I have not seen any information to indicate that older people generate new economic activity in later life rather than spending what they receive. It changes the sector's in which the money is spent though. Total out-of-context rubbish. People were living much longer than that on average in the UK in 1950. Plenty of sites attest to this. You have simply searched, then copied and pasted an image from the first results return, relating to the ONS site, which was referring to the number of survivors by age, from the Period Life Tables, England and Wales. For females. If you had bothered to interrogate the site more fully, you would have discovered that in 1950 : Life expectancy at birth was 66 Median age at death was 71 Modal age at death was 76 By 2010 this had risen to 79, 82 and 85 respectively. A significant increase but not the dramatic, almost doubling in life expectancy, increase you were trying to paint to make your point. As regards the OP, hats off to Macron for dragging France into some sort of reality, because 62 was far too young and unsustainable for their economy
It's good that your irrational dislike of me has started making you look at data with more attention. It would be good if you did the same to data that you present, but this is a good starting point.
Given the topic, it is reasonable to point out the modal age of death in 1950, but that misses the fact that the elderly represented a much smaller proportion of the population. That is another factor that shifts the mean much higher now than then.
I was not, actually "trying to paint" a doubling of life expectancy as the only point.
I wouldn't characterise the existing retirement age as "too young". It does seem to be a necessity though. That was my original point. Sorry that you have had to agree.I'm still confused where 44 and 49 came from. Those feel like 1850s not 1950s.
Any roads, if people stay economically active dont they get an uplift on state pension later? And so while they help fund today's cohort of state pensioners they aren't helping when they do retire ?
You are correct. I was a lazy in my check. I was using an ONS figure that indicated the age at which life expectancy starts to fall. It was mid forties in 1950 and mid sixties by 2010.
Average life expectancy from birth in 1950 was 68 and 81 in 2020.
You don't get an uplift in state pension after paying 35 years NI contributions unless you were born some time in the 1950s, I believe.aha, it was the deferral I was on about.
Your State Pension will increase every week you defer, as long as you defer for at least 9 weeks.
Your State Pension increases by the equivalent of 1% for every 9 weeks you defer. This works out as just under 5.8% for every 52 weeks.
The extra amount is paid with your regular State Pension payment.
I didn't actually realise that there is no limit to the uplift. 5.6% every extra year worked. Although they do keep moving the goalposts away ...
Surely the UK Government would be better off publicising this more clearly than allowing the richest to get even more?
That's assuming they really want keep people working for longer in the UK too.
What on earth does 5.6% relate to? Your posts are increasingly inscrutable and difficult to rely on. It is disappointing that, when then correctly challenged, you double down, twist and wriggle or, at best, try to hide a fauxpology within a reply to someone other than the challenger. How odd.
5.6% is a typo that most people would ignore as not especially important to the point being made.
You continue to seem somewhat obsessed with my posts. Do try to calm yourself.to clarify for all.
If you don't take your state pension immediately, then it increases by 5.8pc pa. This is to encourage (I assume) people to defer.
I haven't done the maths to see if this is generous or not. My quick maths is no, although maybe some compounding means it's better than it looks.
It depends on how long you live to claim the pension. You will also be earning, presumably, more than your state pension in the meantime.
It's more about if you are capable of inclined to continue working and what your motivation is to retire completely.one can do both. Of course there is a tax play... But missing out a year to get 6pc increase feels like and 18ish break even. So touch and go.
"That's the point I was trying to make. What are you "missing out on" if you don't know what not working is worth to you. That's assuming your employer will keep you on. Currently likely, but labour demand is fickle. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Macron survives 2 no confidence votes… the 2nd one by 7 votes….. " Good | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"a few people are living longer but many of us will not. often people who live a long time remain economically active adding to the economy. its just government spin In 1950 average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women. Now 84 and 86. I have not seen any information to indicate that older people generate new economic activity in later life rather than spending what they receive. It changes the sector's in which the money is spent though. Total out-of-context rubbish. People were living much longer than that on average in the UK in 1950. Plenty of sites attest to this. You have simply searched, then copied and pasted an image from the first results return, relating to the ONS site, which was referring to the number of survivors by age, from the Period Life Tables, England and Wales. For females. If you had bothered to interrogate the site more fully, you would have discovered that in 1950 : Life expectancy at birth was 66 Median age at death was 71 Modal age at death was 76 By 2010 this had risen to 79, 82 and 85 respectively. A significant increase but not the dramatic, almost doubling in life expectancy, increase you were trying to paint to make your point. As regards the OP, hats off to Macron for dragging France into some sort of reality, because 62 was far too young and unsustainable for their economy
It's good that your irrational dislike of me has started making you look at data with more attention. It would be good if you did the same to data that you present, but this is a good starting point.
Given the topic, it is reasonable to point out the modal age of death in 1950, but that misses the fact that the elderly represented a much smaller proportion of the population. That is another factor that shifts the mean much higher now than then.
I was not, actually "trying to paint" a doubling of life expectancy as the only point.
I wouldn't characterise the existing retirement age as "too young". It does seem to be a necessity though. That was my original point. Sorry that you have had to agree.
I don't have an irrational dislike of you. What made me look at it in more detail is that what you presented, as is quite often the case, was plainly out and out nonsense. I do check my data and don't recall any schoolboy errors, as some would see it, on this daft level. Didn't you stop to read back the absolute drivel, many might say, that you were spouting? It's not been that long since you were writing, as some would see it, total tripe and twaddle on electric cars to Mr D.
A simple apology would have sufficed, but of course that doesn't come easily to lefties. You have to twist it to ' Sorry that you have had to agree' which is at once childish and petty.
Increasingly I see people having to check and double check your posts, yet you vent forth with what many see as astonishing and patronising arrogance, as though you couldn't possibly be wrong.
Yet again, you were!
"People" very rarely have to double check my posts and I can acknowledge when there is an error.
You carry on repeating whatever you want and avoiding addressing questions that don't suit the position that you're trying to take.
Insult as you wish in your own petty way. I'm not bothered.
None of this post from you addressed the OP. Just spam."I correctly described your erroneous statement that in 1950 'average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women' as rubbish and then gave the correct figures. As usual, you have not liked this and have chosen to paint my correction as an 'insult' and 'spam' and that I am being 'petty' and that you're 'not bothered'. How gracious you are in defeat in a Vicky Pollard-kind of way! I have set out proper facts and my position on the French retirement age. You should try it some time instead of poorly researched details and then a thousand questions for anyone challenging you  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"a few people are living longer but many of us will not. often people who live a long time remain economically active adding to the economy. its just government spin In 1950 average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women. Now 84 and 86. I have not seen any information to indicate that older people generate new economic activity in later life rather than spending what they receive. It changes the sector's in which the money is spent though. Total out-of-context rubbish. People were living much longer than that on average in the UK in 1950. Plenty of sites attest to this. You have simply searched, then copied and pasted an image from the first results return, relating to the ONS site, which was referring to the number of survivors by age, from the Period Life Tables, England and Wales. For females. If you had bothered to interrogate the site more fully, you would have discovered that in 1950 : Life expectancy at birth was 66 Median age at death was 71 Modal age at death was 76 By 2010 this had risen to 79, 82 and 85 respectively. A significant increase but not the dramatic, almost doubling in life expectancy, increase you were trying to paint to make your point. As regards the OP, hats off to Macron for dragging France into some sort of reality, because 62 was far too young and unsustainable for their economy
It's good that your irrational dislike of me has started making you look at data with more attention. It would be good if you did the same to data that you present, but this is a good starting point.
Given the topic, it is reasonable to point out the modal age of death in 1950, but that misses the fact that the elderly represented a much smaller proportion of the population. That is another factor that shifts the mean much higher now than then.
I was not, actually "trying to paint" a doubling of life expectancy as the only point.
I wouldn't characterise the existing retirement age as "too young". It does seem to be a necessity though. That was my original point. Sorry that you have had to agree.
I don't have an irrational dislike of you. What made me look at it in more detail is that what you presented, as is quite often the case, was plainly out and out nonsense. I do check my data and don't recall any schoolboy errors, as some would see it, on this daft level. Didn't you stop to read back the absolute drivel, many might say, that you were spouting? It's not been that long since you were writing, as some would see it, total tripe and twaddle on electric cars to Mr D.
A simple apology would have sufficed, but of course that doesn't come easily to lefties. You have to twist it to ' Sorry that you have had to agree' which is at once childish and petty.
Increasingly I see people having to check and double check your posts, yet you vent forth with what many see as astonishing and patronising arrogance, as though you couldn't possibly be wrong.
Yet again, you were!
"People" very rarely have to double check my posts and I can acknowledge when there is an error.
You carry on repeating whatever you want and avoiding addressing questions that don't suit the position that you're trying to take.
Insult as you wish in your own petty way. I'm not bothered.
None of this post from you addressed the OP. Just spam.
I correctly described your erroneous statement that in 1950 'average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women' as rubbish and then gave the correct figures. As usual, you have not liked this and have chosen to paint my correction as an 'insult' and 'spam' and that I am being 'petty' and that you're 'not bothered'.
How gracious you are in defeat in a Vicky Pollard-kind of way!
I have set out proper facts and my position on the French retirement age. You should try it some time instead of poorly researched details and then a thousand questions for anyone challenging you
"More spam and you even got your "correction" wrong in not understanding what the data means. Your obsession with me remains creepy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"a few people are living longer but many of us will not. often people who live a long time remain economically active adding to the economy. its just government spin In 1950 average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women. Now 84 and 86. I have not seen any information to indicate that older people generate new economic activity in later life rather than spending what they receive. It changes the sector's in which the money is spent though. Total out-of-context rubbish. People were living much longer than that on average in the UK in 1950. Plenty of sites attest to this. You have simply searched, then copied and pasted an image from the first results return, relating to the ONS site, which was referring to the number of survivors by age, from the Period Life Tables, England and Wales. For females. If you had bothered to interrogate the site more fully, you would have discovered that in 1950 : Life expectancy at birth was 66 Median age at death was 71 Modal age at death was 76 By 2010 this had risen to 79, 82 and 85 respectively. A significant increase but not the dramatic, almost doubling in life expectancy, increase you were trying to paint to make your point. As regards the OP, hats off to Macron for dragging France into some sort of reality, because 62 was far too young and unsustainable for their economy
It's good that your irrational dislike of me has started making you look at data with more attention. It would be good if you did the same to data that you present, but this is a good starting point.
Given the topic, it is reasonable to point out the modal age of death in 1950, but that misses the fact that the elderly represented a much smaller proportion of the population. That is another factor that shifts the mean much higher now than then.
I was not, actually "trying to paint" a doubling of life expectancy as the only point.
I wouldn't characterise the existing retirement age as "too young". It does seem to be a necessity though. That was my original point. Sorry that you have had to agree.
I don't have an irrational dislike of you. What made me look at it in more detail is that what you presented, as is quite often the case, was plainly out and out nonsense. I do check my data and don't recall any schoolboy errors, as some would see it, on this daft level. Didn't you stop to read back the absolute drivel, many might say, that you were spouting? It's not been that long since you were writing, as some would see it, total tripe and twaddle on electric cars to Mr D.
A simple apology would have sufficed, but of course that doesn't come easily to lefties. You have to twist it to ' Sorry that you have had to agree' which is at once childish and petty.
Increasingly I see people having to check and double check your posts, yet you vent forth with what many see as astonishing and patronising arrogance, as though you couldn't possibly be wrong.
Yet again, you were!
"People" very rarely have to double check my posts and I can acknowledge when there is an error.
You carry on repeating whatever you want and avoiding addressing questions that don't suit the position that you're trying to take.
Insult as you wish in your own petty way. I'm not bothered.
None of this post from you addressed the OP. Just spam.
I correctly described your erroneous statement that in 1950 'average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women' as rubbish and then gave the correct figures. As usual, you have not liked this and have chosen to paint my correction as an 'insult' and 'spam' and that I am being 'petty' and that you're 'not bothered'.
How gracious you are in defeat in a Vicky Pollard-kind of way!
I have set out proper facts and my position on the French retirement age. You should try it some time instead of poorly researched details and then a thousand questions for anyone challenging you
More spam and you even got your "correction" wrong in not understanding what the data means.
Your obsession with me remains creepy."The other guy actually got the death ages right as if people dying en masse in 1950 at 44 was a thing ha ha Looks like you got your ass handed over to you on a plate! Anyhows how about a EU same age for retireing, 65 and UK matches it? Give youngsters a chance ffs | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"a few people are living longer but many of us will not. often people who live a long time remain economically active adding to the economy. its just government spin In 1950 average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women. Now 84 and 86. I have not seen any information to indicate that older people generate new economic activity in later life rather than spending what they receive. It changes the sector's in which the money is spent though. Total out-of-context rubbish. People were living much longer than that on average in the UK in 1950. Plenty of sites attest to this. You have simply searched, then copied and pasted an image from the first results return, relating to the ONS site, which was referring to the number of survivors by age, from the Period Life Tables, England and Wales. For females. If you had bothered to interrogate the site more fully, you would have discovered that in 1950 : Life expectancy at birth was 66 Median age at death was 71 Modal age at death was 76 By 2010 this had risen to 79, 82 and 85 respectively. A significant increase but not the dramatic, almost doubling in life expectancy, increase you were trying to paint to make your point. As regards the OP, hats off to Macron for dragging France into some sort of reality, because 62 was far too young and unsustainable for their economy
It's good that your irrational dislike of me has started making you look at data with more attention. It would be good if you did the same to data that you present, but this is a good starting point.
Given the topic, it is reasonable to point out the modal age of death in 1950, but that misses the fact that the elderly represented a much smaller proportion of the population. That is another factor that shifts the mean much higher now than then.
I was not, actually "trying to paint" a doubling of life expectancy as the only point.
I wouldn't characterise the existing retirement age as "too young". It does seem to be a necessity though. That was my original point. Sorry that you have had to agree.
I don't have an irrational dislike of you. What made me look at it in more detail is that what you presented, as is quite often the case, was plainly out and out nonsense. I do check my data and don't recall any schoolboy errors, as some would see it, on this daft level. Didn't you stop to read back the absolute drivel, many might say, that you were spouting? It's not been that long since you were writing, as some would see it, total tripe and twaddle on electric cars to Mr D.
A simple apology would have sufficed, but of course that doesn't come easily to lefties. You have to twist it to ' Sorry that you have had to agree' which is at once childish and petty.
Increasingly I see people having to check and double check your posts, yet you vent forth with what many see as astonishing and patronising arrogance, as though you couldn't possibly be wrong.
Yet again, you were!
"People" very rarely have to double check my posts and I can acknowledge when there is an error.
You carry on repeating whatever you want and avoiding addressing questions that don't suit the position that you're trying to take.
Insult as you wish in your own petty way. I'm not bothered.
None of this post from you addressed the OP. Just spam.
I correctly described your erroneous statement that in 1950 'average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women' as rubbish and then gave the correct figures. As usual, you have not liked this and have chosen to paint my correction as an 'insult' and 'spam' and that I am being 'petty' and that you're 'not bothered'.
How gracious you are in defeat in a Vicky Pollard-kind of way!
I have set out proper facts and my position on the French retirement age. You should try it some time instead of poorly researched details and then a thousand questions for anyone challenging you
More spam and you even got your "correction" wrong in not understanding what the data means.
Your obsession with me remains creepy.
The other guy actually got the death ages right as if people dying en masse in 1950 at 44 was a thing ha ha
Looks like you got your ass handed over to you on a plate!
Anyhows how about a EU same age for retireing, 65 and UK matches it? Give youngsters a chance ffs
"Cheers for the support but everyone knows that he makes frequent errors already. As regards a common age of retirement, how would the UK fund a drop to 65? Struggling as it is on that score?  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"a few people are living longer but many of us will not. often people who live a long time remain economically active adding to the economy. its just government spin In 1950 average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women. Now 84 and 86. I have not seen any information to indicate that older people generate new economic activity in later life rather than spending what they receive. It changes the sector's in which the money is spent though. Total out-of-context rubbish. People were living much longer than that on average in the UK in 1950. Plenty of sites attest to this. You have simply searched, then copied and pasted an image from the first results return, relating to the ONS site, which was referring to the number of survivors by age, from the Period Life Tables, England and Wales. For females. If you had bothered to interrogate the site more fully, you would have discovered that in 1950 : Life expectancy at birth was 66 Median age at death was 71 Modal age at death was 76 By 2010 this had risen to 79, 82 and 85 respectively. A significant increase but not the dramatic, almost doubling in life expectancy, increase you were trying to paint to make your point. As regards the OP, hats off to Macron for dragging France into some sort of reality, because 62 was far too young and unsustainable for their economy
It's good that your irrational dislike of me has started making you look at data with more attention. It would be good if you did the same to data that you present, but this is a good starting point.
Given the topic, it is reasonable to point out the modal age of death in 1950, but that misses the fact that the elderly represented a much smaller proportion of the population. That is another factor that shifts the mean much higher now than then.
I was not, actually "trying to paint" a doubling of life expectancy as the only point.
I wouldn't characterise the existing retirement age as "too young". It does seem to be a necessity though. That was my original point. Sorry that you have had to agree.
I don't have an irrational dislike of you. What made me look at it in more detail is that what you presented, as is quite often the case, was plainly out and out nonsense. I do check my data and don't recall any schoolboy errors, as some would see it, on this daft level. Didn't you stop to read back the absolute drivel, many might say, that you were spouting? It's not been that long since you were writing, as some would see it, total tripe and twaddle on electric cars to Mr D.
A simple apology would have sufficed, but of course that doesn't come easily to lefties. You have to twist it to ' Sorry that you have had to agree' which is at once childish and petty.
Increasingly I see people having to check and double check your posts, yet you vent forth with what many see as astonishing and patronising arrogance, as though you couldn't possibly be wrong.
Yet again, you were!
"People" very rarely have to double check my posts and I can acknowledge when there is an error.
You carry on repeating whatever you want and avoiding addressing questions that don't suit the position that you're trying to take.
Insult as you wish in your own petty way. I'm not bothered.
None of this post from you addressed the OP. Just spam.
I correctly described your erroneous statement that in 1950 'average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women' as rubbish and then gave the correct figures. As usual, you have not liked this and have chosen to paint my correction as an 'insult' and 'spam' and that I am being 'petty' and that you're 'not bothered'.
How gracious you are in defeat in a Vicky Pollard-kind of way!
I have set out proper facts and my position on the French retirement age. You should try it some time instead of poorly researched details and then a thousand questions for anyone challenging you
More spam and you even got your "correction" wrong in not understanding what the data means.
Your obsession with me remains creepy.
The other guy actually got the death ages right as if people dying en masse in 1950 at 44 was a thing ha ha
Looks like you got your ass handed over to you on a plate!
Anyhows how about a EU same age for retireing, 65 and UK matches it? Give youngsters a chance ffs
Cheers for the support but everyone knows that he makes frequent errors already.
As regards a common age of retirement, how would the UK fund a drop to 65? Struggling as it is on that score?
"A start would be a proper clamp down on tax evasion, tighter rules and better clarity on tax avoidance, and changing corporate tax rules so that all companies paid tax on revenues in the country where the revenue is generated. No more tax haven holding companies charging UK operations IP royalties that effectively means their UK operations are loss making (they aren’t). That would swell the overall coffers of HMT massively providing funding for retirement at 65. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"a few people are living longer but many of us will not. often people who live a long time remain economically active adding to the economy. its just government spin In 1950 average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women. Now 84 and 86. I have not seen any information to indicate that older people generate new economic activity in later life rather than spending what they receive. It changes the sector's in which the money is spent though. Total out-of-context rubbish. People were living much longer than that on average in the UK in 1950. Plenty of sites attest to this. You have simply searched, then copied and pasted an image from the first results return, relating to the ONS site, which was referring to the number of survivors by age, from the Period Life Tables, England and Wales. For females. If you had bothered to interrogate the site more fully, you would have discovered that in 1950 : Life expectancy at birth was 66 Median age at death was 71 Modal age at death was 76 By 2010 this had risen to 79, 82 and 85 respectively. A significant increase but not the dramatic, almost doubling in life expectancy, increase you were trying to paint to make your point. As regards the OP, hats off to Macron for dragging France into some sort of reality, because 62 was far too young and unsustainable for their economy
It's good that your irrational dislike of me has started making you look at data with more attention. It would be good if you did the same to data that you present, but this is a good starting point.
Given the topic, it is reasonable to point out the modal age of death in 1950, but that misses the fact that the elderly represented a much smaller proportion of the population. That is another factor that shifts the mean much higher now than then.
I was not, actually "trying to paint" a doubling of life expectancy as the only point.
I wouldn't characterise the existing retirement age as "too young". It does seem to be a necessity though. That was my original point. Sorry that you have had to agree.
I don't have an irrational dislike of you. What made me look at it in more detail is that what you presented, as is quite often the case, was plainly out and out nonsense. I do check my data and don't recall any schoolboy errors, as some would see it, on this daft level. Didn't you stop to read back the absolute drivel, many might say, that you were spouting? It's not been that long since you were writing, as some would see it, total tripe and twaddle on electric cars to Mr D.
A simple apology would have sufficed, but of course that doesn't come easily to lefties. You have to twist it to ' Sorry that you have had to agree' which is at once childish and petty.
Increasingly I see people having to check and double check your posts, yet you vent forth with what many see as astonishing and patronising arrogance, as though you couldn't possibly be wrong.
Yet again, you were!
"People" very rarely have to double check my posts and I can acknowledge when there is an error.
You carry on repeating whatever you want and avoiding addressing questions that don't suit the position that you're trying to take.
Insult as you wish in your own petty way. I'm not bothered.
None of this post from you addressed the OP. Just spam.
I correctly described your erroneous statement that in 1950 'average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women' as rubbish and then gave the correct figures. As usual, you have not liked this and have chosen to paint my correction as an 'insult' and 'spam' and that I am being 'petty' and that you're 'not bothered'.
How gracious you are in defeat in a Vicky Pollard-kind of way!
I have set out proper facts and my position on the French retirement age. You should try it some time instead of poorly researched details and then a thousand questions for anyone challenging you
More spam and you even got your "correction" wrong in not understanding what the data means.
Your obsession with me remains creepy.
The other guy actually got the death ages right as if people dying en masse in 1950 at 44 was a thing ha ha
Looks like you got your ass handed over to you on a plate!
Anyhows how about a EU same age for retireing, 65 and UK matches it? Give youngsters a chance ffs
Cheers for the support but everyone knows that he makes frequent errors already.
As regards a common age of retirement, how would the UK fund a drop to 65? Struggling as it is on that score?
A start would be a proper clamp down on tax evasion, tighter rules and better clarity on tax avoidance, and changing corporate tax rules so that all companies paid tax on revenues in the country where the revenue is generated. No more tax haven holding companies charging UK operations IP royalties that effectively means their UK operations are loss making (they aren’t).
That would swell the overall coffers of HMT massively providing funding for retirement at 65. "I'd put a tax on revenue over £x amount. Fucks profit centres. And gives smaller cos a slight advantage. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"a few people are living longer but many of us will not. often people who live a long time remain economically active adding to the economy. its just government spin In 1950 average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women. Now 84 and 86. I have not seen any information to indicate that older people generate new economic activity in later life rather than spending what they receive. It changes the sector's in which the money is spent though. Total out-of-context rubbish. People were living much longer than that on average in the UK in 1950. Plenty of sites attest to this. You have simply searched, then copied and pasted an image from the first results return, relating to the ONS site, which was referring to the number of survivors by age, from the Period Life Tables, England and Wales. For females. If you had bothered to interrogate the site more fully, you would have discovered that in 1950 : Life expectancy at birth was 66 Median age at death was 71 Modal age at death was 76 By 2010 this had risen to 79, 82 and 85 respectively. A significant increase but not the dramatic, almost doubling in life expectancy, increase you were trying to paint to make your point. As regards the OP, hats off to Macron for dragging France into some sort of reality, because 62 was far too young and unsustainable for their economy
It's good that your irrational dislike of me has started making you look at data with more attention. It would be good if you did the same to data that you present, but this is a good starting point.
Given the topic, it is reasonable to point out the modal age of death in 1950, but that misses the fact that the elderly represented a much smaller proportion of the population. That is another factor that shifts the mean much higher now than then.
I was not, actually "trying to paint" a doubling of life expectancy as the only point.
I wouldn't characterise the existing retirement age as "too young". It does seem to be a necessity though. That was my original point. Sorry that you have had to agree.
I don't have an irrational dislike of you. What made me look at it in more detail is that what you presented, as is quite often the case, was plainly out and out nonsense. I do check my data and don't recall any schoolboy errors, as some would see it, on this daft level. Didn't you stop to read back the absolute drivel, many might say, that you were spouting? It's not been that long since you were writing, as some would see it, total tripe and twaddle on electric cars to Mr D.
A simple apology would have sufficed, but of course that doesn't come easily to lefties. You have to twist it to ' Sorry that you have had to agree' which is at once childish and petty.
Increasingly I see people having to check and double check your posts, yet you vent forth with what many see as astonishing and patronising arrogance, as though you couldn't possibly be wrong.
Yet again, you were!
"People" very rarely have to double check my posts and I can acknowledge when there is an error.
You carry on repeating whatever you want and avoiding addressing questions that don't suit the position that you're trying to take.
Insult as you wish in your own petty way. I'm not bothered.
None of this post from you addressed the OP. Just spam.
I correctly described your erroneous statement that in 1950 'average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women' as rubbish and then gave the correct figures. As usual, you have not liked this and have chosen to paint my correction as an 'insult' and 'spam' and that I am being 'petty' and that you're 'not bothered'.
How gracious you are in defeat in a Vicky Pollard-kind of way!
I have set out proper facts and my position on the French retirement age. You should try it some time instead of poorly researched details and then a thousand questions for anyone challenging you
More spam and you even got your "correction" wrong in not understanding what the data means.
Your obsession with me remains creepy.
The other guy actually got the death ages right as if people dying en masse in 1950 at 44 was a thing ha ha
Looks like you got your ass handed over to you on a plate!
Anyhows how about a EU same age for retireing, 65 and UK matches it? Give youngsters a chance ffs
Cheers for the support but everyone knows that he makes frequent errors already.
As regards a common age of retirement, how would the UK fund a drop to 65? Struggling as it is on that score?
A start would be a proper clamp down on tax evasion, tighter rules and better clarity on tax avoidance, and changing corporate tax rules so that all companies paid tax on revenues in the country where the revenue is generated. No more tax haven holding companies charging UK operations IP royalties that effectively means their UK operations are loss making (they aren’t).
That would swell the overall coffers of HMT massively providing funding for retirement at 65. "I agree and again the best way to to tax that is unavoidable is Vat any thing else is easier to avoid.for the better of to the stinking rich. It is just a numbers game. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"a few people are living longer but many of us will not. often people who live a long time remain economically active adding to the economy. its just government spin In 1950 average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women. Now 84 and 86. I have not seen any information to indicate that older people generate new economic activity in later life rather than spending what they receive. It changes the sector's in which the money is spent though. Total out-of-context rubbish. People were living much longer than that on average in the UK in 1950. Plenty of sites attest to this. You have simply searched, then copied and pasted an image from the first results return, relating to the ONS site, which was referring to the number of survivors by age, from the Period Life Tables, England and Wales. For females. If you had bothered to interrogate the site more fully, you would have discovered that in 1950 : Life expectancy at birth was 66 Median age at death was 71 Modal age at death was 76 By 2010 this had risen to 79, 82 and 85 respectively. A significant increase but not the dramatic, almost doubling in life expectancy, increase you were trying to paint to make your point. As regards the OP, hats off to Macron for dragging France into some sort of reality, because 62 was far too young and unsustainable for their economy
It's good that your irrational dislike of me has started making you look at data with more attention. It would be good if you did the same to data that you present, but this is a good starting point.
Given the topic, it is reasonable to point out the modal age of death in 1950, but that misses the fact that the elderly represented a much smaller proportion of the population. That is another factor that shifts the mean much higher now than then.
I was not, actually "trying to paint" a doubling of life expectancy as the only point.
I wouldn't characterise the existing retirement age as "too young". It does seem to be a necessity though. That was my original point. Sorry that you have had to agree.
I don't have an irrational dislike of you. What made me look at it in more detail is that what you presented, as is quite often the case, was plainly out and out nonsense. I do check my data and don't recall any schoolboy errors, as some would see it, on this daft level. Didn't you stop to read back the absolute drivel, many might say, that you were spouting? It's not been that long since you were writing, as some would see it, total tripe and twaddle on electric cars to Mr D.
A simple apology would have sufficed, but of course that doesn't come easily to lefties. You have to twist it to ' Sorry that you have had to agree' which is at once childish and petty.
Increasingly I see people having to check and double check your posts, yet you vent forth with what many see as astonishing and patronising arrogance, as though you couldn't possibly be wrong.
Yet again, you were!
"People" very rarely have to double check my posts and I can acknowledge when there is an error.
You carry on repeating whatever you want and avoiding addressing questions that don't suit the position that you're trying to take.
Insult as you wish in your own petty way. I'm not bothered.
None of this post from you addressed the OP. Just spam.
I correctly described your erroneous statement that in 1950 'average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women' as rubbish and then gave the correct figures. As usual, you have not liked this and have chosen to paint my correction as an 'insult' and 'spam' and that I am being 'petty' and that you're 'not bothered'.
How gracious you are in defeat in a Vicky Pollard-kind of way!
I have set out proper facts and my position on the French retirement age. You should try it some time instead of poorly researched details and then a thousand questions for anyone challenging you
More spam and you even got your "correction" wrong in not understanding what the data means.
Your obsession with me remains creepy.
The other guy actually got the death ages right as if people dying en masse in 1950 at 44 was a thing ha ha
Looks like you got your ass handed over to you on a plate!
Anyhows how about a EU same age for retireing, 65 and UK matches it? Give youngsters a chance ffs
Cheers for the support but everyone knows that he makes frequent errors already.
As regards a common age of retirement, how would the UK fund a drop to 65? Struggling as it is on that score?
A start would be a proper clamp down on tax evasion, tighter rules and better clarity on tax avoidance, and changing corporate tax rules so that all companies paid tax on revenues in the country where the revenue is generated. No more tax haven holding companies charging UK operations IP royalties that effectively means their UK operations are loss making (they aren’t).
That would swell the overall coffers of HMT massively providing funding for retirement at 65.
I agree and again the best way to to tax that is unavoidable is Vat any thing else is easier to avoid.for the better of to the stinking rich. It is just a numbers game. "Except that penalises the poor more, doesn't it? VAT is a flat rate, so the rich would be taxed a lower proportion of their income than they do now. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you enjoy your 20s and early 30s but then have the nous to start putting a bit aside you will find it very easy to "retire" with your private pension at 50. "Very easy"? What of the stock market crashes just before you take out your annuity? Perhaps the bond market, or something else completely outside your control?" What if you don't look on life with a negative slant? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If you enjoy your 20s and early 30s but then have the nous to start putting a bit aside you will find it very easy to "retire" with your private pension at 50. "Very easy"? What of the stock market crashes just before you take out your annuity? Perhaps the bond market, or something else completely outside your control? What if you don't look on life with a negative slant?" What if you look at life with a realistic slant based on events that have actually happened? Hope for the best with your life savings? Go right ahead | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A civilised people. Unlike the Brit Angerlanders. " Don't look very civilised tonight in Paris ha ha No protest or revolt in UK when going up from 65, 66, 67 and soon 68. Waspy women took 60 to 66 on chin. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No protest or revolt in UK when going up from 65, 66, 67 and soon 68. Waspy women took 60 to 66 on chin. " The phrase "took it on the chin" means that a person accepted the blow without complaint. That is not an accurate way of describing the WASPI women. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No protest or revolt in UK when going up from 65, 66, 67 and soon 68. Waspy women took 60 to 66 on chin. The phrase "took it on the chin" means that a person accepted the blow without complaint. That is not an accurate way of describing the WASPI women." Yes, there was a Court case brought by the Waspi women but they lost. Think they're still pursuing it. But he was right on one thing, the French are revolting big time  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
Please note I am using the present participle of revolt, as in 'rebel'
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I had a argument with a labour councillor after the latest rise. Try telling a guy who has worked on a building site or any other tough manual job he has to keep working - disgraceful. Ive seen guys struggling to walk in their 60s and they have to carry on working because some guy behind a desk in a warm office says he has to, while he retires on a huge pension. And dont get me started on the disgraceful way the women had their age raised to 65, months before many were due to retire And the labour councillor i was arguing with...... simply said the country couldnt afford it and rises had to happen. Absoloute w@@ker We should have gone to the streets like the French have, but im affraid Thatcher took away the working mans fight many years ago, so sad" How do the pensions get paid? What public services do we cut (even further)? Why doesn't Government prioritise collection of taxes and close the loopholes is the solution that keeps going answered... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Got me thinking what the UK retirement age would have to go up to for some of the regulars on here to revolt like the French. Say it went to 70, would we see the following? EUK - revolting all day long MrMS - revolting at night, til daybreak, then sleep it off til early afternoon and recommence Fab999 - not actively revolting, but bystander giving constant thumbs up to the others on left who are revolting at various times Birdies - far from revolting, perched on centrists fence, asking if we can split the difference and agree 63
Please note I am using the present participle of revolt, as in 'rebel'
"Lol fair play to you there, I will give you that
Yeah the french are revolting but we love em really | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I had a argument with a labour councillor after the latest rise. Try telling a guy who has worked on a building site or any other tough manual job he has to keep working - disgraceful. Ive seen guys struggling to walk in their 60s and they have to carry on working because some guy behind a desk in a warm office says he has to, while he retires on a huge pension. And dont get me started on the disgraceful way the women had their age raised to 65, months before many were due to retire And the labour councillor i was arguing with...... simply said the country couldnt afford it and rises had to happen. Absoloute w@@ker We should have gone to the streets like the French have, but im affraid Thatcher took away the working mans fight many years ago, so sad" Agree mate wish labour were more for working man, gap between rich and poor just gets bigger | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Morning Are the French correct to stand up for their right to retire at an age they can enjoy life. We are 67 going tona probable 69 yet the average life expectancy is reducing. Should we be on the streets fighting for our rights! Yes we should but it should not be an age it should be years worked. As some one going to Uni might not start work till 23 25, I started work at 16 so after 45 years I'll be 61 and happy to retire you only need 35 years NI to claim full state pension. According to Gov.uk" Try working on the oilrigs for 30+ years mate, 14 x 12hr shifts minimum plus ERT fireteam duties, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"a few people are living longer but many of us will not. often people who live a long time remain economically active adding to the economy. its just government spin In 1950 average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women. Now 84 and 86. I have not seen any information to indicate that older people generate new economic activity in later life rather than spending what they receive. It changes the sector's in which the money is spent though. Total out-of-context rubbish. People were living much longer than that on average in the UK in 1950. Plenty of sites attest to this. You have simply searched, then copied and pasted an image from the first results return, relating to the ONS site, which was referring to the number of survivors by age, from the Period Life Tables, England and Wales. For females. If you had bothered to interrogate the site more fully, you would have discovered that in 1950 : Life expectancy at birth was 66 Median age at death was 71 Modal age at death was 76 By 2010 this had risen to 79, 82 and 85 respectively. A significant increase but not the dramatic, almost doubling in life expectancy, increase you were trying to paint to make your point. As regards the OP, hats off to Macron for dragging France into some sort of reality, because 62 was far too young and unsustainable for their economy
It's good that your irrational dislike of me has started making you look at data with more attention. It would be good if you did the same to data that you present, but this is a good starting point.
Given the topic, it is reasonable to point out the modal age of death in 1950, but that misses the fact that the elderly represented a much smaller proportion of the population. That is another factor that shifts the mean much higher now than then.
I was not, actually "trying to paint" a doubling of life expectancy as the only point.
I wouldn't characterise the existing retirement age as "too young". It does seem to be a necessity though. That was my original point. Sorry that you have had to agree.
I don't have an irrational dislike of you. What made me look at it in more detail is that what you presented, as is quite often the case, was plainly out and out nonsense. I do check my data and don't recall any schoolboy errors, as some would see it, on this daft level. Didn't you stop to read back the absolute drivel, many might say, that you were spouting? It's not been that long since you were writing, as some would see it, total tripe and twaddle on electric cars to Mr D.
A simple apology would have sufficed, but of course that doesn't come easily to lefties. You have to twist it to ' Sorry that you have had to agree' which is at once childish and petty.
Increasingly I see people having to check and double check your posts, yet you vent forth with what many see as astonishing and patronising arrogance, as though you couldn't possibly be wrong.
Yet again, you were!
"People" very rarely have to double check my posts and I can acknowledge when there is an error.
You carry on repeating whatever you want and avoiding addressing questions that don't suit the position that you're trying to take.
Insult as you wish in your own petty way. I'm not bothered.
None of this post from you addressed the OP. Just spam.
I correctly described your erroneous statement that in 1950 'average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women' as rubbish and then gave the correct figures. As usual, you have not liked this and have chosen to paint my correction as an 'insult' and 'spam' and that I am being 'petty' and that you're 'not bothered'.
How gracious you are in defeat in a Vicky Pollard-kind of way!
I have set out proper facts and my position on the French retirement age. You should try it some time instead of poorly researched details and then a thousand questions for anyone challenging you
More spam and you even got your "correction" wrong in not understanding what the data means.
Your obsession with me remains creepy.
The other guy actually got the death ages right as if people dying en masse in 1950 at 44 was a thing ha ha
Looks like you got your ass handed over to you on a plate!
Anyhows how about a EU same age for retireing, 65 and UK matches it? Give youngsters a chance ffs
Cheers for the support but everyone knows that he makes frequent errors already.
As regards a common age of retirement, how would the UK fund a drop to 65? Struggling as it is on that score?
A start would be a proper clamp down on tax evasion, tighter rules and better clarity on tax avoidance, and changing corporate tax rules so that all companies paid tax on revenues in the country where the revenue is generated. No more tax haven holding companies charging UK operations IP royalties that effectively means their UK operations are loss making (they aren’t).
That would swell the overall coffers of HMT massively providing funding for retirement at 65.
I agree and again the best way to to tax that is unavoidable is Vat any thing else is easier to avoid.for the better of to the stinking rich. It is just a numbers game.
Except that penalises the poor more, doesn't it?
VAT is a flat rate, so the rich would be taxed a lower proportion of their income than they do now."No not realy as there is more vat on high value items when did you last buy a pair of christian louboutin shoes for £700 or a MK hand bag at £1000 or Ralph loren shirt £135 all these type of luxury items could have a 30 or 40 % Vat would it stop me buying the wife new shoes or me a new shirt he'll NO | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I had a argument with a labour councillor after the latest rise. Try telling a guy who has worked on a building site or any other tough manual job he has to keep working - disgraceful. Ive seen guys struggling to walk in their 60s and they have to carry on working because some guy behind a desk in a warm office says he has to, while he retires on a huge pension. And dont get me started on the disgraceful way the women had their age raised to 65, months before many were due to retire And the labour councillor i was arguing with...... simply said the country couldnt afford it and rises had to happen. Absoloute w@@ker We should have gone to the streets like the French have, but im affraid Thatcher took away the working mans fight many years ago, so sad How do the pensions get paid? What public services do we cut (even further)? Why doesn't Government prioritise collection of taxes and close the loopholes is the solution that keeps going answered..." Closing the loopholes will not benifit them in government.. why would you shot you self in the foot fuck basic.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Morning Are the French correct to stand up for their right to retire at an age they can enjoy life. We are 67 going tona probable 69 yet the average life expectancy is reducing. Should we be on the streets fighting for our rights! Yes we should but it should not be an age it should be years worked. As some one going to Uni might not start work till 23 25, I started work at 16 so after 45 years I'll be 61 and happy to retire you only need 35 years NI to claim full state pension. According to Gov.uk Try working on the oilrigs for 30+ years mate, 14 x 12hr shifts minimum plus ERT fireteam duties, " And you will be doing that when your 69 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"a few people are living longer but many of us will not. often people who live a long time remain economically active adding to the economy. its just government spin In 1950 average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women. Now 84 and 86. I have not seen any information to indicate that older people generate new economic activity in later life rather than spending what they receive. It changes the sector's in which the money is spent though. Total out-of-context rubbish. People were living much longer than that on average in the UK in 1950. Plenty of sites attest to this. You have simply searched, then copied and pasted an image from the first results return, relating to the ONS site, which was referring to the number of survivors by age, from the Period Life Tables, England and Wales. For females. If you had bothered to interrogate the site more fully, you would have discovered that in 1950 : Life expectancy at birth was 66 Median age at death was 71 Modal age at death was 76 By 2010 this had risen to 79, 82 and 85 respectively. A significant increase but not the dramatic, almost doubling in life expectancy, increase you were trying to paint to make your point. As regards the OP, hats off to Macron for dragging France into some sort of reality, because 62 was far too young and unsustainable for their economy
It's good that your irrational dislike of me has started making you look at data with more attention. It would be good if you did the same to data that you present, but this is a good starting point.
Given the topic, it is reasonable to point out the modal age of death in 1950, but that misses the fact that the elderly represented a much smaller proportion of the population. That is another factor that shifts the mean much higher now than then.
I was not, actually "trying to paint" a doubling of life expectancy as the only point.
I wouldn't characterise the existing retirement age as "too young". It does seem to be a necessity though. That was my original point. Sorry that you have had to agree.
I don't have an irrational dislike of you. What made me look at it in more detail is that what you presented, as is quite often the case, was plainly out and out nonsense. I do check my data and don't recall any schoolboy errors, as some would see it, on this daft level. Didn't you stop to read back the absolute drivel, many might say, that you were spouting? It's not been that long since you were writing, as some would see it, total tripe and twaddle on electric cars to Mr D.
A simple apology would have sufficed, but of course that doesn't come easily to lefties. You have to twist it to ' Sorry that you have had to agree' which is at once childish and petty.
Increasingly I see people having to check and double check your posts, yet you vent forth with what many see as astonishing and patronising arrogance, as though you couldn't possibly be wrong.
Yet again, you were!
"People" very rarely have to double check my posts and I can acknowledge when there is an error.
You carry on repeating whatever you want and avoiding addressing questions that don't suit the position that you're trying to take.
Insult as you wish in your own petty way. I'm not bothered.
None of this post from you addressed the OP. Just spam.
I correctly described your erroneous statement that in 1950 'average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women' as rubbish and then gave the correct figures. As usual, you have not liked this and have chosen to paint my correction as an 'insult' and 'spam' and that I am being 'petty' and that you're 'not bothered'.
How gracious you are in defeat in a Vicky Pollard-kind of way!
I have set out proper facts and my position on the French retirement age. You should try it some time instead of poorly researched details and then a thousand questions for anyone challenging you
More spam and you even got your "correction" wrong in not understanding what the data means.
Your obsession with me remains creepy.
The other guy actually got the death ages right as if people dying en masse in 1950 at 44 was a thing ha ha
Looks like you got your ass handed over to you on a plate!
Anyhows how about a EU same age for retireing, 65 and UK matches it? Give youngsters a chance ffs
Cheers for the support but everyone knows that he makes frequent errors already.
As regards a common age of retirement, how would the UK fund a drop to 65? Struggling as it is on that score?
A start would be a proper clamp down on tax evasion, tighter rules and better clarity on tax avoidance, and changing corporate tax rules so that all companies paid tax on revenues in the country where the revenue is generated. No more tax haven holding companies charging UK operations IP royalties that effectively means their UK operations are loss making (they aren’t).
That would swell the overall coffers of HMT massively providing funding for retirement at 65.
I agree and again the best way to to tax that is unavoidable is Vat any thing else is easier to avoid.for the better of to the stinking rich. It is just a numbers game.
Except that penalises the poor more, doesn't it?
VAT is a flat rate, so the rich would be taxed a lower proportion of their income than they do now.
No not realy as there is more vat on high value items when did you last buy a pair of christian louboutin shoes for £700 or a MK hand bag at £1000 or Ralph loren shirt £135 all these type of luxury items could have a 30 or 40 % Vat would it stop me buying the wife new shoes or me a new shirt he'll NO "VAT is a flat rate. So if a millionaire spends £100 they would be taxed £20. The same for a pauper. The rate would be the same. A "luxury" tax would mean defining every single item sold individually as a luxury or a standard item. You believe that is sensible? If the rich will not be effected by VAY then they will not be effected by paying their income tax either, will they? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"a few people are living longer but many of us will not. often people who live a long time remain economically active adding to the economy. its just government spin In 1950 average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women. Now 84 and 86. I have not seen any information to indicate that older people generate new economic activity in later life rather than spending what they receive. It changes the sector's in which the money is spent though. Total out-of-context rubbish. People were living much longer than that on average in the UK in 1950. Plenty of sites attest to this. You have simply searched, then copied and pasted an image from the first results return, relating to the ONS site, which was referring to the number of survivors by age, from the Period Life Tables, England and Wales. For females. If you had bothered to interrogate the site more fully, you would have discovered that in 1950 : Life expectancy at birth was 66 Median age at death was 71 Modal age at death was 76 By 2010 this had risen to 79, 82 and 85 respectively. A significant increase but not the dramatic, almost doubling in life expectancy, increase you were trying to paint to make your point. As regards the OP, hats off to Macron for dragging France into some sort of reality, because 62 was far too young and unsustainable for their economy
It's good that your irrational dislike of me has started making you look at data with more attention. It would be good if you did the same to data that you present, but this is a good starting point.
Given the topic, it is reasonable to point out the modal age of death in 1950, but that misses the fact that the elderly represented a much smaller proportion of the population. That is another factor that shifts the mean much higher now than then.
I was not, actually "trying to paint" a doubling of life expectancy as the only point.
I wouldn't characterise the existing retirement age as "too young". It does seem to be a necessity though. That was my original point. Sorry that you have had to agree.
I don't have an irrational dislike of you. What made me look at it in more detail is that what you presented, as is quite often the case, was plainly out and out nonsense. I do check my data and don't recall any schoolboy errors, as some would see it, on this daft level. Didn't you stop to read back the absolute drivel, many might say, that you were spouting? It's not been that long since you were writing, as some would see it, total tripe and twaddle on electric cars to Mr D.
A simple apology would have sufficed, but of course that doesn't come easily to lefties. You have to twist it to ' Sorry that you have had to agree' which is at once childish and petty.
Increasingly I see people having to check and double check your posts, yet you vent forth with what many see as astonishing and patronising arrogance, as though you couldn't possibly be wrong.
Yet again, you were!
"People" very rarely have to double check my posts and I can acknowledge when there is an error.
You carry on repeating whatever you want and avoiding addressing questions that don't suit the position that you're trying to take.
Insult as you wish in your own petty way. I'm not bothered.
None of this post from you addressed the OP. Just spam.
I correctly described your erroneous statement that in 1950 'average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women' as rubbish and then gave the correct figures. As usual, you have not liked this and have chosen to paint my correction as an 'insult' and 'spam' and that I am being 'petty' and that you're 'not bothered'.
How gracious you are in defeat in a Vicky Pollard-kind of way!
I have set out proper facts and my position on the French retirement age. You should try it some time instead of poorly researched details and then a thousand questions for anyone challenging you
More spam and you even got your "correction" wrong in not understanding what the data means.
Your obsession with me remains creepy.
The other guy actually got the death ages right as if people dying en masse in 1950 at 44 was a thing ha ha
Looks like you got your ass handed over to you on a plate!
Anyhows how about a EU same age for retireing, 65 and UK matches it? Give youngsters a chance ffs
Cheers for the support but everyone knows that he makes frequent errors already.
As regards a common age of retirement, how would the UK fund a drop to 65? Struggling as it is on that score?
A start would be a proper clamp down on tax evasion, tighter rules and better clarity on tax avoidance, and changing corporate tax rules so that all companies paid tax on revenues in the country where the revenue is generated. No more tax haven holding companies charging UK operations IP royalties that effectively means their UK operations are loss making (they aren’t).
That would swell the overall coffers of HMT massively providing funding for retirement at 65.
I agree and again the best way to to tax that is unavoidable is Vat any thing else is easier to avoid.for the better of to the stinking rich. It is just a numbers game.
Except that penalises the poor more, doesn't it?
VAT is a flat rate, so the rich would be taxed a lower proportion of their income than they do now.
No not realy as there is more vat on high value items when did you last buy a pair of christian louboutin shoes for £700 or a MK hand bag at £1000 or Ralph loren shirt £135 all these type of luxury items could have a 30 or 40 % Vat would it stop me buying the wife new shoes or me a new shirt he'll NO
VAT is a flat rate. So if a millionaire spends £100 they would be taxed £20. The same for a pauper.
The rate would be the same.
A "luxury" tax would mean defining every single item sold individually as a luxury or a standard item. You believe that is sensible?
If the rich will not be effected by VAY then they will not be effected by paying their income tax either, will they?"How meany normal UK citizens go and buy £700 shoes or a shirt for £135 sure it would be completely life is Vat was intrudused on luxury items so why should there not be a top vat rate of 30 or 40% | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"a few people are living longer but many of us will not. often people who live a long time remain economically active adding to the economy. its just government spin In 1950 average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women. Now 84 and 86. I have not seen any information to indicate that older people generate new economic activity in later life rather than spending what they receive. It changes the sector's in which the money is spent though. Total out-of-context rubbish. People were living much longer than that on average in the UK in 1950. Plenty of sites attest to this. You have simply searched, then copied and pasted an image from the first results return, relating to the ONS site, which was referring to the number of survivors by age, from the Period Life Tables, England and Wales. For females. If you had bothered to interrogate the site more fully, you would have discovered that in 1950 : Life expectancy at birth was 66 Median age at death was 71 Modal age at death was 76 By 2010 this had risen to 79, 82 and 85 respectively. A significant increase but not the dramatic, almost doubling in life expectancy, increase you were trying to paint to make your point. As regards the OP, hats off to Macron for dragging France into some sort of reality, because 62 was far too young and unsustainable for their economy
It's good that your irrational dislike of me has started making you look at data with more attention. It would be good if you did the same to data that you present, but this is a good starting point.
Given the topic, it is reasonable to point out the modal age of death in 1950, but that misses the fact that the elderly represented a much smaller proportion of the population. That is another factor that shifts the mean much higher now than then.
I was not, actually "trying to paint" a doubling of life expectancy as the only point.
I wouldn't characterise the existing retirement age as "too young". It does seem to be a necessity though. That was my original point. Sorry that you have had to agree.
I don't have an irrational dislike of you. What made me look at it in more detail is that what you presented, as is quite often the case, was plainly out and out nonsense. I do check my data and don't recall any schoolboy errors, as some would see it, on this daft level. Didn't you stop to read back the absolute drivel, many might say, that you were spouting? It's not been that long since you were writing, as some would see it, total tripe and twaddle on electric cars to Mr D.
A simple apology would have sufficed, but of course that doesn't come easily to lefties. You have to twist it to ' Sorry that you have had to agree' which is at once childish and petty.
Increasingly I see people having to check and double check your posts, yet you vent forth with what many see as astonishing and patronising arrogance, as though you couldn't possibly be wrong.
Yet again, you were!
"People" very rarely have to double check my posts and I can acknowledge when there is an error.
You carry on repeating whatever you want and avoiding addressing questions that don't suit the position that you're trying to take.
Insult as you wish in your own petty way. I'm not bothered.
None of this post from you addressed the OP. Just spam.
I correctly described your erroneous statement that in 1950 'average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women' as rubbish and then gave the correct figures. As usual, you have not liked this and have chosen to paint my correction as an 'insult' and 'spam' and that I am being 'petty' and that you're 'not bothered'.
How gracious you are in defeat in a Vicky Pollard-kind of way!
I have set out proper facts and my position on the French retirement age. You should try it some time instead of poorly researched details and then a thousand questions for anyone challenging you
More spam and you even got your "correction" wrong in not understanding what the data means.
Your obsession with me remains creepy.
The other guy actually got the death ages right as if people dying en masse in 1950 at 44 was a thing ha ha
Looks like you got your ass handed over to you on a plate!
Anyhows how about a EU same age for retireing, 65 and UK matches it? Give youngsters a chance ffs
Cheers for the support but everyone knows that he makes frequent errors already.
As regards a common age of retirement, how would the UK fund a drop to 65? Struggling as it is on that score?
A start would be a proper clamp down on tax evasion, tighter rules and better clarity on tax avoidance, and changing corporate tax rules so that all companies paid tax on revenues in the country where the revenue is generated. No more tax haven holding companies charging UK operations IP royalties that effectively means their UK operations are loss making (they aren’t).
That would swell the overall coffers of HMT massively providing funding for retirement at 65.
I agree and again the best way to to tax that is unavoidable is Vat any thing else is easier to avoid.for the better of to the stinking rich. It is just a numbers game.
Except that penalises the poor more, doesn't it?
VAT is a flat rate, so the rich would be taxed a lower proportion of their income than they do now.
No not realy as there is more vat on high value items when did you last buy a pair of christian louboutin shoes for £700 or a MK hand bag at £1000 or Ralph loren shirt £135 all these type of luxury items could have a 30 or 40 % Vat would it stop me buying the wife new shoes or me a new shirt he'll NO
VAT is a flat rate. So if a millionaire spends £100 they would be taxed £20. The same for a pauper.
The rate would be the same.
A "luxury" tax would mean defining every single item sold individually as a luxury or a standard item. You believe that is sensible?
If the rich will not be effected by VAY then they will not be effected by paying their income tax either, will they?
How meany normal UK citizens go and buy £700 shoes or a shirt for £135 sure it would be completely life is Vat was intrudused on luxury items so why should there not be a top vat rate of 30 or 40% "I don't know. Do you? As far as I can tell many people do by luxury branded products. They have "cheaper" product ranges for this very purpose. Who defines at what price a sweater is a "luxury" item? What is the value? People have to pay tax anyway. Why does it make practical or economic sense to introduce an entire new system? How much does it cost to introduce, administer and enforce? How much litigation will there be around the definitions? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I had a argument with a labour councillor after the latest rise. Try telling a guy who has worked on a building site or any other tough manual job he has to keep working - disgraceful. Ive seen guys struggling to walk in their 60s and they have to carry on working because some guy behind a desk in a warm office says he has to, while he retires on a huge pension. And dont get me started on the disgraceful way the women had their age raised to 65, months before many were due to retire And the labour councillor i was arguing with...... simply said the country couldnt afford it and rises had to happen. Absoloute w@@ker We should have gone to the streets like the French have, but im affraid Thatcher took away the working mans fight many years ago, so sad How do the pensions get paid? What public services do we cut (even further)? Why doesn't Government prioritise collection of taxes and close the loopholes is the solution that keeps going answered..." You have actually answered your first point yourself So you are saying that one of the richest countries in the world should work its people to near death because the government cannot govern This is the argument i had with that clown of a labour councillor. Labour are now just the same as the tories, all career politicians, labour disgust me more tbh, just trying to crawl back into power any way they can id also love to know what you do for a living | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I had a argument with a labour councillor after the latest rise. Try telling a guy who has worked on a building site or any other tough manual job he has to keep working - disgraceful. Ive seen guys struggling to walk in their 60s and they have to carry on working because some guy behind a desk in a warm office says he has to, while he retires on a huge pension. And dont get me started on the disgraceful way the women had their age raised to 65, months before many were due to retire And the labour councillor i was arguing with...... simply said the country couldnt afford it and rises had to happen. Absoloute w@@ker We should have gone to the streets like the French have, but im affraid Thatcher took away the working mans fight many years ago, so sad How do the pensions get paid? What public services do we cut (even further)? Why doesn't Government prioritise collection of taxes and close the loopholes is the solution that keeps going answered... You have actually answered your first point yourself So you are saying that one of the richest countries in the world should work its people to near death because the government cannot govern This is the argument i had with that clown of a labour councillor. Labour are now just the same as the tories, all career politicians, labour disgust me more tbh, just trying to crawl back into power any way they can id also love to know what you do for a living" I'm not saying that they "should". Also, France is a long way from proposing that. Don't mischaracterise what I am saying. What do you imagine I have been saying in this thread? I'd like everyone to retire at 50. Highly unlikely. So, how do we pay for a younger retirement age or even maintaining the one that we have if people e longer, with more medical and care expenses and fewer people of working age to pay for it, all whilst other public services are being cut? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"its a bit off subject but many rich people have a business that they can use to reclaim VAT & often put household goods through the business " That would be tax evasion, and fraud. A good way to lose your business. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I had a argument with a labour councillor after the latest rise. Try telling a guy who has worked on a building site or any other tough manual job he has to keep working - disgraceful. Ive seen guys struggling to walk in their 60s and they have to carry on working because some guy behind a desk in a warm office says he has to, while he retires on a huge pension. And dont get me started on the disgraceful way the women had their age raised to 65, months before many were due to retire And the labour councillor i was arguing with...... simply said the country couldnt afford it and rises had to happen. Absoloute w@@ker We should have gone to the streets like the French have, but im affraid Thatcher took away the working mans fight many years ago, so sad How do the pensions get paid? What public services do we cut (even further)? Why doesn't Government prioritise collection of taxes and close the loopholes is the solution that keeps going answered... You have actually answered your first point yourself So you are saying that one of the richest countries in the world should work its people to near death because the government cannot govern This is the argument i had with that clown of a labour councillor. Labour are now just the same as the tories, all career politicians, labour disgust me more tbh, just trying to crawl back into power any way they can id also love to know what you do for a living I'm not saying that they "should". Also, France is a long way from proposing that. Don't mischaracterise what I am saying. What do you imagine I have been saying in this thread? I'd like everyone to retire at 50. Highly unlikely. So, how do we pay for a younger retirement age or even maintaining the one that we have if people e longer, with more medical and care expenses and fewer people of working age to pay for it, all whilst other public services are being cut?" Im not looking for a argument, we both may be on the same side The rich and powerful in this country avoid tax in any way they can, and sorting that would bring in billions each year. The tax system stinks, and the rich get richer while the worker ants have to work till they drop this was my point to the labour guy - he didnt care basically Labour are a disgrace. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"100% agree. Folk flocking to labour like they will save working people. Disgraceful hypocrits the lot of em. Snouts in troff " what would a good set of policies look like that would save working folk? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"100% agree. Folk flocking to labour like they will save working people. Disgraceful hypocrits the lot of em. Snouts in troff what would a good set of policies look like that would save working folk?" Not my job pal. I will know when I see em tho | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"100% agree. Folk flocking to labour like they will save working people. Disgraceful hypocrits the lot of em. Snouts in troff what would a good set of policies look like that would save working folk? Not my job pal. I will know when I see em tho "which of the 2019 policies did you see as being detrimental or self serving ? I thought it was a fairly left (and working class) focussed manifesto. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"100% agree. Folk flocking to labour like they will save working people. Disgraceful hypocrits the lot of em. Snouts in troff what would a good set of policies look like that would save working folk? Not my job pal. I will know when I see em tho which of the 2019 policies did you see as being detrimental or self serving ?
I thought it was a fairly left (and working class) focussed manifesto.
"It was but there was no ability of Labour Mps to explain how it would be paid for. I watched corbyn evasive when andrew neil asked how the pledge to wispy women would be funded. Plus he was terrorist sympathiser. Right he was defeated and working man wanted brexit sorted. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"100% agree. Folk flocking to labour like they will save working people. Disgraceful hypocrits the lot of em. Snouts in troff what would a good set of policies look like that would save working folk? Not my job pal. I will know when I see em tho which of the 2019 policies did you see as being detrimental or self serving ?
I thought it was a fairly left (and working class) focussed manifesto.
It was but there was no ability of Labour Mps to explain how it would be paid for. I watched corbyn evasive when andrew neil asked how the pledge to wispy women would be funded. Plus he was terrorist sympathiser. Right he was defeated and working man wanted brexit sorted. "*Waspi - pension at 65 women not 60 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"its a bit off subject but many rich people have a business that they can use to reclaim VAT & often put household goods through the business That would be tax evasion, and fraud. A good way to lose your business." I have worked for quite a few people who do this none of them has ever been prosecuted or even had it questioned by accountant doing audits | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"its a bit off subject but many rich people have a business that they can use to reclaim VAT & often put household goods through the business That would be tax evasion, and fraud. A good way to lose your business." Only if it's enforced. Look at all the takeaway joints in town, do you seriously think they declare all their earnings and pay all their taxes if they're mostly taking payments in cash? As it is, the UK is too big for a single organisation like HMRC to properly enforce tax collection with its current funding, staffing, and tech infrastructure. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"its a bit off subject but many rich people have a business that they can use to reclaim VAT & often put household goods through the business That would be tax evasion, and fraud. A good way to lose your business. Only if it's enforced. Look at all the takeaway joints in town, do you seriously think they declare all their earnings and pay all their taxes if they're mostly taking payments in cash? As it is, the UK is too big for a single organisation like HMRC to properly enforce tax collection with its current funding, staffing, and tech infrastructure. " Good points. HMRC doesn't seem to be doing anything about it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I had a argument with a labour councillor after the latest rise. Try telling a guy who has worked on a building site or any other tough manual job he has to keep working - disgraceful. Ive seen guys struggling to walk in their 60s and they have to carry on working because some guy behind a desk in a warm office says he has to, while he retires on a huge pension. And dont get me started on the disgraceful way the women had their age raised to 65, months before many were due to retire And the labour councillor i was arguing with...... simply said the country couldnt afford it and rises had to happen. Absoloute w@@ker We should have gone to the streets like the French have, but im affraid Thatcher took away the working mans fight many years ago, so sad How do the pensions get paid? What public services do we cut (even further)? Why doesn't Government prioritise collection of taxes and close the loopholes is the solution that keeps going answered... You have actually answered your first point yourself So you are saying that one of the richest countries in the world should work its people to near death because the government cannot govern This is the argument i had with that clown of a labour councillor. Labour are now just the same as the tories, all career politicians, labour disgust me more tbh, just trying to crawl back into power any way they can id also love to know what you do for a living I'm not saying that they "should". Also, France is a long way from proposing that. Don't mischaracterise what I am saying. What do you imagine I have been saying in this thread? I'd like everyone to retire at 50. Highly unlikely. So, how do we pay for a younger retirement age or even maintaining the one that we have if people e longer, with more medical and care expenses and fewer people of working age to pay for it, all whilst other public services are being cut? Im not looking for a argument, we both may be on the same side The rich and powerful in this country avoid tax in any way they can, and sorting that would bring in billions each year. The tax system stinks, and the rich get richer while the worker ants have to work till they drop this was my point to the labour guy - he didnt care basically Labour are a disgrace. " Got you about answering my own question. Yes, there are solutions, but may still require a longer working life. I did suggest that certain job categories could attract a higher employer pension or NI contribution. Maybe tracking that would allow pension to be collected at different ages to allow for manual work being less viable as you get older? There are solutions of there is a will. To be fair, a councillor may not be necessarily that representative of a party's intent. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"its a bit off subject but many rich people have a business that they can use to reclaim VAT & often put household goods through the business That would be tax evasion, and fraud. A good way to lose your business. Only if it's enforced. Look at all the takeaway joints in town, do you seriously think they declare all their earnings and pay all their taxes if they're mostly taking payments in cash? As it is, the UK is too big for a single organisation like HMRC to properly enforce tax collection with its current funding, staffing, and tech infrastructure. " It's not too big, but it is underfunded as you suggest. It's a strange decision making process that leads to a Government that needs money to fund spending cutting funding to the department most able to raise revenue... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"100% agree. Folk flocking to labour like they will save working people. Disgraceful hypocrits the lot of em. Snouts in troff what would a good set of policies look like that would save working folk? Not my job pal. I will know when I see em tho which of the 2019 policies did you see as being detrimental or self serving ?
I thought it was a fairly left (and working class) focussed manifesto.
It was but there was no ability of Labour Mps to explain how it would be paid for. I watched corbyn evasive when andrew neil asked how the pledge to wispy women would be funded. Plus he was terrorist sympathiser. Right he was defeated and working man wanted brexit sorted.
*Waspi - pension at 65 women not 60 "I'm lost what your view is about pension ages for the working man is now! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"100% agree. Folk flocking to labour like they will save working people. Disgraceful hypocrits the lot of em. Snouts in troff what would a good set of policies look like that would save working folk? Not my job pal. I will know when I see em tho which of the 2019 policies did you see as being detrimental or self serving ?
I thought it was a fairly left (and working class) focussed manifesto.
It was but there was no ability of Labour Mps to explain how it would be paid for. I watched corbyn evasive when andrew neil asked how the pledge to wispy women would be funded. Plus he was terrorist sympathiser. Right he was defeated and working man wanted brexit sorted.
*Waspi - pension at 65 women not 60 I'm lost what your view is about pension ages for the working man is now!"65 for all seems fair. 68 getting too old. Life not a football match with a guaranteed 90 mins (years). Life is lottery neighbour is 95 and has collected stated pension for 30 years!!! Other neighbor was dead at 70, gave up work 61. 4 years versus 30 years pension. Can't argue when Big Ref blows final whistle | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"100% agree. Folk flocking to labour like they will save working people. Disgraceful hypocrits the lot of em. Snouts in troff what would a good set of policies look like that would save working folk? Not my job pal. I will know when I see em tho which of the 2019 policies did you see as being detrimental or self serving ?
I thought it was a fairly left (and working class) focussed manifesto.
It was but there was no ability of Labour Mps to explain how it would be paid for. I watched corbyn evasive when andrew neil asked how the pledge to wispy women would be funded. Plus he was terrorist sympathiser. Right he was defeated and working man wanted brexit sorted.
*Waspi - pension at 65 women not 60 I'm lost what your view is about pension ages for the working man is now!
65 for all seems fair. 68 getting too old. Life not a football match with a guaranteed 90 mins (years). Life is lottery neighbour is 95 and has collected stated pension for 30 years!!! Other neighbor was dead at 70, gave up work 61. 4 years versus 30 years pension. Can't argue when Big Ref blows final whistle "65 is probably fair
But we are heading towards 68? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"100% agree. Folk flocking to labour like they will save working people. Disgraceful hypocrits the lot of em. Snouts in troff what would a good set of policies look like that would save working folk? Not my job pal. I will know when I see em tho which of the 2019 policies did you see as being detrimental or self serving ?
I thought it was a fairly left (and working class) focussed manifesto.
It was but there was no ability of Labour Mps to explain how it would be paid for. I watched corbyn evasive when andrew neil asked how the pledge to wispy women would be funded. Plus he was terrorist sympathiser. Right he was defeated and working man wanted brexit sorted.
*Waspi - pension at 65 women not 60 I'm lost what your view is about pension ages for the working man is now!
65 for all seems fair. 68 getting too old. Life not a football match with a guaranteed 90 mins (years). Life is lottery neighbour is 95 and has collected stated pension for 30 years!!! Other neighbor was dead at 70, gave up work 61. 4 years versus 30 years pension. Can't argue when Big Ref blows final whistle
65 is probably fair
But we are heading towards 68? "trouble is £££. As Rob says, the waspi promises was unfunded. Using some of the numbers I'm estimating for every year earlier state pension is, that's £10bn additional costs. The more we want to retire earlier, the more burden we put on younger generations... And unless we can smash productivity the likely solution is increased immigration to have enough workers to foot the bill. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"100% agree. Folk flocking to labour like they will save working people. Disgraceful hypocrits the lot of em. Snouts in troff what would a good set of policies look like that would save working folk? Not my job pal. I will know when I see em tho which of the 2019 policies did you see as being detrimental or self serving ?
I thought it was a fairly left (and working class) focussed manifesto.
It was but there was no ability of Labour Mps to explain how it would be paid for. I watched corbyn evasive when andrew neil asked how the pledge to wispy women would be funded. Plus he was terrorist sympathiser. Right he was defeated and working man wanted brexit sorted.
*Waspi - pension at 65 women not 60 I'm lost what your view is about pension ages for the working man is now!
65 for all seems fair. 68 getting too old. Life not a football match with a guaranteed 90 mins (years). Life is lottery neighbour is 95 and has collected stated pension for 30 years!!! Other neighbor was dead at 70, gave up work 61. 4 years versus 30 years pension. Can't argue when Big Ref blows final whistle
65 is probably fair
But we are heading towards 68? trouble is £££.
As Rob says, the waspi promises was unfunded. Using some of the numbers I'm estimating for every year earlier state pension is, that's £10bn additional costs.
The more we want to retire earlier, the more burden we put on younger generations... And unless we can smash productivity the likely solution is increased immigration to have enough workers to foot the bill. "Why is increased immigration the answer to everything? Won't immigrants eventually want a pension at 65? It's increased immigration which is bringing problems with getting a school place, dentist, doctor's appointment, pushing up rent and house prices, helping jam up the roads, filling up hotels, pushing up hotel room costs etc etc Unless immigration decreases, the housing crisis will continue indefinitely, mainly to the detriment of young people. The UK’s green countryside will continue to be swallowed up by construction of housing. Claims that immigration represents a fiscal benefit to the UK are very debatable. What evidence do you have that migrants pay their way let alone finance the new infrastructure or anything else required by rapid population growth? Or finance a lower pension age for an ever increasing population? You're left wing waffling again! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"100% agree. Folk flocking to labour like they will save working people. Disgraceful hypocrits the lot of em. Snouts in troff what would a good set of policies look like that would save working folk? Not my job pal. I will know when I see em tho which of the 2019 policies did you see as being detrimental or self serving ?
I thought it was a fairly left (and working class) focussed manifesto.
It was but there was no ability of Labour Mps to explain how it would be paid for. I watched corbyn evasive when andrew neil asked how the pledge to wispy women would be funded. Plus he was terrorist sympathiser. Right he was defeated and working man wanted brexit sorted.
*Waspi - pension at 65 women not 60 I'm lost what your view is about pension ages for the working man is now!
65 for all seems fair. 68 getting too old. Life not a football match with a guaranteed 90 mins (years). Life is lottery neighbour is 95 and has collected stated pension for 30 years!!! Other neighbor was dead at 70, gave up work 61. 4 years versus 30 years pension. Can't argue when Big Ref blows final whistle
65 is probably fair
But we are heading towards 68? trouble is £££.
As Rob says, the waspi promises was unfunded. Using some of the numbers I'm estimating for every year earlier state pension is, that's £10bn additional costs.
The more we want to retire earlier, the more burden we put on younger generations... And unless we can smash productivity the likely solution is increased immigration to have enough workers to foot the bill.
Why is increased immigration the answer to everything? Won't immigrants eventually want a pension at 65?
It's increased immigration which is bringing problems with getting a school place, dentist, doctor's appointment, pushing up rent and house prices, helping jam up the roads, filling up hotels, pushing up hotel room costs etc etc
Unless immigration decreases, the housing crisis will continue indefinitely, mainly to the detriment of young people. The UK’s green countryside will continue to be swallowed up by construction of housing.
Claims that immigration represents a fiscal benefit to the UK are very debatable.
What evidence do you have that migrants pay their way let alone finance the new infrastructure or anything else required by rapid population growth? Or finance a lower pension age for an ever increasing population?
You're left wing waffling again! "it's not the answer to everything and my preference would be to invest in our schooling system to boost productivity. I suspect many lefties would waffle in the same way. I'm not actually anfan of immigration but see it as a necessary short term necessity. How would you support an earlier retirement age? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"100% agree. Folk flocking to labour like they will save working people. Disgraceful hypocrits the lot of em. Snouts in troff what would a good set of policies look like that would save working folk? Not my job pal. I will know when I see em tho which of the 2019 policies did you see as being detrimental or self serving ?
I thought it was a fairly left (and working class) focussed manifesto.
It was but there was no ability of Labour Mps to explain how it would be paid for. I watched corbyn evasive when andrew neil asked how the pledge to wispy women would be funded. Plus he was terrorist sympathiser. Right he was defeated and working man wanted brexit sorted.
*Waspi - pension at 65 women not 60 I'm lost what your view is about pension ages for the working man is now!
65 for all seems fair. 68 getting too old. Life not a football match with a guaranteed 90 mins (years). Life is lottery neighbour is 95 and has collected stated pension for 30 years!!! Other neighbor was dead at 70, gave up work 61. 4 years versus 30 years pension. Can't argue when Big Ref blows final whistle
65 is probably fair
But we are heading towards 68? trouble is £££.
As Rob says, the waspi promises was unfunded. Using some of the numbers I'm estimating for every year earlier state pension is, that's £10bn additional costs.
The more we want to retire earlier, the more burden we put on younger generations... And unless we can smash productivity the likely solution is increased immigration to have enough workers to foot the bill.
Why is increased immigration the answer to everything? Won't immigrants eventually want a pension at 65?
It's increased immigration which is bringing problems with getting a school place, dentist, doctor's appointment, pushing up rent and house prices, helping jam up the roads, filling up hotels, pushing up hotel room costs etc etc
Unless immigration decreases, the housing crisis will continue indefinitely, mainly to the detriment of young people. The UK’s green countryside will continue to be swallowed up by construction of housing.
Claims that immigration represents a fiscal benefit to the UK are very debatable.
What evidence do you have that migrants pay their way let alone finance the new infrastructure or anything else required by rapid population growth? Or finance a lower pension age for an ever increasing population?
You're left wing waffling again! it's not the answer to everything and my preference would be to invest in our schooling system to boost productivity. I suspect many lefties would waffle in the same way. I'm not actually anfan of immigration but see it as a necessary short term necessity.
How would you support an earlier retirement age? "I think the simplest way to encourage people to work longer, whilst allowing them to increase their wealth and removing the pressure on the state pension is to start to reduce their tax outlay as the people get older. An example, when a person reaches 55 years of age reduce the tax on their income by 15% for every 5 years they remain working, at 65 they will be working tax free, not receiving a pension and are able to save a lot more money for their own pension. The numbers I have used are plucked out of the air and are not at all water tight, it is an example of how we can start to manage better. I would imagine the need for qualifying rules, such as, been working for the last X years, paying their tax in this country etc. time to think outside the box | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"100% agree. Folk flocking to labour like they will save working people. Disgraceful hypocrits the lot of em. Snouts in troff what would a good set of policies look like that would save working folk? Not my job pal. I will know when I see em tho which of the 2019 policies did you see as being detrimental or self serving ?
I thought it was a fairly left (and working class) focussed manifesto.
It was but there was no ability of Labour Mps to explain how it would be paid for. I watched corbyn evasive when andrew neil asked how the pledge to wispy women would be funded. Plus he was terrorist sympathiser. Right he was defeated and working man wanted brexit sorted.
*Waspi - pension at 65 women not 60 I'm lost what your view is about pension ages for the working man is now!
65 for all seems fair. 68 getting too old. Life not a football match with a guaranteed 90 mins (years). Life is lottery neighbour is 95 and has collected stated pension for 30 years!!! Other neighbor was dead at 70, gave up work 61. 4 years versus 30 years pension. Can't argue when Big Ref blows final whistle
65 is probably fair
But we are heading towards 68? trouble is £££.
As Rob says, the waspi promises was unfunded. Using some of the numbers I'm estimating for every year earlier state pension is, that's £10bn additional costs.
The more we want to retire earlier, the more burden we put on younger generations... And unless we can smash productivity the likely solution is increased immigration to have enough workers to foot the bill.
Why is increased immigration the answer to everything? Won't immigrants eventually want a pension at 65?
It's increased immigration which is bringing problems with getting a school place, dentist, doctor's appointment, pushing up rent and house prices, helping jam up the roads, filling up hotels, pushing up hotel room costs etc etc
Unless immigration decreases, the housing crisis will continue indefinitely, mainly to the detriment of young people. The UK’s green countryside will continue to be swallowed up by construction of housing.
Claims that immigration represents a fiscal benefit to the UK are very debatable.
What evidence do you have that migrants pay their way let alone finance the new infrastructure or anything else required by rapid population growth? Or finance a lower pension age for an ever increasing population?
You're left wing waffling again! it's not the answer to everything and my preference would be to invest in our schooling system to boost productivity. I suspect many lefties would waffle in the same way. I'm not actually anfan of immigration but see it as a necessary short term necessity.
How would you support an earlier retirement age?
I think the simplest way to encourage people to work longer, whilst allowing them to increase their wealth and removing the pressure on the state pension is to start to reduce their tax outlay as the people get older.
An example, when a person reaches 55 years of age reduce the tax on their income by 15% for every 5 years they remain working, at 65 they will be working tax free, not receiving a pension and are able to save a lot more money for their own pension.
The numbers I have used are plucked out of the air and are not at all water tight, it is an example of how we can start to manage better.
I would imagine the need for qualifying rules, such as, been working for the last X years, paying their tax in this country etc.
time to think outside the box "So as people earn more in later life and require more from the state in medical care they would contribute less tax to society at large so as to benefit themselves in having an earlier retirement and pass on more in their estate? It's just another perspective on your solution. Why not have everyone pay more NI. Isn't that fairer? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"100% agree. Folk flocking to labour like they will save working people. Disgraceful hypocrits the lot of em. Snouts in troff what would a good set of policies look like that would save working folk? Not my job pal. I will know when I see em tho which of the 2019 policies did you see as being detrimental or self serving ?
I thought it was a fairly left (and working class) focussed manifesto.
It was but there was no ability of Labour Mps to explain how it would be paid for. I watched corbyn evasive when andrew neil asked how the pledge to wispy women would be funded. Plus he was terrorist sympathiser. Right he was defeated and working man wanted brexit sorted.
*Waspi - pension at 65 women not 60 I'm lost what your view is about pension ages for the working man is now!
65 for all seems fair. 68 getting too old. Life not a football match with a guaranteed 90 mins (years). Life is lottery neighbour is 95 and has collected stated pension for 30 years!!! Other neighbor was dead at 70, gave up work 61. 4 years versus 30 years pension. Can't argue when Big Ref blows final whistle
65 is probably fair
But we are heading towards 68? trouble is £££.
As Rob says, the waspi promises was unfunded. Using some of the numbers I'm estimating for every year earlier state pension is, that's £10bn additional costs.
The more we want to retire earlier, the more burden we put on younger generations... And unless we can smash productivity the likely solution is increased immigration to have enough workers to foot the bill.
Why is increased immigration the answer to everything? Won't immigrants eventually want a pension at 65?
It's increased immigration which is bringing problems with getting a school place, dentist, doctor's appointment, pushing up rent and house prices, helping jam up the roads, filling up hotels, pushing up hotel room costs etc etc
Unless immigration decreases, the housing crisis will continue indefinitely, mainly to the detriment of young people. The UK’s green countryside will continue to be swallowed up by construction of housing.
Claims that immigration represents a fiscal benefit to the UK are very debatable.
What evidence do you have that migrants pay their way let alone finance the new infrastructure or anything else required by rapid population growth? Or finance a lower pension age for an ever increasing population?
You're left wing waffling again! it's not the answer to everything and my preference would be to invest in our schooling system to boost productivity. I suspect many lefties would waffle in the same way. I'm not actually anfan of immigration but see it as a necessary short term necessity.
How would you support an earlier retirement age?
I think the simplest way to encourage people to work longer, whilst allowing them to increase their wealth and removing the pressure on the state pension is to start to reduce their tax outlay as the people get older.
An example, when a person reaches 55 years of age reduce the tax on their income by 15% for every 5 years they remain working, at 65 they will be working tax free, not receiving a pension and are able to save a lot more money for their own pension.
The numbers I have used are plucked out of the air and are not at all water tight, it is an example of how we can start to manage better.
I would imagine the need for qualifying rules, such as, been working for the last X years, paying their tax in this country etc.
time to think outside the box "different! It would be interesting to see if the addition tax from those who continue would offset the reduced tax income from those who would have worked past 55 anyway. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"100% agree. Folk flocking to labour like they will save working people. Disgraceful hypocrits the lot of em. Snouts in troff what would a good set of policies look like that would save working folk? Not my job pal. I will know when I see em tho which of the 2019 policies did you see as being detrimental or self serving ?
I thought it was a fairly left (and working class) focussed manifesto.
It was but there was no ability of Labour Mps to explain how it would be paid for. I watched corbyn evasive when andrew neil asked how the pledge to wispy women would be funded. Plus he was terrorist sympathiser. Right he was defeated and working man wanted brexit sorted.
*Waspi - pension at 65 women not 60 I'm lost what your view is about pension ages for the working man is now!
65 for all seems fair. 68 getting too old. Life not a football match with a guaranteed 90 mins (years). Life is lottery neighbour is 95 and has collected stated pension for 30 years!!! Other neighbor was dead at 70, gave up work 61. 4 years versus 30 years pension. Can't argue when Big Ref blows final whistle
65 is probably fair
But we are heading towards 68? trouble is £££.
As Rob says, the waspi promises was unfunded. Using some of the numbers I'm estimating for every year earlier state pension is, that's £10bn additional costs.
The more we want to retire earlier, the more burden we put on younger generations... And unless we can smash productivity the likely solution is increased immigration to have enough workers to foot the bill.
Why is increased immigration the answer to everything? Won't immigrants eventually want a pension at 65?
It's increased immigration which is bringing problems with getting a school place, dentist, doctor's appointment, pushing up rent and house prices, helping jam up the roads, filling up hotels, pushing up hotel room costs etc etc
Unless immigration decreases, the housing crisis will continue indefinitely, mainly to the detriment of young people. The UK’s green countryside will continue to be swallowed up by construction of housing.
Claims that immigration represents a fiscal benefit to the UK are very debatable.
What evidence do you have that migrants pay their way let alone finance the new infrastructure or anything else required by rapid population growth? Or finance a lower pension age for an ever increasing population?
You're left wing waffling again! "He didn't say that immigration was "the answer to everything". It is the most obvious answer if we cannot significantly increase productivity. It's how production is increased. To pay taxes for public services and private incomes for consumer and corporate spending. Increase the workforce or increase how much each member of the workforce can produce. You are perfectly capable of finding the data that indicates that immigration is a net benefit. You won't accept it if it is presented to you and you can't present anything credible to support your position. What is your plan to pay for the pension age which you previously thought should be changed? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"a few people are living longer but many of us will not. often people who live a long time remain economically active adding to the economy. its just government spin In 1950 average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women. Now 84 and 86. I have not seen any information to indicate that older people generate new economic activity in later life rather than spending what they receive. It changes the sector's in which the money is spent though. Total out-of-context rubbish. People were living much longer than that on average in the UK in 1950. Plenty of sites attest to this. You have simply searched, then copied and pasted an image from the first results return, relating to the ONS site, which was referring to the number of survivors by age, from the Period Life Tables, England and Wales. For females. If you had bothered to interrogate the site more fully, you would have discovered that in 1950 : Life expectancy at birth was 66 Median age at death was 71 Modal age at death was 76 By 2010 this had risen to 79, 82 and 85 respectively. A significant increase but not the dramatic, almost doubling in life expectancy, increase you were trying to paint to make your point. As regards the OP, hats off to Macron for dragging France into some sort of reality, because 62 was far too young and unsustainable for their economy
It's good that your irrational dislike of me has started making you look at data with more attention. It would be good if you did the same to data that you present, but this is a good starting point.
Given the topic, it is reasonable to point out the modal age of death in 1950, but that misses the fact that the elderly represented a much smaller proportion of the population. That is another factor that shifts the mean much higher now than then.
I was not, actually "trying to paint" a doubling of life expectancy as the only point.
I wouldn't characterise the existing retirement age as "too young". It does seem to be a necessity though. That was my original point. Sorry that you have had to agree.
I don't have an irrational dislike of you. What made me look at it in more detail is that what you presented, as is quite often the case, was plainly out and out nonsense. I do check my data and don't recall any schoolboy errors, as some would see it, on this daft level. Didn't you stop to read back the absolute drivel, many might say, that you were spouting? It's not been that long since you were writing, as some would see it, total tripe and twaddle on electric cars to Mr D.
A simple apology would have sufficed, but of course that doesn't come easily to lefties. You have to twist it to ' Sorry that you have had to agree' which is at once childish and petty.
Increasingly I see people having to check and double check your posts, yet you vent forth with what many see as astonishing and patronising arrogance, as though you couldn't possibly be wrong.
Yet again, you were!
"People" very rarely have to double check my posts and I can acknowledge when there is an error.
You carry on repeating whatever you want and avoiding addressing questions that don't suit the position that you're trying to take.
Insult as you wish in your own petty way. I'm not bothered.
None of this post from you addressed the OP. Just spam.
I correctly described your erroneous statement that in 1950 'average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women' as rubbish and then gave the correct figures. As usual, you have not liked this and have chosen to paint my correction as an 'insult' and 'spam' and that I am being 'petty' and that you're 'not bothered'.
How gracious you are in defeat in a Vicky Pollard-kind of way!
I have set out proper facts and my position on the French retirement age. You should try it some time instead of poorly researched details and then a thousand questions for anyone challenging you
More spam and you even got your "correction" wrong in not understanding what the data means.
Your obsession with me remains creepy.
The other guy actually got the death ages right as if people dying en masse in 1950 at 44 was a thing ha ha
Looks like you got your ass handed over to you on a plate!
Anyhows how about a EU same age for retireing, 65 and UK matches it? Give youngsters a chance ffs
Cheers for the support but everyone knows that he makes frequent errors already.
As regards a common age of retirement, how would the UK fund a drop to 65? Struggling as it is on that score?
A start would be a proper clamp down on tax evasion, tighter rules and better clarity on tax avoidance, and changing corporate tax rules so that all companies paid tax on revenues in the country where the revenue is generated. No more tax haven holding companies charging UK operations IP royalties that effectively means their UK operations are loss making (they aren’t).
That would swell the overall coffers of HMT massively providing funding for retirement at 65.
I agree and again the best way to to tax that is unavoidable is Vat any thing else is easier to avoid.for the better of to the stinking rich. It is just a numbers game.
Except that penalises the poor more, doesn't it?
VAT is a flat rate, so the rich would be taxed a lower proportion of their income than they do now.
No not realy as there is more vat on high value items when did you last buy a pair of christian louboutin shoes for £700 or a MK hand bag at £1000 or Ralph loren shirt £135 all these type of luxury items could have a 30 or 40 % Vat would it stop me buying the wife new shoes or me a new shirt he'll NO
VAT is a flat rate. So if a millionaire spends £100 they would be taxed £20. The same for a pauper.
The rate would be the same.
A "luxury" tax would mean defining every single item sold individually as a luxury or a standard item. You believe that is sensible?
If the rich will not be effected by VAY then they will not be effected by paying their income tax either, will they?
How meany normal UK citizens go and buy £700 shoes or a shirt for £135 sure it would be completely life is Vat was intrudused on luxury items so why should there not be a top vat rate of 30 or 40%
I don't know. Do you?
As far as I can tell many people do by luxury branded products. They have "cheaper" product ranges for this very purpose.
Who defines at what price a sweater is a "luxury" item? What is the value?
People have to pay tax anyway. Why does it make practical or economic sense to introduce an entire new system? How much does it cost to introduce, administer and enforce? How much litigation will there be around the definitions?"You say "People have to pay tax anyway." Do they not all do and if I'm honest last year I payed very little and for the next 5 years I'll try and pay less and less. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I had a argument with a labour councillor after the latest rise. Try telling a guy who has worked on a building site or any other tough manual job he has to keep working - disgraceful. Ive seen guys struggling to walk in their 60s and they have to carry on working because some guy behind a desk in a warm office says he has to, while he retires on a huge pension. And dont get me started on the disgraceful way the women had their age raised to 65, months before many were due to retire And the labour councillor i was arguing with...... simply said the country couldnt afford it and rises had to happen. Absoloute w@@ker We should have gone to the streets like the French have, but im affraid Thatcher took away the working mans fight many years ago, so sad How do the pensions get paid? What public services do we cut (even further)? Why doesn't Government prioritise collection of taxes and close the loopholes is the solution that keeps going answered... You have actually answered your first point yourself So you are saying that one of the richest countries in the world should work its people to near death because the government cannot govern This is the argument i had with that clown of a labour councillor. Labour are now just the same as the tories, all career politicians, labour disgust me more tbh, just trying to crawl back into power any way they can id also love to know what you do for a living I'm not saying that they "should". Also, France is a long way from proposing that. Don't mischaracterise what I am saying. What do you imagine I have been saying in this thread? I'd like everyone to retire at 50. Highly unlikely. So, how do we pay for a younger retirement age or even maintaining the one that we have if people e longer, with more medical and care expenses and fewer people of working age to pay for it, all whilst other public services are being cut? Im not looking for a argument, we both may be on the same side The rich and powerful in this country avoid tax in any way they can, and sorting that would bring in billions each year. The tax system stinks, and the rich get richer while the worker ants have to work till they drop this was my point to the labour guy - he didnt care basically Labour are a disgrace. Got you about answering my own question. Yes, there are solutions, but may still require a longer working life. I did suggest that certain job categories could attract a higher employer pension or NI contribution. Maybe tracking that would allow pension to be collected at different ages to allow for manual work being less viable as you get older? There are solutions of there is a will. To be fair, a councillor may not be necessarily that representative of a party's intent." So why should a manual worker pay more NI an apprenticeship can start at 16. Where as I have said before with collage uni masters. Posable a second degree you might not start work until 25ish it should be based on years worked. Not a fixed age I started work and paying Tax and NI at 14. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"a few people are living longer but many of us will not. often people who live a long time remain economically active adding to the economy. its just government spin In 1950 average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women. Now 84 and 86. I have not seen any information to indicate that older people generate new economic activity in later life rather than spending what they receive. It changes the sector's in which the money is spent though. Total out-of-context rubbish. People were living much longer than that on average in the UK in 1950. Plenty of sites attest to this. You have simply searched, then copied and pasted an image from the first results return, relating to the ONS site, which was referring to the number of survivors by age, from the Period Life Tables, England and Wales. For females. If you had bothered to interrogate the site more fully, you would have discovered that in 1950 : Life expectancy at birth was 66 Median age at death was 71 Modal age at death was 76 By 2010 this had risen to 79, 82 and 85 respectively. A significant increase but not the dramatic, almost doubling in life expectancy, increase you were trying to paint to make your point. As regards the OP, hats off to Macron for dragging France into some sort of reality, because 62 was far too young and unsustainable for their economy
It's good that your irrational dislike of me has started making you look at data with more attention. It would be good if you did the same to data that you present, but this is a good starting point.
Given the topic, it is reasonable to point out the modal age of death in 1950, but that misses the fact that the elderly represented a much smaller proportion of the population. That is another factor that shifts the mean much higher now than then.
I was not, actually "trying to paint" a doubling of life expectancy as the only point.
I wouldn't characterise the existing retirement age as "too young". It does seem to be a necessity though. That was my original point. Sorry that you have had to agree.
I don't have an irrational dislike of you. What made me look at it in more detail is that what you presented, as is quite often the case, was plainly out and out nonsense. I do check my data and don't recall any schoolboy errors, as some would see it, on this daft level. Didn't you stop to read back the absolute drivel, many might say, that you were spouting? It's not been that long since you were writing, as some would see it, total tripe and twaddle on electric cars to Mr D.
A simple apology would have sufficed, but of course that doesn't come easily to lefties. You have to twist it to ' Sorry that you have had to agree' which is at once childish and petty.
Increasingly I see people having to check and double check your posts, yet you vent forth with what many see as astonishing and patronising arrogance, as though you couldn't possibly be wrong.
Yet again, you were!
"People" very rarely have to double check my posts and I can acknowledge when there is an error.
You carry on repeating whatever you want and avoiding addressing questions that don't suit the position that you're trying to take.
Insult as you wish in your own petty way. I'm not bothered.
None of this post from you addressed the OP. Just spam.
I correctly described your erroneous statement that in 1950 'average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women' as rubbish and then gave the correct figures. As usual, you have not liked this and have chosen to paint my correction as an 'insult' and 'spam' and that I am being 'petty' and that you're 'not bothered'.
How gracious you are in defeat in a Vicky Pollard-kind of way!
I have set out proper facts and my position on the French retirement age. You should try it some time instead of poorly researched details and then a thousand questions for anyone challenging you
More spam and you even got your "correction" wrong in not understanding what the data means.
Your obsession with me remains creepy.
The other guy actually got the death ages right as if people dying en masse in 1950 at 44 was a thing ha ha
Looks like you got your ass handed over to you on a plate!
Anyhows how about a EU same age for retireing, 65 and UK matches it? Give youngsters a chance ffs
Cheers for the support but everyone knows that he makes frequent errors already.
As regards a common age of retirement, how would the UK fund a drop to 65? Struggling as it is on that score?
A start would be a proper clamp down on tax evasion, tighter rules and better clarity on tax avoidance, and changing corporate tax rules so that all companies paid tax on revenues in the country where the revenue is generated. No more tax haven holding companies charging UK operations IP royalties that effectively means their UK operations are loss making (they aren’t).
That would swell the overall coffers of HMT massively providing funding for retirement at 65.
I agree and again the best way to to tax that is unavoidable is Vat any thing else is easier to avoid.for the better of to the stinking rich. It is just a numbers game.
Except that penalises the poor more, doesn't it?
VAT is a flat rate, so the rich would be taxed a lower proportion of their income than they do now.
No not realy as there is more vat on high value items when did you last buy a pair of christian louboutin shoes for £700 or a MK hand bag at £1000 or Ralph loren shirt £135 all these type of luxury items could have a 30 or 40 % Vat would it stop me buying the wife new shoes or me a new shirt he'll NO
VAT is a flat rate. So if a millionaire spends £100 they would be taxed £20. The same for a pauper.
The rate would be the same.
A "luxury" tax would mean defining every single item sold individually as a luxury or a standard item. You believe that is sensible?
If the rich will not be effected by VAY then they will not be effected by paying their income tax either, will they?
How meany normal UK citizens go and buy £700 shoes or a shirt for £135 sure it would be completely life is Vat was intrudused on luxury items so why should there not be a top vat rate of 30 or 40%
I don't know. Do you?
As far as I can tell many people do by luxury branded products. They have "cheaper" product ranges for this very purpose.
Who defines at what price a sweater is a "luxury" item? What is the value?
People have to pay tax anyway. Why does it make practical or economic sense to introduce an entire new system? How much does it cost to introduce, administer and enforce? How much litigation will there be around the definitions?
You say "People have to pay tax anyway." Do they not all do and if I'm honest last year I payed very little and for the next 5 years I'll try and pay less and less."Good for you. You've never benefitted from anything that the state provides, meaning anything that it provides raised from taxation. Fu*k everyone else and keep as much for yourself as possible. If that's your view of the world, then that's your view. You aren't interested in considering any other perspective anyway. As I have noted, the state seems disinterested in ensuring that it raises revenue as it has cut funding to HMRC so you can continue to behave as you do. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"a few people are living longer but many of us will not. often people who live a long time remain economically active adding to the economy. its just government spin In 1950 average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women. Now 84 and 86. I have not seen any information to indicate that older people generate new economic activity in later life rather than spending what they receive. It changes the sector's in which the money is spent though. Total out-of-context rubbish. People were living much longer than that on average in the UK in 1950. Plenty of sites attest to this. You have simply searched, then copied and pasted an image from the first results return, relating to the ONS site, which was referring to the number of survivors by age, from the Period Life Tables, England and Wales. For females. If you had bothered to interrogate the site more fully, you would have discovered that in 1950 : Life expectancy at birth was 66 Median age at death was 71 Modal age at death was 76 By 2010 this had risen to 79, 82 and 85 respectively. A significant increase but not the dramatic, almost doubling in life expectancy, increase you were trying to paint to make your point. As regards the OP, hats off to Macron for dragging France into some sort of reality, because 62 was far too young and unsustainable for their economy
It's good that your irrational dislike of me has started making you look at data with more attention. It would be good if you did the same to data that you present, but this is a good starting point.
Given the topic, it is reasonable to point out the modal age of death in 1950, but that misses the fact that the elderly represented a much smaller proportion of the population. That is another factor that shifts the mean much higher now than then.
I was not, actually "trying to paint" a doubling of life expectancy as the only point.
I wouldn't characterise the existing retirement age as "too young". It does seem to be a necessity though. That was my original point. Sorry that you have had to agree.
I don't have an irrational dislike of you. What made me look at it in more detail is that what you presented, as is quite often the case, was plainly out and out nonsense. I do check my data and don't recall any schoolboy errors, as some would see it, on this daft level. Didn't you stop to read back the absolute drivel, many might say, that you were spouting? It's not been that long since you were writing, as some would see it, total tripe and twaddle on electric cars to Mr D.
A simple apology would have sufficed, but of course that doesn't come easily to lefties. You have to twist it to ' Sorry that you have had to agree' which is at once childish and petty.
Increasingly I see people having to check and double check your posts, yet you vent forth with what many see as astonishing and patronising arrogance, as though you couldn't possibly be wrong.
Yet again, you were!
"People" very rarely have to double check my posts and I can acknowledge when there is an error.
You carry on repeating whatever you want and avoiding addressing questions that don't suit the position that you're trying to take.
Insult as you wish in your own petty way. I'm not bothered.
None of this post from you addressed the OP. Just spam.
I correctly described your erroneous statement that in 1950 'average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women' as rubbish and then gave the correct figures. As usual, you have not liked this and have chosen to paint my correction as an 'insult' and 'spam' and that I am being 'petty' and that you're 'not bothered'.
How gracious you are in defeat in a Vicky Pollard-kind of way!
I have set out proper facts and my position on the French retirement age. You should try it some time instead of poorly researched details and then a thousand questions for anyone challenging you
More spam and you even got your "correction" wrong in not understanding what the data means.
Your obsession with me remains creepy.
The other guy actually got the death ages right as if people dying en masse in 1950 at 44 was a thing ha ha
Looks like you got your ass handed over to you on a plate!
Anyhows how about a EU same age for retireing, 65 and UK matches it? Give youngsters a chance ffs
Cheers for the support but everyone knows that he makes frequent errors already.
As regards a common age of retirement, how would the UK fund a drop to 65? Struggling as it is on that score?
A start would be a proper clamp down on tax evasion, tighter rules and better clarity on tax avoidance, and changing corporate tax rules so that all companies paid tax on revenues in the country where the revenue is generated. No more tax haven holding companies charging UK operations IP royalties that effectively means their UK operations are loss making (they aren’t).
That would swell the overall coffers of HMT massively providing funding for retirement at 65.
I agree and again the best way to to tax that is unavoidable is Vat any thing else is easier to avoid.for the better of to the stinking rich. It is just a numbers game.
Except that penalises the poor more, doesn't it?
VAT is a flat rate, so the rich would be taxed a lower proportion of their income than they do now.
No not realy as there is more vat on high value items when did you last buy a pair of christian louboutin shoes for £700 or a MK hand bag at £1000 or Ralph loren shirt £135 all these type of luxury items could have a 30 or 40 % Vat would it stop me buying the wife new shoes or me a new shirt he'll NO
VAT is a flat rate. So if a millionaire spends £100 they would be taxed £20. The same for a pauper.
The rate would be the same.
A "luxury" tax would mean defining every single item sold individually as a luxury or a standard item. You believe that is sensible?
If the rich will not be effected by VAY then they will not be effected by paying their income tax either, will they?
How meany normal UK citizens go and buy £700 shoes or a shirt for £135 sure it would be completely life is Vat was intrudused on luxury items so why should there not be a top vat rate of 30 or 40%
I don't know. Do you?
As far as I can tell many people do by luxury branded products. They have "cheaper" product ranges for this very purpose.
Who defines at what price a sweater is a "luxury" item? What is the value?
People have to pay tax anyway. Why does it make practical or economic sense to introduce an entire new system? How much does it cost to introduce, administer and enforce? How much litigation will there be around the definitions?
You say "People have to pay tax anyway." Do they not all do and if I'm honest last year I payed very little and for the next 5 years I'll try and pay less and less.
Good for you. You've never benefitted from anything that the state provides, meaning anything that it provides raised from taxation. Fu*k everyone else and keep as much for yourself as possible.
If that's your view of the world, then that's your view. You aren't interested in considering any other perspective anyway.
As I have noted, the state seems disinterested in ensuring that it raises revenue as it has cut funding to HMRC so you can continue to behave as you do."I pay VAT, council tax and car Tax but don't earn enough income so don't pay income tax. So I guess I pay about the same as someone on benefits. But they also take out of the government coffers. If you don't have an income you don't pay income TAX FFS | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A civilised people. Unlike the Brit Angerlanders. " Yoy are dead right. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"100% agree. Folk flocking to labour like they will save working people. Disgraceful hypocrits the lot of em. Snouts in troff what would a good set of policies look like that would save working folk? Not my job pal. I will know when I see em tho which of the 2019 policies did you see as being detrimental or self serving ?
I thought it was a fairly left (and working class) focussed manifesto.
It was but there was no ability of Labour Mps to explain how it would be paid for. I watched corbyn evasive when andrew neil asked how the pledge to wispy women would be funded. Plus he was terrorist sympathiser. Right he was defeated and working man wanted brexit sorted.
*Waspi - pension at 65 women not 60 I'm lost what your view is about pension ages for the working man is now!
65 for all seems fair. 68 getting too old. Life not a football match with a guaranteed 90 mins (years). Life is lottery neighbour is 95 and has collected stated pension for 30 years!!! Other neighbor was dead at 70, gave up work 61. 4 years versus 30 years pension. Can't argue when Big Ref blows final whistle
65 is probably fair
But we are heading towards 68? trouble is £££.
As Rob says, the waspi promises was unfunded. Using some of the numbers I'm estimating for every year earlier state pension is, that's £10bn additional costs.
The more we want to retire earlier, the more burden we put on younger generations... And unless we can smash productivity the likely solution is increased immigration to have enough workers to foot the bill.
Why is increased immigration the answer to everything? Won't immigrants eventually want a pension at 65?
It's increased immigration which is bringing problems with getting a school place, dentist, doctor's appointment, pushing up rent and house prices, helping jam up the roads, filling up hotels, pushing up hotel room costs etc etc
Unless immigration decreases, the housing crisis will continue indefinitely, mainly to the detriment of young people. The UK’s green countryside will continue to be swallowed up by construction of housing.
Claims that immigration represents a fiscal benefit to the UK are very debatable.
What evidence do you have that migrants pay their way let alone finance the new infrastructure or anything else required by rapid population growth? Or finance a lower pension age for an ever increasing population?
You're left wing waffling again! it's not the answer to everything and my preference would be to invest in our schooling system to boost productivity. I suspect many lefties would waffle in the same way. I'm not actually anfan of immigration but see it as a necessary short term necessity.
How would you support an earlier retirement age?
I think the simplest way to encourage people to work longer, whilst allowing them to increase their wealth and removing the pressure on the state pension is to start to reduce their tax outlay as the people get older.
An example, when a person reaches 55 years of age reduce the tax on their income by 15% for every 5 years they remain working, at 65 they will be working tax free, not receiving a pension and are able to save a lot more money for their own pension.
The numbers I have used are plucked out of the air and are not at all water tight, it is an example of how we can start to manage better.
I would imagine the need for qualifying rules, such as, been working for the last X years, paying their tax in this country etc.
time to think outside the box
So as people earn more in later life and require more from the state in medical care they would contribute less tax to society at large so as to benefit themselves in having an earlier retirement and pass on more in their estate?
It's just another perspective on your solution.
Why not have everyone pay more NI. Isn't that fairer?"Early retirement? Read it again, it is about keeping people interested in working by reward. Think about it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"100% agree. Folk flocking to labour like they will save working people. Disgraceful hypocrits the lot of em. Snouts in troff what would a good set of policies look like that would save working folk? Not my job pal. I will know when I see em tho which of the 2019 policies did you see as being detrimental or self serving ?
I thought it was a fairly left (and working class) focussed manifesto.
It was but there was no ability of Labour Mps to explain how it would be paid for. I watched corbyn evasive when andrew neil asked how the pledge to wispy women would be funded. Plus he was terrorist sympathiser. Right he was defeated and working man wanted brexit sorted.
*Waspi - pension at 65 women not 60 I'm lost what your view is about pension ages for the working man is now!
65 for all seems fair. 68 getting too old. Life not a football match with a guaranteed 90 mins (years). Life is lottery neighbour is 95 and has collected stated pension for 30 years!!! Other neighbor was dead at 70, gave up work 61. 4 years versus 30 years pension. Can't argue when Big Ref blows final whistle
65 is probably fair
But we are heading towards 68? trouble is £££.
As Rob says, the waspi promises was unfunded. Using some of the numbers I'm estimating for every year earlier state pension is, that's £10bn additional costs.
The more we want to retire earlier, the more burden we put on younger generations... And unless we can smash productivity the likely solution is increased immigration to have enough workers to foot the bill.
Why is increased immigration the answer to everything? Won't immigrants eventually want a pension at 65?
It's increased immigration which is bringing problems with getting a school place, dentist, doctor's appointment, pushing up rent and house prices, helping jam up the roads, filling up hotels, pushing up hotel room costs etc etc
Unless immigration decreases, the housing crisis will continue indefinitely, mainly to the detriment of young people. The UK’s green countryside will continue to be swallowed up by construction of housing.
Claims that immigration represents a fiscal benefit to the UK are very debatable.
What evidence do you have that migrants pay their way let alone finance the new infrastructure or anything else required by rapid population growth? Or finance a lower pension age for an ever increasing population?
You're left wing waffling again! it's not the answer to everything and my preference would be to invest in our schooling system to boost productivity. I suspect many lefties would waffle in the same way. I'm not actually anfan of immigration but see it as a necessary short term necessity.
How would you support an earlier retirement age?
I think the simplest way to encourage people to work longer, whilst allowing them to increase their wealth and removing the pressure on the state pension is to start to reduce their tax outlay as the people get older.
An example, when a person reaches 55 years of age reduce the tax on their income by 15% for every 5 years they remain working, at 65 they will be working tax free, not receiving a pension and are able to save a lot more money for their own pension.
The numbers I have used are plucked out of the air and are not at all water tight, it is an example of how we can start to manage better.
I would imagine the need for qualifying rules, such as, been working for the last X years, paying their tax in this country etc.
time to think outside the box
So as people earn more in later life and require more from the state in medical care they would contribute less tax to society at large so as to benefit themselves in having an earlier retirement and pass on more in their estate?
It's just another perspective on your solution.
Why not have everyone pay more NI. Isn't that fairer?"How many people in the UK pay NI? The 1.3 million people who still pay National Insurance… Conservative Home.23 Jul 2015 Can't find a finger for 2023 but as I thought it's not meany. So how much more NI would you pay 5% | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"100% agree. Folk flocking to labour like they will save working people. Disgraceful hypocrits the lot of em. Snouts in troff what would a good set of policies look like that would save working folk? Not my job pal. I will know when I see em tho which of the 2019 policies did you see as being detrimental or self serving ?
I thought it was a fairly left (and working class) focussed manifesto.
It was but there was no ability of Labour Mps to explain how it would be paid for. I watched corbyn evasive when andrew neil asked how the pledge to wispy women would be funded. Plus he was terrorist sympathiser. Right he was defeated and working man wanted brexit sorted.
*Waspi - pension at 65 women not 60 I'm lost what your view is about pension ages for the working man is now!
65 for all seems fair. 68 getting too old. Life not a football match with a guaranteed 90 mins (years). Life is lottery neighbour is 95 and has collected stated pension for 30 years!!! Other neighbor was dead at 70, gave up work 61. 4 years versus 30 years pension. Can't argue when Big Ref blows final whistle
65 is probably fair
But we are heading towards 68? trouble is £££.
As Rob says, the waspi promises was unfunded. Using some of the numbers I'm estimating for every year earlier state pension is, that's £10bn additional costs.
The more we want to retire earlier, the more burden we put on younger generations... And unless we can smash productivity the likely solution is increased immigration to have enough workers to foot the bill.
Why is increased immigration the answer to everything? Won't immigrants eventually want a pension at 65?
It's increased immigration which is bringing problems with getting a school place, dentist, doctor's appointment, pushing up rent and house prices, helping jam up the roads, filling up hotels, pushing up hotel room costs etc etc
Unless immigration decreases, the housing crisis will continue indefinitely, mainly to the detriment of young people. The UK’s green countryside will continue to be swallowed up by construction of housing.
Claims that immigration represents a fiscal benefit to the UK are very debatable.
What evidence do you have that migrants pay their way let alone finance the new infrastructure or anything else required by rapid population growth? Or finance a lower pension age for an ever increasing population?
You're left wing waffling again! it's not the answer to everything and my preference would be to invest in our schooling system to boost productivity. I suspect many lefties would waffle in the same way. I'm not actually anfan of immigration but see it as a necessary short term necessity.
How would you support an earlier retirement age?
I think the simplest way to encourage people to work longer, whilst allowing them to increase their wealth and removing the pressure on the state pension is to start to reduce their tax outlay as the people get older.
An example, when a person reaches 55 years of age reduce the tax on their income by 15% for every 5 years they remain working, at 65 they will be working tax free, not receiving a pension and are able to save a lot more money for their own pension.
The numbers I have used are plucked out of the air and are not at all water tight, it is an example of how we can start to manage better.
I would imagine the need for qualifying rules, such as, been working for the last X years, paying their tax in this country etc.
time to think outside the box
So as people earn more in later life and require more from the state in medical care they would contribute less tax to society at large so as to benefit themselves in having an earlier retirement and pass on more in their estate?
It's just another perspective on your solution.
Why not have everyone pay more NI. Isn't that fairer?
How many people in the UK pay NI?
The 1.3 million people who still pay National Insurance… Conservative Home.23 Jul 2015
Can't find a finger for 2023 but as I thought it's not meany.
So how much more NI would you pay 5%"1.3m people pay NI but not income tax. I'm not sure what your point is, so not sure what relevance the 1.3m was to your point. But it rws like only 1.3m pay NI!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"100% agree. Folk flocking to labour like they will save working people. Disgraceful hypocrits the lot of em. Snouts in troff what would a good set of policies look like that would save working folk? Not my job pal. I will know when I see em tho which of the 2019 policies did you see as being detrimental or self serving ?
I thought it was a fairly left (and working class) focussed manifesto.
It was but there was no ability of Labour Mps to explain how it would be paid for. I watched corbyn evasive when andrew neil asked how the pledge to wispy women would be funded. Plus he was terrorist sympathiser. Right he was defeated and working man wanted brexit sorted.
*Waspi - pension at 65 women not 60 I'm lost what your view is about pension ages for the working man is now!
65 for all seems fair. 68 getting too old. Life not a football match with a guaranteed 90 mins (years). Life is lottery neighbour is 95 and has collected stated pension for 30 years!!! Other neighbor was dead at 70, gave up work 61. 4 years versus 30 years pension. Can't argue when Big Ref blows final whistle
65 is probably fair
But we are heading towards 68? trouble is £££.
As Rob says, the waspi promises was unfunded. Using some of the numbers I'm estimating for every year earlier state pension is, that's £10bn additional costs.
The more we want to retire earlier, the more burden we put on younger generations... And unless we can smash productivity the likely solution is increased immigration to have enough workers to foot the bill.
Why is increased immigration the answer to everything? Won't immigrants eventually want a pension at 65?
It's increased immigration which is bringing problems with getting a school place, dentist, doctor's appointment, pushing up rent and house prices, helping jam up the roads, filling up hotels, pushing up hotel room costs etc etc
Unless immigration decreases, the housing crisis will continue indefinitely, mainly to the detriment of young people. The UK’s green countryside will continue to be swallowed up by construction of housing.
Claims that immigration represents a fiscal benefit to the UK are very debatable.
What evidence do you have that migrants pay their way let alone finance the new infrastructure or anything else required by rapid population growth? Or finance a lower pension age for an ever increasing population?
You're left wing waffling again! it's not the answer to everything and my preference would be to invest in our schooling system to boost productivity. I suspect many lefties would waffle in the same way. I'm not actually anfan of immigration but see it as a necessary short term necessity.
How would you support an earlier retirement age?
I think the simplest way to encourage people to work longer, whilst allowing them to increase their wealth and removing the pressure on the state pension is to start to reduce their tax outlay as the people get older.
An example, when a person reaches 55 years of age reduce the tax on their income by 15% for every 5 years they remain working, at 65 they will be working tax free, not receiving a pension and are able to save a lot more money for their own pension.
The numbers I have used are plucked out of the air and are not at all water tight, it is an example of how we can start to manage better.
I would imagine the need for qualifying rules, such as, been working for the last X years, paying their tax in this country etc.
time to think outside the box
So as people earn more in later life and require more from the state in medical care they would contribute less tax to society at large so as to benefit themselves in having an earlier retirement and pass on more in their estate?
It's just another perspective on your solution.
Why not have everyone pay more NI. Isn't that fairer?
How many people in the UK pay NI?
The 1.3 million people who still pay National Insurance… Conservative Home.23 Jul 2015
Can't find a finger for 2023 but as I thought it's not meany.
So how much more NI would you pay 5%1.3m people pay NI but not income tax.
I'm not sure what your point is, so not sure what relevance the 1.3m was to your point. But it rws like only 1.3m pay NI!! "Someone posted to help the pension age to increase NI but with so few paying it about 2%, it would be a piss in the ocean. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"100% agree. Folk flocking to labour like they will save working people. Disgraceful hypocrits the lot of em. Snouts in troff what would a good set of policies look like that would save working folk? Not my job pal. I will know when I see em tho which of the 2019 policies did you see as being detrimental or self serving ?
I thought it was a fairly left (and working class) focussed manifesto.
It was but there was no ability of Labour Mps to explain how it would be paid for. I watched corbyn evasive when andrew neil asked how the pledge to wispy women would be funded. Plus he was terrorist sympathiser. Right he was defeated and working man wanted brexit sorted.
*Waspi - pension at 65 women not 60 I'm lost what your view is about pension ages for the working man is now!
65 for all seems fair. 68 getting too old. Life not a football match with a guaranteed 90 mins (years). Life is lottery neighbour is 95 and has collected stated pension for 30 years!!! Other neighbor was dead at 70, gave up work 61. 4 years versus 30 years pension. Can't argue when Big Ref blows final whistle
65 is probably fair
But we are heading towards 68? trouble is £££.
As Rob says, the waspi promises was unfunded. Using some of the numbers I'm estimating for every year earlier state pension is, that's £10bn additional costs.
The more we want to retire earlier, the more burden we put on younger generations... And unless we can smash productivity the likely solution is increased immigration to have enough workers to foot the bill.
Why is increased immigration the answer to everything? Won't immigrants eventually want a pension at 65?
It's increased immigration which is bringing problems with getting a school place, dentist, doctor's appointment, pushing up rent and house prices, helping jam up the roads, filling up hotels, pushing up hotel room costs etc etc
Unless immigration decreases, the housing crisis will continue indefinitely, mainly to the detriment of young people. The UK’s green countryside will continue to be swallowed up by construction of housing.
Claims that immigration represents a fiscal benefit to the UK are very debatable.
What evidence do you have that migrants pay their way let alone finance the new infrastructure or anything else required by rapid population growth? Or finance a lower pension age for an ever increasing population?
You're left wing waffling again! it's not the answer to everything and my preference would be to invest in our schooling system to boost productivity. I suspect many lefties would waffle in the same way. I'm not actually anfan of immigration but see it as a necessary short term necessity.
How would you support an earlier retirement age?
I think the simplest way to encourage people to work longer, whilst allowing them to increase their wealth and removing the pressure on the state pension is to start to reduce their tax outlay as the people get older.
An example, when a person reaches 55 years of age reduce the tax on their income by 15% for every 5 years they remain working, at 65 they will be working tax free, not receiving a pension and are able to save a lot more money for their own pension.
The numbers I have used are plucked out of the air and are not at all water tight, it is an example of how we can start to manage better.
I would imagine the need for qualifying rules, such as, been working for the last X years, paying their tax in this country etc.
time to think outside the box
So as people earn more in later life and require more from the state in medical care they would contribute less tax to society at large so as to benefit themselves in having an earlier retirement and pass on more in their estate?
It's just another perspective on your solution.
Why not have everyone pay more NI. Isn't that fairer?
How many people in the UK pay NI?
The 1.3 million people who still pay National Insurance… Conservative Home.23 Jul 2015
Can't find a finger for 2023 but as I thought it's not meany.
So how much more NI would you pay 5%1.3m people pay NI but not income tax.
I'm not sure what your point is, so not sure what relevance the 1.3m was to your point. But it rws like only 1.3m pay NI!! "Sorry I read that wrong. So 32 Milion pay Tax some 1.3m pay NI but no tax can't find how meany pay tax but not NI. But there are 11m pensions how would not pay NI on pensions. So about 20m I guess more then I thought.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"100% agree. Folk flocking to labour like they will save working people. Disgraceful hypocrits the lot of em. Snouts in troff what would a good set of policies look like that would save working folk? Not my job pal. I will know when I see em tho which of the 2019 policies did you see as being detrimental or self serving ?
I thought it was a fairly left (and working class) focussed manifesto.
It was but there was no ability of Labour Mps to explain how it would be paid for. I watched corbyn evasive when andrew neil asked how the pledge to wispy women would be funded. Plus he was terrorist sympathiser. Right he was defeated and working man wanted brexit sorted.
*Waspi - pension at 65 women not 60 I'm lost what your view is about pension ages for the working man is now!
65 for all seems fair. 68 getting too old. Life not a football match with a guaranteed 90 mins (years). Life is lottery neighbour is 95 and has collected stated pension for 30 years!!! Other neighbor was dead at 70, gave up work 61. 4 years versus 30 years pension. Can't argue when Big Ref blows final whistle
65 is probably fair
But we are heading towards 68? trouble is £££.
As Rob says, the waspi promises was unfunded. Using some of the numbers I'm estimating for every year earlier state pension is, that's £10bn additional costs.
The more we want to retire earlier, the more burden we put on younger generations... And unless we can smash productivity the likely solution is increased immigration to have enough workers to foot the bill.
Why is increased immigration the answer to everything? Won't immigrants eventually want a pension at 65?
It's increased immigration which is bringing problems with getting a school place, dentist, doctor's appointment, pushing up rent and house prices, helping jam up the roads, filling up hotels, pushing up hotel room costs etc etc
Unless immigration decreases, the housing crisis will continue indefinitely, mainly to the detriment of young people. The UK’s green countryside will continue to be swallowed up by construction of housing.
Claims that immigration represents a fiscal benefit to the UK are very debatable.
What evidence do you have that migrants pay their way let alone finance the new infrastructure or anything else required by rapid population growth? Or finance a lower pension age for an ever increasing population?
You're left wing waffling again! it's not the answer to everything and my preference would be to invest in our schooling system to boost productivity. I suspect many lefties would waffle in the same way. I'm not actually anfan of immigration but see it as a necessary short term necessity.
How would you support an earlier retirement age?
I think the simplest way to encourage people to work longer, whilst allowing them to increase their wealth and removing the pressure on the state pension is to start to reduce their tax outlay as the people get older.
An example, when a person reaches 55 years of age reduce the tax on their income by 15% for every 5 years they remain working, at 65 they will be working tax free, not receiving a pension and are able to save a lot more money for their own pension.
The numbers I have used are plucked out of the air and are not at all water tight, it is an example of how we can start to manage better.
I would imagine the need for qualifying rules, such as, been working for the last X years, paying their tax in this country etc.
time to think outside the box
So as people earn more in later life and require more from the state in medical care they would contribute less tax to society at large so as to benefit themselves in having an earlier retirement and pass on more in their estate?
It's just another perspective on your solution.
Why not have everyone pay more NI. Isn't that fairer?
Early retirement? Read it again, it is about keeping people interested in working by reward.
Think about it."Paying less as you get older and wealthier. Think about it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"a few people are living longer but many of us will not. often people who live a long time remain economically active adding to the economy. its just government spin In 1950 average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women. Now 84 and 86. I have not seen any information to indicate that older people generate new economic activity in later life rather than spending what they receive. It changes the sector's in which the money is spent though. Total out-of-context rubbish. People were living much longer than that on average in the UK in 1950. Plenty of sites attest to this. You have simply searched, then copied and pasted an image from the first results return, relating to the ONS site, which was referring to the number of survivors by age, from the Period Life Tables, England and Wales. For females. If you had bothered to interrogate the site more fully, you would have discovered that in 1950 : Life expectancy at birth was 66 Median age at death was 71 Modal age at death was 76 By 2010 this had risen to 79, 82 and 85 respectively. A significant increase but not the dramatic, almost doubling in life expectancy, increase you were trying to paint to make your point. As regards the OP, hats off to Macron for dragging France into some sort of reality, because 62 was far too young and unsustainable for their economy
It's good that your irrational dislike of me has started making you look at data with more attention. It would be good if you did the same to data that you present, but this is a good starting point.
Given the topic, it is reasonable to point out the modal age of death in 1950, but that misses the fact that the elderly represented a much smaller proportion of the population. That is another factor that shifts the mean much higher now than then.
I was not, actually "trying to paint" a doubling of life expectancy as the only point.
I wouldn't characterise the existing retirement age as "too young". It does seem to be a necessity though. That was my original point. Sorry that you have had to agree.
I don't have an irrational dislike of you. What made me look at it in more detail is that what you presented, as is quite often the case, was plainly out and out nonsense. I do check my data and don't recall any schoolboy errors, as some would see it, on this daft level. Didn't you stop to read back the absolute drivel, many might say, that you were spouting? It's not been that long since you were writing, as some would see it, total tripe and twaddle on electric cars to Mr D.
A simple apology would have sufficed, but of course that doesn't come easily to lefties. You have to twist it to ' Sorry that you have had to agree' which is at once childish and petty.
Increasingly I see people having to check and double check your posts, yet you vent forth with what many see as astonishing and patronising arrogance, as though you couldn't possibly be wrong.
Yet again, you were!
"People" very rarely have to double check my posts and I can acknowledge when there is an error.
You carry on repeating whatever you want and avoiding addressing questions that don't suit the position that you're trying to take.
Insult as you wish in your own petty way. I'm not bothered.
None of this post from you addressed the OP. Just spam.
I correctly described your erroneous statement that in 1950 'average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women' as rubbish and then gave the correct figures. As usual, you have not liked this and have chosen to paint my correction as an 'insult' and 'spam' and that I am being 'petty' and that you're 'not bothered'.
How gracious you are in defeat in a Vicky Pollard-kind of way!
I have set out proper facts and my position on the French retirement age. You should try it some time instead of poorly researched details and then a thousand questions for anyone challenging you
More spam and you even got your "correction" wrong in not understanding what the data means.
Your obsession with me remains creepy.
The other guy actually got the death ages right as if people dying en masse in 1950 at 44 was a thing ha ha
Looks like you got your ass handed over to you on a plate!
Anyhows how about a EU same age for retireing, 65 and UK matches it? Give youngsters a chance ffs
Cheers for the support but everyone knows that he makes frequent errors already.
As regards a common age of retirement, how would the UK fund a drop to 65? Struggling as it is on that score?
A start would be a proper clamp down on tax evasion, tighter rules and better clarity on tax avoidance, and changing corporate tax rules so that all companies paid tax on revenues in the country where the revenue is generated. No more tax haven holding companies charging UK operations IP royalties that effectively means their UK operations are loss making (they aren’t).
That would swell the overall coffers of HMT massively providing funding for retirement at 65.
I agree and again the best way to to tax that is unavoidable is Vat any thing else is easier to avoid.for the better of to the stinking rich. It is just a numbers game.
Except that penalises the poor more, doesn't it?
VAT is a flat rate, so the rich would be taxed a lower proportion of their income than they do now.
No not realy as there is more vat on high value items when did you last buy a pair of christian louboutin shoes for £700 or a MK hand bag at £1000 or Ralph loren shirt £135 all these type of luxury items could have a 30 or 40 % Vat would it stop me buying the wife new shoes or me a new shirt he'll NO
VAT is a flat rate. So if a millionaire spends £100 they would be taxed £20. The same for a pauper.
The rate would be the same.
A "luxury" tax would mean defining every single item sold individually as a luxury or a standard item. You believe that is sensible?
If the rich will not be effected by VAY then they will not be effected by paying their income tax either, will they?
How meany normal UK citizens go and buy £700 shoes or a shirt for £135 sure it would be completely life is Vat was intrudused on luxury items so why should there not be a top vat rate of 30 or 40%
I don't know. Do you?
As far as I can tell many people do by luxury branded products. They have "cheaper" product ranges for this very purpose.
Who defines at what price a sweater is a "luxury" item? What is the value?
People have to pay tax anyway. Why does it make practical or economic sense to introduce an entire new system? How much does it cost to introduce, administer and enforce? How much litigation will there be around the definitions?
You say "People have to pay tax anyway." Do they not all do and if I'm honest last year I payed very little and for the next 5 years I'll try and pay less and less.
Good for you. You've never benefitted from anything that the state provides, meaning anything that it provides raised from taxation. Fu*k everyone else and keep as much for yourself as possible.
If that's your view of the world, then that's your view. You aren't interested in considering any other perspective anyway.
As I have noted, the state seems disinterested in ensuring that it raises revenue as it has cut funding to HMRC so you can continue to behave as you do.
I pay VAT, council tax and car Tax but don't earn enough income so don't pay income tax. So I guess I pay about the same as someone on benefits.
But they also take out of the government coffers.
If you don't have an income you don't pay income TAX FFS"In that case you didn't explain your situation in any way that I could conceivably understand. How are you going to "try and pay less and less"? That implies that you are trying to avoid paying tax by any normal reading. How could I have possibly worked out what you were trying to say from what you wrote. Don't swear at me please. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"100% agree. Folk flocking to labour like they will save working people. Disgraceful hypocrits the lot of em. Snouts in troff what would a good set of policies look like that would save working folk? Not my job pal. I will know when I see em tho which of the 2019 policies did you see as being detrimental or self serving ?
I thought it was a fairly left (and working class) focussed manifesto.
It was but there was no ability of Labour Mps to explain how it would be paid for. I watched corbyn evasive when andrew neil asked how the pledge to wispy women would be funded. Plus he was terrorist sympathiser. Right he was defeated and working man wanted brexit sorted.
*Waspi - pension at 65 women not 60 I'm lost what your view is about pension ages for the working man is now!
65 for all seems fair. 68 getting too old. Life not a football match with a guaranteed 90 mins (years). Life is lottery neighbour is 95 and has collected stated pension for 30 years!!! Other neighbor was dead at 70, gave up work 61. 4 years versus 30 years pension. Can't argue when Big Ref blows final whistle
65 is probably fair
But we are heading towards 68? trouble is £££.
As Rob says, the waspi promises was unfunded. Using some of the numbers I'm estimating for every year earlier state pension is, that's £10bn additional costs.
The more we want to retire earlier, the more burden we put on younger generations... And unless we can smash productivity the likely solution is increased immigration to have enough workers to foot the bill.
Why is increased immigration the answer to everything? Won't immigrants eventually want a pension at 65?
It's increased immigration which is bringing problems with getting a school place, dentist, doctor's appointment, pushing up rent and house prices, helping jam up the roads, filling up hotels, pushing up hotel room costs etc etc
Unless immigration decreases, the housing crisis will continue indefinitely, mainly to the detriment of young people. The UK’s green countryside will continue to be swallowed up by construction of housing.
Claims that immigration represents a fiscal benefit to the UK are very debatable.
What evidence do you have that migrants pay their way let alone finance the new infrastructure or anything else required by rapid population growth? Or finance a lower pension age for an ever increasing population?
You're left wing waffling again! it's not the answer to everything and my preference would be to invest in our schooling system to boost productivity. I suspect many lefties would waffle in the same way. I'm not actually anfan of immigration but see it as a necessary short term necessity.
How would you support an earlier retirement age?
I think the simplest way to encourage people to work longer, whilst allowing them to increase their wealth and removing the pressure on the state pension is to start to reduce their tax outlay as the people get older.
An example, when a person reaches 55 years of age reduce the tax on their income by 15% for every 5 years they remain working, at 65 they will be working tax free, not receiving a pension and are able to save a lot more money for their own pension.
The numbers I have used are plucked out of the air and are not at all water tight, it is an example of how we can start to manage better.
I would imagine the need for qualifying rules, such as, been working for the last X years, paying their tax in this country etc.
time to think outside the box
So as people earn more in later life and require more from the state in medical care they would contribute less tax to society at large so as to benefit themselves in having an earlier retirement and pass on more in their estate?
It's just another perspective on your solution.
Why not have everyone pay more NI. Isn't that fairer?
Early retirement? Read it again, it is about keeping people interested in working by reward.
Think about it.
Paying less as you get older and wealthier.
Think about it."Wealthier will probably mean more to pay for care when you need it as you worked so hard. So why not just scrap NI scrap pensions and let everyone do what is right for them. Guess if you are not able to work at 55 you just go on the sick anyway | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"a few people are living longer but many of us will not. often people who live a long time remain economically active adding to the economy. its just government spin In 1950 average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women. Now 84 and 86. I have not seen any information to indicate that older people generate new economic activity in later life rather than spending what they receive. It changes the sector's in which the money is spent though. Total out-of-context rubbish. People were living much longer than that on average in the UK in 1950. Plenty of sites attest to this. You have simply searched, then copied and pasted an image from the first results return, relating to the ONS site, which was referring to the number of survivors by age, from the Period Life Tables, England and Wales. For females. If you had bothered to interrogate the site more fully, you would have discovered that in 1950 : Life expectancy at birth was 66 Median age at death was 71 Modal age at death was 76 By 2010 this had risen to 79, 82 and 85 respectively. A significant increase but not the dramatic, almost doubling in life expectancy, increase you were trying to paint to make your point. As regards the OP, hats off to Macron for dragging France into some sort of reality, because 62 was far too young and unsustainable for their economy
It's good that your irrational dislike of me has started making you look at data with more attention. It would be good if you did the same to data that you present, but this is a good starting point.
Given the topic, it is reasonable to point out the modal age of death in 1950, but that misses the fact that the elderly represented a much smaller proportion of the population. That is another factor that shifts the mean much higher now than then.
I was not, actually "trying to paint" a doubling of life expectancy as the only point.
I wouldn't characterise the existing retirement age as "too young". It does seem to be a necessity though. That was my original point. Sorry that you have had to agree.
I don't have an irrational dislike of you. What made me look at it in more detail is that what you presented, as is quite often the case, was plainly out and out nonsense. I do check my data and don't recall any schoolboy errors, as some would see it, on this daft level. Didn't you stop to read back the absolute drivel, many might say, that you were spouting? It's not been that long since you were writing, as some would see it, total tripe and twaddle on electric cars to Mr D.
A simple apology would have sufficed, but of course that doesn't come easily to lefties. You have to twist it to ' Sorry that you have had to agree' which is at once childish and petty.
Increasingly I see people having to check and double check your posts, yet you vent forth with what many see as astonishing and patronising arrogance, as though you couldn't possibly be wrong.
Yet again, you were!
"People" very rarely have to double check my posts and I can acknowledge when there is an error.
You carry on repeating whatever you want and avoiding addressing questions that don't suit the position that you're trying to take.
Insult as you wish in your own petty way. I'm not bothered.
None of this post from you addressed the OP. Just spam.
I correctly described your erroneous statement that in 1950 'average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women' as rubbish and then gave the correct figures. As usual, you have not liked this and have chosen to paint my correction as an 'insult' and 'spam' and that I am being 'petty' and that you're 'not bothered'.
How gracious you are in defeat in a Vicky Pollard-kind of way!
I have set out proper facts and my position on the French retirement age. You should try it some time instead of poorly researched details and then a thousand questions for anyone challenging you
More spam and you even got your "correction" wrong in not understanding what the data means.
Your obsession with me remains creepy.
The other guy actually got the death ages right as if people dying en masse in 1950 at 44 was a thing ha ha
Looks like you got your ass handed over to you on a plate!
Anyhows how about a EU same age for retireing, 65 and UK matches it? Give youngsters a chance ffs
Cheers for the support but everyone knows that he makes frequent errors already.
As regards a common age of retirement, how would the UK fund a drop to 65? Struggling as it is on that score?
A start would be a proper clamp down on tax evasion, tighter rules and better clarity on tax avoidance, and changing corporate tax rules so that all companies paid tax on revenues in the country where the revenue is generated. No more tax haven holding companies charging UK operations IP royalties that effectively means their UK operations are loss making (they aren’t).
That would swell the overall coffers of HMT massively providing funding for retirement at 65.
I agree and again the best way to to tax that is unavoidable is Vat any thing else is easier to avoid.for the better of to the stinking rich. It is just a numbers game.
Except that penalises the poor more, doesn't it?
VAT is a flat rate, so the rich would be taxed a lower proportion of their income than they do now.
No not realy as there is more vat on high value items when did you last buy a pair of christian louboutin shoes for £700 or a MK hand bag at £1000 or Ralph loren shirt £135 all these type of luxury items could have a 30 or 40 % Vat would it stop me buying the wife new shoes or me a new shirt he'll NO
VAT is a flat rate. So if a millionaire spends £100 they would be taxed £20. The same for a pauper.
The rate would be the same.
A "luxury" tax would mean defining every single item sold individually as a luxury or a standard item. You believe that is sensible?
If the rich will not be effected by VAY then they will not be effected by paying their income tax either, will they?
How meany normal UK citizens go and buy £700 shoes or a shirt for £135 sure it would be completely life is Vat was intrudused on luxury items so why should there not be a top vat rate of 30 or 40%
I don't know. Do you?
As far as I can tell many people do by luxury branded products. They have "cheaper" product ranges for this very purpose.
Who defines at what price a sweater is a "luxury" item? What is the value?
People have to pay tax anyway. Why does it make practical or economic sense to introduce an entire new system? How much does it cost to introduce, administer and enforce? How much litigation will there be around the definitions?
You say "People have to pay tax anyway." Do they not all do and if I'm honest last year I payed very little and for the next 5 years I'll try and pay less and less.
Good for you. You've never benefitted from anything that the state provides, meaning anything that it provides raised from taxation. Fu*k everyone else and keep as much for yourself as possible.
If that's your view of the world, then that's your view. You aren't interested in considering any other perspective anyway.
As I have noted, the state seems disinterested in ensuring that it raises revenue as it has cut funding to HMRC so you can continue to behave as you do.
I pay VAT, council tax and car Tax but don't earn enough income so don't pay income tax. So I guess I pay about the same as someone on benefits.
But they also take out of the government coffers.
If you don't have an income you don't pay income TAX FFS
In that case you didn't explain your situation in any way that I could conceivably understand.
How are you going to "try and pay less and less"? That implies that you are trying to avoid paying tax by any normal reading.
How could I have possibly worked out what you were trying to say from what you wrote.
Don't swear at me please."If you read back you used the F word first so don't do what you don't like. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"100% agree. Folk flocking to labour like they will save working people. Disgraceful hypocrits the lot of em. Snouts in troff what would a good set of policies look like that would save working folk? Not my job pal. I will know when I see em tho which of the 2019 policies did you see as being detrimental or self serving ?
I thought it was a fairly left (and working class) focussed manifesto.
It was but there was no ability of Labour Mps to explain how it would be paid for. I watched corbyn evasive when andrew neil asked how the pledge to wispy women would be funded. Plus he was terrorist sympathiser. Right he was defeated and working man wanted brexit sorted.
*Waspi - pension at 65 women not 60 I'm lost what your view is about pension ages for the working man is now!
65 for all seems fair. 68 getting too old. Life not a football match with a guaranteed 90 mins (years). Life is lottery neighbour is 95 and has collected stated pension for 30 years!!! Other neighbor was dead at 70, gave up work 61. 4 years versus 30 years pension. Can't argue when Big Ref blows final whistle
65 is probably fair
But we are heading towards 68? trouble is £££.
As Rob says, the waspi promises was unfunded. Using some of the numbers I'm estimating for every year earlier state pension is, that's £10bn additional costs.
The more we want to retire earlier, the more burden we put on younger generations... And unless we can smash productivity the likely solution is increased immigration to have enough workers to foot the bill.
Why is increased immigration the answer to everything? Won't immigrants eventually want a pension at 65?
It's increased immigration which is bringing problems with getting a school place, dentist, doctor's appointment, pushing up rent and house prices, helping jam up the roads, filling up hotels, pushing up hotel room costs etc etc
Unless immigration decreases, the housing crisis will continue indefinitely, mainly to the detriment of young people. The UK’s green countryside will continue to be swallowed up by construction of housing.
Claims that immigration represents a fiscal benefit to the UK are very debatable.
What evidence do you have that migrants pay their way let alone finance the new infrastructure or anything else required by rapid population growth? Or finance a lower pension age for an ever increasing population?
You're left wing waffling again! it's not the answer to everything and my preference would be to invest in our schooling system to boost productivity. I suspect many lefties would waffle in the same way. I'm not actually anfan of immigration but see it as a necessary short term necessity.
How would you support an earlier retirement age?
I think the simplest way to encourage people to work longer, whilst allowing them to increase their wealth and removing the pressure on the state pension is to start to reduce their tax outlay as the people get older.
An example, when a person reaches 55 years of age reduce the tax on their income by 15% for every 5 years they remain working, at 65 they will be working tax free, not receiving a pension and are able to save a lot more money for their own pension.
The numbers I have used are plucked out of the air and are not at all water tight, it is an example of how we can start to manage better.
I would imagine the need for qualifying rules, such as, been working for the last X years, paying their tax in this country etc.
time to think outside the box
So as people earn more in later life and require more from the state in medical care they would contribute less tax to society at large so as to benefit themselves in having an earlier retirement and pass on more in their estate?
It's just another perspective on your solution.
Why not have everyone pay more NI. Isn't that fairer?
How many people in the UK pay NI?
The 1.3 million people who still pay National Insurance… Conservative Home.23 Jul 2015
Can't find a finger for 2023 but as I thought it's not meany.
So how much more NI would you pay 5%1.3m people pay NI but not income tax.
I'm not sure what your point is, so not sure what relevance the 1.3m was to your point. But it rws like only 1.3m pay NI!!
Sorry I read that wrong.
So 32 Milion pay Tax some 1.3m pay NI but no tax can't find how meany pay tax but not NI.
But there are 11m pensions how would not pay NI on pensions.
So about 20m I guess more then I thought.. "£145 billion was paid in NI contributions in 2019-20 (representing 17.5% of all tax revenue) 2020-2021 £161 billion. Drop in the ocean? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"a few people are living longer but many of us will not. often people who live a long time remain economically active adding to the economy. its just government spin In 1950 average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women. Now 84 and 86. I have not seen any information to indicate that older people generate new economic activity in later life rather than spending what they receive. It changes the sector's in which the money is spent though. Total out-of-context rubbish. People were living much longer than that on average in the UK in 1950. Plenty of sites attest to this. You have simply searched, then copied and pasted an image from the first results return, relating to the ONS site, which was referring to the number of survivors by age, from the Period Life Tables, England and Wales. For females. If you had bothered to interrogate the site more fully, you would have discovered that in 1950 : Life expectancy at birth was 66 Median age at death was 71 Modal age at death was 76 By 2010 this had risen to 79, 82 and 85 respectively. A significant increase but not the dramatic, almost doubling in life expectancy, increase you were trying to paint to make your point. As regards the OP, hats off to Macron for dragging France into some sort of reality, because 62 was far too young and unsustainable for their economy
It's good that your irrational dislike of me has started making you look at data with more attention. It would be good if you did the same to data that you present, but this is a good starting point.
Given the topic, it is reasonable to point out the modal age of death in 1950, but that misses the fact that the elderly represented a much smaller proportion of the population. That is another factor that shifts the mean much higher now than then.
I was not, actually "trying to paint" a doubling of life expectancy as the only point.
I wouldn't characterise the existing retirement age as "too young". It does seem to be a necessity though. That was my original point. Sorry that you have had to agree.
I don't have an irrational dislike of you. What made me look at it in more detail is that what you presented, as is quite often the case, was plainly out and out nonsense. I do check my data and don't recall any schoolboy errors, as some would see it, on this daft level. Didn't you stop to read back the absolute drivel, many might say, that you were spouting? It's not been that long since you were writing, as some would see it, total tripe and twaddle on electric cars to Mr D.
A simple apology would have sufficed, but of course that doesn't come easily to lefties. You have to twist it to ' Sorry that you have had to agree' which is at once childish and petty.
Increasingly I see people having to check and double check your posts, yet you vent forth with what many see as astonishing and patronising arrogance, as though you couldn't possibly be wrong.
Yet again, you were!
"People" very rarely have to double check my posts and I can acknowledge when there is an error.
You carry on repeating whatever you want and avoiding addressing questions that don't suit the position that you're trying to take.
Insult as you wish in your own petty way. I'm not bothered.
None of this post from you addressed the OP. Just spam.
I correctly described your erroneous statement that in 1950 'average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women' as rubbish and then gave the correct figures. As usual, you have not liked this and have chosen to paint my correction as an 'insult' and 'spam' and that I am being 'petty' and that you're 'not bothered'.
How gracious you are in defeat in a Vicky Pollard-kind of way!
I have set out proper facts and my position on the French retirement age. You should try it some time instead of poorly researched details and then a thousand questions for anyone challenging you
More spam and you even got your "correction" wrong in not understanding what the data means.
Your obsession with me remains creepy.
The other guy actually got the death ages right as if people dying en masse in 1950 at 44 was a thing ha ha
Looks like you got your ass handed over to you on a plate!
Anyhows how about a EU same age for retireing, 65 and UK matches it? Give youngsters a chance ffs
Cheers for the support but everyone knows that he makes frequent errors already.
As regards a common age of retirement, how would the UK fund a drop to 65? Struggling as it is on that score?
A start would be a proper clamp down on tax evasion, tighter rules and better clarity on tax avoidance, and changing corporate tax rules so that all companies paid tax on revenues in the country where the revenue is generated. No more tax haven holding companies charging UK operations IP royalties that effectively means their UK operations are loss making (they aren’t).
That would swell the overall coffers of HMT massively providing funding for retirement at 65.
I agree and again the best way to to tax that is unavoidable is Vat any thing else is easier to avoid.for the better of to the stinking rich. It is just a numbers game.
Except that penalises the poor more, doesn't it?
VAT is a flat rate, so the rich would be taxed a lower proportion of their income than they do now.
No not realy as there is more vat on high value items when did you last buy a pair of christian louboutin shoes for £700 or a MK hand bag at £1000 or Ralph loren shirt £135 all these type of luxury items could have a 30 or 40 % Vat would it stop me buying the wife new shoes or me a new shirt he'll NO
VAT is a flat rate. So if a millionaire spends £100 they would be taxed £20. The same for a pauper.
The rate would be the same.
A "luxury" tax would mean defining every single item sold individually as a luxury or a standard item. You believe that is sensible?
If the rich will not be effected by VAY then they will not be effected by paying their income tax either, will they?
How meany normal UK citizens go and buy £700 shoes or a shirt for £135 sure it would be completely life is Vat was intrudused on luxury items so why should there not be a top vat rate of 30 or 40%
I don't know. Do you?
As far as I can tell many people do by luxury branded products. They have "cheaper" product ranges for this very purpose.
Who defines at what price a sweater is a "luxury" item? What is the value?
People have to pay tax anyway. Why does it make practical or economic sense to introduce an entire new system? How much does it cost to introduce, administer and enforce? How much litigation will there be around the definitions?
You say "People have to pay tax anyway." Do they not all do and if I'm honest last year I payed very little and for the next 5 years I'll try and pay less and less.
Good for you. You've never benefitted from anything that the state provides, meaning anything that it provides raised from taxation. Fu*k everyone else and keep as much for yourself as possible.
If that's your view of the world, then that's your view. You aren't interested in considering any other perspective anyway.
As I have noted, the state seems disinterested in ensuring that it raises revenue as it has cut funding to HMRC so you can continue to behave as you do.
I pay VAT, council tax and car Tax but don't earn enough income so don't pay income tax. So I guess I pay about the same as someone on benefits.
But they also take out of the government coffers.
If you don't have an income you don't pay income TAX FFS
In that case you didn't explain your situation in any way that I could conceivably understand.
How are you going to "try and pay less and less"? That implies that you are trying to avoid paying tax by any normal reading.
How could I have possibly worked out what you were trying to say from what you wrote.
Don't swear at me please.
If you read back you used the F word first so don't do what you don't like.
"That is a fair point. What you wrote implied that you wanted to avoid paying tax, which I would interpret as incredibly selfish. You didn't explain that you were low paid, so I could have no idea what you meant. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"a few people are living longer but many of us will not. often people who live a long time remain economically active adding to the economy. its just government spin In 1950 average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women. Now 84 and 86. I have not seen any information to indicate that older people generate new economic activity in later life rather than spending what they receive. It changes the sector's in which the money is spent though. Total out-of-context rubbish. People were living much longer than that on average in the UK in 1950. Plenty of sites attest to this. You have simply searched, then copied and pasted an image from the first results return, relating to the ONS site, which was referring to the number of survivors by age, from the Period Life Tables, England and Wales. For females. If you had bothered to interrogate the site more fully, you would have discovered that in 1950 : Life expectancy at birth was 66 Median age at death was 71 Modal age at death was 76 By 2010 this had risen to 79, 82 and 85 respectively. A significant increase but not the dramatic, almost doubling in life expectancy, increase you were trying to paint to make your point. As regards the OP, hats off to Macron for dragging France into some sort of reality, because 62 was far too young and unsustainable for their economy
It's good that your irrational dislike of me has started making you look at data with more attention. It would be good if you did the same to data that you present, but this is a good starting point.
Given the topic, it is reasonable to point out the modal age of death in 1950, but that misses the fact that the elderly represented a much smaller proportion of the population. That is another factor that shifts the mean much higher now than then.
I was not, actually "trying to paint" a doubling of life expectancy as the only point.
I wouldn't characterise the existing retirement age as "too young". It does seem to be a necessity though. That was my original point. Sorry that you have had to agree.
I don't have an irrational dislike of you. What made me look at it in more detail is that what you presented, as is quite often the case, was plainly out and out nonsense. I do check my data and don't recall any schoolboy errors, as some would see it, on this daft level. Didn't you stop to read back the absolute drivel, many might say, that you were spouting? It's not been that long since you were writing, as some would see it, total tripe and twaddle on electric cars to Mr D.
A simple apology would have sufficed, but of course that doesn't come easily to lefties. You have to twist it to ' Sorry that you have had to agree' which is at once childish and petty.
Increasingly I see people having to check and double check your posts, yet you vent forth with what many see as astonishing and patronising arrogance, as though you couldn't possibly be wrong.
Yet again, you were!
"People" very rarely have to double check my posts and I can acknowledge when there is an error.
You carry on repeating whatever you want and avoiding addressing questions that don't suit the position that you're trying to take.
Insult as you wish in your own petty way. I'm not bothered.
None of this post from you addressed the OP. Just spam.
I correctly described your erroneous statement that in 1950 'average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women' as rubbish and then gave the correct figures. As usual, you have not liked this and have chosen to paint my correction as an 'insult' and 'spam' and that I am being 'petty' and that you're 'not bothered'.
How gracious you are in defeat in a Vicky Pollard-kind of way!
I have set out proper facts and my position on the French retirement age. You should try it some time instead of poorly researched details and then a thousand questions for anyone challenging you
More spam and you even got your "correction" wrong in not understanding what the data means.
Your obsession with me remains creepy.
The other guy actually got the death ages right as if people dying en masse in 1950 at 44 was a thing ha ha
Looks like you got your ass handed over to you on a plate!
Anyhows how about a EU same age for retireing, 65 and UK matches it? Give youngsters a chance ffs
Cheers for the support but everyone knows that he makes frequent errors already.
As regards a common age of retirement, how would the UK fund a drop to 65? Struggling as it is on that score?
A start would be a proper clamp down on tax evasion, tighter rules and better clarity on tax avoidance, and changing corporate tax rules so that all companies paid tax on revenues in the country where the revenue is generated. No more tax haven holding companies charging UK operations IP royalties that effectively means their UK operations are loss making (they aren’t).
That would swell the overall coffers of HMT massively providing funding for retirement at 65.
I agree and again the best way to to tax that is unavoidable is Vat any thing else is easier to avoid.for the better of to the stinking rich. It is just a numbers game.
Except that penalises the poor more, doesn't it?
VAT is a flat rate, so the rich would be taxed a lower proportion of their income than they do now.
No not realy as there is more vat on high value items when did you last buy a pair of christian louboutin shoes for £700 or a MK hand bag at £1000 or Ralph loren shirt £135 all these type of luxury items could have a 30 or 40 % Vat would it stop me buying the wife new shoes or me a new shirt he'll NO
VAT is a flat rate. So if a millionaire spends £100 they would be taxed £20. The same for a pauper.
The rate would be the same.
A "luxury" tax would mean defining every single item sold individually as a luxury or a standard item. You believe that is sensible?
If the rich will not be effected by VAY then they will not be effected by paying their income tax either, will they?
How meany normal UK citizens go and buy £700 shoes or a shirt for £135 sure it would be completely life is Vat was intrudused on luxury items so why should there not be a top vat rate of 30 or 40%
I don't know. Do you?
As far as I can tell many people do by luxury branded products. They have "cheaper" product ranges for this very purpose.
Who defines at what price a sweater is a "luxury" item? What is the value?
People have to pay tax anyway. Why does it make practical or economic sense to introduce an entire new system? How much does it cost to introduce, administer and enforce? How much litigation will there be around the definitions?
You say "People have to pay tax anyway." Do they not all do and if I'm honest last year I payed very little and for the next 5 years I'll try and pay less and less.
Good for you. You've never benefitted from anything that the state provides, meaning anything that it provides raised from taxation. Fu*k everyone else and keep as much for yourself as possible.
If that's your view of the world, then that's your view. You aren't interested in considering any other perspective anyway.
As I have noted, the state seems disinterested in ensuring that it raises revenue as it has cut funding to HMRC so you can continue to behave as you do.
I pay VAT, council tax and car Tax but don't earn enough income so don't pay income tax. So I guess I pay about the same as someone on benefits.
But they also take out of the government coffers.
If you don't have an income you don't pay income TAX FFS
In that case you didn't explain your situation in any way that I could conceivably understand.
How are you going to "try and pay less and less"? That implies that you are trying to avoid paying tax by any normal reading.
How could I have possibly worked out what you were trying to say from what you wrote.
Don't swear at me please.
If you read back you used the F word first so don't do what you don't like.
That is a fair point. What you wrote implied that you wanted to avoid paying tax, which I would interpret as incredibly selfish.
You didn't explain that you were low paid, so I could have no idea what you meant."Even if I am selfish don't swear at people and then moan if they swear back at you. I earn a good income in to a limited company that I make sure dose not make a profit so no or little CT tax to pay. And live on the tax free allowance and the 2k free dividend. So income to me personal is £13.5k a year. So no tax to pay. Selfish or Clever I look after me. Have worked hard for 40 years Probably with 5 more to work. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"a few people are living longer but many of us will not. often people who live a long time remain economically active adding to the economy. its just government spin In 1950 average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women. Now 84 and 86. I have not seen any information to indicate that older people generate new economic activity in later life rather than spending what they receive. It changes the sector's in which the money is spent though. Total out-of-context rubbish. People were living much longer than that on average in the UK in 1950. Plenty of sites attest to this. You have simply searched, then copied and pasted an image from the first results return, relating to the ONS site, which was referring to the number of survivors by age, from the Period Life Tables, England and Wales. For females. If you had bothered to interrogate the site more fully, you would have discovered that in 1950 : Life expectancy at birth was 66 Median age at death was 71 Modal age at death was 76 By 2010 this had risen to 79, 82 and 85 respectively. A significant increase but not the dramatic, almost doubling in life expectancy, increase you were trying to paint to make your point. As regards the OP, hats off to Macron for dragging France into some sort of reality, because 62 was far too young and unsustainable for their economy
It's good that your irrational dislike of me has started making you look at data with more attention. It would be good if you did the same to data that you present, but this is a good starting point.
Given the topic, it is reasonable to point out the modal age of death in 1950, but that misses the fact that the elderly represented a much smaller proportion of the population. That is another factor that shifts the mean much higher now than then.
I was not, actually "trying to paint" a doubling of life expectancy as the only point.
I wouldn't characterise the existing retirement age as "too young". It does seem to be a necessity though. That was my original point. Sorry that you have had to agree.
I don't have an irrational dislike of you. What made me look at it in more detail is that what you presented, as is quite often the case, was plainly out and out nonsense. I do check my data and don't recall any schoolboy errors, as some would see it, on this daft level. Didn't you stop to read back the absolute drivel, many might say, that you were spouting? It's not been that long since you were writing, as some would see it, total tripe and twaddle on electric cars to Mr D.
A simple apology would have sufficed, but of course that doesn't come easily to lefties. You have to twist it to ' Sorry that you have had to agree' which is at once childish and petty.
Increasingly I see people having to check and double check your posts, yet you vent forth with what many see as astonishing and patronising arrogance, as though you couldn't possibly be wrong.
Yet again, you were!
"People" very rarely have to double check my posts and I can acknowledge when there is an error.
You carry on repeating whatever you want and avoiding addressing questions that don't suit the position that you're trying to take.
Insult as you wish in your own petty way. I'm not bothered.
None of this post from you addressed the OP. Just spam.
I correctly described your erroneous statement that in 1950 'average life expectancy was 44 and 49 men and women' as rubbish and then gave the correct figures. As usual, you have not liked this and have chosen to paint my correction as an 'insult' and 'spam' and that I am being 'petty' and that you're 'not bothered'.
How gracious you are in defeat in a Vicky Pollard-kind of way!
I have set out proper facts and my position on the French retirement age. You should try it some time instead of poorly researched details and then a thousand questions for anyone challenging you
More spam and you even got your "correction" wrong in not understanding what the data means.
Your obsession with me remains creepy.
The other guy actually got the death ages right as if people dying en masse in 1950 at 44 was a thing ha ha
Looks like you got your ass handed over to you on a plate!
Anyhows how about a EU same age for retireing, 65 and UK matches it? Give youngsters a chance ffs
Cheers for the support but everyone knows that he makes frequent errors already.
As regards a common age of retirement, how would the UK fund a drop to 65? Struggling as it is on that score?
A start would be a proper clamp down on tax evasion, tighter rules and better clarity on tax avoidance, and changing corporate tax rules so that all companies paid tax on revenues in the country where the revenue is generated. No more tax haven holding companies charging UK operations IP royalties that effectively means their UK operations are loss making (they aren’t).
That would swell the overall coffers of HMT massively providing funding for retirement at 65.
I agree and again the best way to to tax that is unavoidable is Vat any thing else is easier to avoid.for the better of to the stinking rich. It is just a numbers game.
Except that penalises the poor more, doesn't it?
VAT is a flat rate, so the rich would be taxed a lower proportion of their income than they do now.
No not realy as there is more vat on high value items when did you last buy a pair of christian louboutin shoes for £700 or a MK hand bag at £1000 or Ralph loren shirt £135 all these type of luxury items could have a 30 or 40 % Vat would it stop me buying the wife new shoes or me a new shirt he'll NO
VAT is a flat rate. So if a millionaire spends £100 they would be taxed £20. The same for a pauper.
The rate would be the same.
A "luxury" tax would mean defining every single item sold individually as a luxury or a standard item. You believe that is sensible?
If the rich will not be effected by VAY then they will not be effected by paying their income tax either, will they?
How meany normal UK citizens go and buy £700 shoes or a shirt for £135 sure it would be completely life is Vat was intrudused on luxury items so why should there not be a top vat rate of 30 or 40%
I don't know. Do you?
As far as I can tell many people do by luxury branded products. They have "cheaper" product ranges for this very purpose.
Who defines at what price a sweater is a "luxury" item? What is the value?
People have to pay tax anyway. Why does it make practical or economic sense to introduce an entire new system? How much does it cost to introduce, administer and enforce? How much litigation will there be around the definitions?
You say "People have to pay tax anyway." Do they not all do and if I'm honest last year I payed very little and for the next 5 years I'll try and pay less and less.
Good for you. You've never benefitted from anything that the state provides, meaning anything that it provides raised from taxation. Fu*k everyone else and keep as much for yourself as possible.
If that's your view of the world, then that's your view. You aren't interested in considering any other perspective anyway.
As I have noted, the state seems disinterested in ensuring that it raises revenue as it has cut funding to HMRC so you can continue to behave as you do.
I pay VAT, council tax and car Tax but don't earn enough income so don't pay income tax. So I guess I pay about the same as someone on benefits.
But they also take out of the government coffers.
If you don't have an income you don't pay income TAX FFS
In that case you didn't explain your situation in any way that I could conceivably understand.
How are you going to "try and pay less and less"? That implies that you are trying to avoid paying tax by any normal reading.
How could I have possibly worked out what you were trying to say from what you wrote.
Don't swear at me please.
If you read back you used the F word first so don't do what you don't like.
That is a fair point. What you wrote implied that you wanted to avoid paying tax, which I would interpret as incredibly selfish.
You didn't explain that you were low paid, so I could have no idea what you meant.
Even if I am selfish don't swear at people and then moan if they swear back at you. I earn a good income in to a limited company that I make sure dose not make a profit so no or little CT tax to pay. And live on the tax free allowance and the 2k free dividend.
So income to me personal is £13.5k a year. So no tax to pay.
Selfish or Clever I look after me. Have worked hard for 40 years Probably with 5 more to work."So it selfishness on your part. You want a good income but not contribute to the society and infrastructure allows you to make that money. So fu*k everyone else. I didn't swear at you, but the phrase is correctly applied. I thought I had misunderstood you, but clearly not, so you have nothing to be exasperated about. Many people work hard. You are not unique. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"100% agree. Folk flocking to labour like they will save working people. Disgraceful hypocrits the lot of em. Snouts in troff what would a good set of policies look like that would save working folk? Not my job pal. I will know when I see em tho which of the 2019 policies did you see as being detrimental or self serving ?
I thought it was a fairly left (and working class) focussed manifesto.
It was but there was no ability of Labour Mps to explain how it would be paid for. I watched corbyn evasive when andrew neil asked how the pledge to wispy women would be funded. Plus he was terrorist sympathiser. Right he was defeated and working man wanted brexit sorted.
*Waspi - pension at 65 women not 60 I'm lost what your view is about pension ages for the working man is now!
65 for all seems fair. 68 getting too old. Life not a football match with a guaranteed 90 mins (years). Life is lottery neighbour is 95 and has collected stated pension for 30 years!!! Other neighbor was dead at 70, gave up work 61. 4 years versus 30 years pension. Can't argue when Big Ref blows final whistle
65 is probably fair
But we are heading towards 68? trouble is £££.
As Rob says, the waspi promises was unfunded. Using some of the numbers I'm estimating for every year earlier state pension is, that's £10bn additional costs.
The more we want to retire earlier, the more burden we put on younger generations... And unless we can smash productivity the likely solution is increased immigration to have enough workers to foot the bill.
Why is increased immigration the answer to everything? Won't immigrants eventually want a pension at 65?
It's increased immigration which is bringing problems with getting a school place, dentist, doctor's appointment, pushing up rent and house prices, helping jam up the roads, filling up hotels, pushing up hotel room costs etc etc
Unless immigration decreases, the housing crisis will continue indefinitely, mainly to the detriment of young people. The UK’s green countryside will continue to be swallowed up by construction of housing.
Claims that immigration represents a fiscal benefit to the UK are very debatable.
What evidence do you have that migrants pay their way let alone finance the new infrastructure or anything else required by rapid population growth? Or finance a lower pension age for an ever increasing population?
You're left wing waffling again! it's not the answer to everything and my preference would be to invest in our schooling system to boost productivity. I suspect many lefties would waffle in the same way. I'm not actually anfan of immigration but see it as a necessary short term necessity.
How would you support an earlier retirement age?
I think the simplest way to encourage people to work longer, whilst allowing them to increase their wealth and removing the pressure on the state pension is to start to reduce their tax outlay as the people get older.
An example, when a person reaches 55 years of age reduce the tax on their income by 15% for every 5 years they remain working, at 65 they will be working tax free, not receiving a pension and are able to save a lot more money for their own pension.
The numbers I have used are plucked out of the air and are not at all water tight, it is an example of how we can start to manage better.
I would imagine the need for qualifying rules, such as, been working for the last X years, paying their tax in this country etc.
time to think outside the box
So as people earn more in later life and require more from the state in medical care they would contribute less tax to society at large so as to benefit themselves in having an earlier retirement and pass on more in their estate?
It's just another perspective on your solution.
Why not have everyone pay more NI. Isn't that fairer?
Early retirement? Read it again, it is about keeping people interested in working by reward.
Think about it.
Paying less as you get older and wealthier.
Think about it."You can't get past paying less tax can you, it stops you being able to think of solutions. Very predictable
You have failed to think about any other points I made. How about the supporting rules, people in work longer, less people actually at the end of the scheme than at the start and a change to the amount of pension if you take the tax cuts.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"100% agree. Folk flocking to labour like they will save working people. Disgraceful hypocrits the lot of em. Snouts in troff what would a good set of policies look like that would save working folk? Not my job pal. I will know when I see em tho which of the 2019 policies did you see as being detrimental or self serving ?
I thought it was a fairly left (and working class) focussed manifesto.
It was but there was no ability of Labour Mps to explain how it would be paid for. I watched corbyn evasive when andrew neil asked how the pledge to wispy women would be funded. Plus he was terrorist sympathiser. Right he was defeated and working man wanted brexit sorted.
*Waspi - pension at 65 women not 60 I'm lost what your view is about pension ages for the working man is now!
65 for all seems fair. 68 getting too old. Life not a football match with a guaranteed 90 mins (years). Life is lottery neighbour is 95 and has collected stated pension for 30 years!!! Other neighbor was dead at 70, gave up work 61. 4 years versus 30 years pension. Can't argue when Big Ref blows final whistle
65 is probably fair
But we are heading towards 68? trouble is £££.
As Rob says, the waspi promises was unfunded. Using some of the numbers I'm estimating for every year earlier state pension is, that's £10bn additional costs.
The more we want to retire earlier, the more burden we put on younger generations... And unless we can smash productivity the likely solution is increased immigration to have enough workers to foot the bill.
Why is increased immigration the answer to everything? Won't immigrants eventually want a pension at 65?
It's increased immigration which is bringing problems with getting a school place, dentist, doctor's appointment, pushing up rent and house prices, helping jam up the roads, filling up hotels, pushing up hotel room costs etc etc
Unless immigration decreases, the housing crisis will continue indefinitely, mainly to the detriment of young people. The UK’s green countryside will continue to be swallowed up by construction of housing.
Claims that immigration represents a fiscal benefit to the UK are very debatable.
What evidence do you have that migrants pay their way let alone finance the new infrastructure or anything else required by rapid population growth? Or finance a lower pension age for an ever increasing population?
You're left wing waffling again! it's not the answer to everything and my preference would be to invest in our schooling system to boost productivity. I suspect many lefties would waffle in the same way. I'm not actually anfan of immigration but see it as a necessary short term necessity.
How would you support an earlier retirement age?
I think the simplest way to encourage people to work longer, whilst allowing them to increase their wealth and removing the pressure on the state pension is to start to reduce their tax outlay as the people get older.
An example, when a person reaches 55 years of age reduce the tax on their income by 15% for every 5 years they remain working, at 65 they will be working tax free, not receiving a pension and are able to save a lot more money for their own pension.
The numbers I have used are plucked out of the air and are not at all water tight, it is an example of how we can start to manage better.
I would imagine the need for qualifying rules, such as, been working for the last X years, paying their tax in this country etc.
time to think outside the box
So as people earn more in later life and require more from the state in medical care they would contribute less tax to society at large so as to benefit themselves in having an earlier retirement and pass on more in their estate?
It's just another perspective on your solution.
Why not have everyone pay more NI. Isn't that fairer?
Early retirement? Read it again, it is about keeping people interested in working by reward.
Think about it.
Paying less as you get older and wealthier.
Think about it.
You can't get past paying less tax can you, it stops you being able to think of solutions. Very predictable
You have failed to think about any other points I made. How about the supporting rules, people in work longer, less people actually at the end of the scheme than at the start and a change to the amount of pension if you take the tax cuts.
"I am able to understand that you offered a "solution" which benefits those who are already at their highest ranking potentials, including you. There is already defer taking your state pension with a 5.8% increase for every year you do so. That is a pitiful £10,600 if you have not made your own private provision, but an additional £530 for every year of deferral. People would be more interested in working at all if they were paid a decent wage to begin with and by the corporations and one man that are allowed to limit their tax bills. If wages grew with profits there would be more income tax collected to pay for pensions and everything else. If companies invested in automation and other long term processes we would have higher productivity. However, your preference is to look at narrow options that just so happen to benefit you directly... Twas ever this, I suppose. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"100% agree. Folk flocking to labour like they will save working people. Disgraceful hypocrits the lot of em. Snouts in troff what would a good set of policies look like that would save working folk? Not my job pal. I will know when I see em tho which of the 2019 policies did you see as being detrimental or self serving ?
I thought it was a fairly left (and working class) focussed manifesto.
It was but there was no ability of Labour Mps to explain how it would be paid for. I watched corbyn evasive when andrew neil asked how the pledge to wispy women would be funded. Plus he was terrorist sympathiser. Right he was defeated and working man wanted brexit sorted.
*Waspi - pension at 65 women not 60 I'm lost what your view is about pension ages for the working man is now!
65 for all seems fair. 68 getting too old. Life not a football match with a guaranteed 90 mins (years). Life is lottery neighbour is 95 and has collected stated pension for 30 years!!! Other neighbor was dead at 70, gave up work 61. 4 years versus 30 years pension. Can't argue when Big Ref blows final whistle
65 is probably fair
But we are heading towards 68? trouble is £££.
As Rob says, the waspi promises was unfunded. Using some of the numbers I'm estimating for every year earlier state pension is, that's £10bn additional costs.
The more we want to retire earlier, the more burden we put on younger generations... And unless we can smash productivity the likely solution is increased immigration to have enough workers to foot the bill.
Why is increased immigration the answer to everything? Won't immigrants eventually want a pension at 65?
It's increased immigration which is bringing problems with getting a school place, dentist, doctor's appointment, pushing up rent and house prices, helping jam up the roads, filling up hotels, pushing up hotel room costs etc etc
Unless immigration decreases, the housing crisis will continue indefinitely, mainly to the detriment of young people. The UK’s green countryside will continue to be swallowed up by construction of housing.
Claims that immigration represents a fiscal benefit to the UK are very debatable.
What evidence do you have that migrants pay their way let alone finance the new infrastructure or anything else required by rapid population growth? Or finance a lower pension age for an ever increasing population?
You're left wing waffling again! it's not the answer to everything and my preference would be to invest in our schooling system to boost productivity. I suspect many lefties would waffle in the same way. I'm not actually anfan of immigration but see it as a necessary short term necessity.
How would you support an earlier retirement age?
I think the simplest way to encourage people to work longer, whilst allowing them to increase their wealth and removing the pressure on the state pension is to start to reduce their tax outlay as the people get older.
An example, when a person reaches 55 years of age reduce the tax on their income by 15% for every 5 years they remain working, at 65 they will be working tax free, not receiving a pension and are able to save a lot more money for their own pension.
The numbers I have used are plucked out of the air and are not at all water tight, it is an example of how we can start to manage better.
I would imagine the need for qualifying rules, such as, been working for the last X years, paying their tax in this country etc.
time to think outside the box
So as people earn more in later life and require more from the state in medical care they would contribute less tax to society at large so as to benefit themselves in having an earlier retirement and pass on more in their estate?
It's just another perspective on your solution.
Why not have everyone pay more NI. Isn't that fairer?
Early retirement? Read it again, it is about keeping people interested in working by reward.
Think about it.
Paying less as you get older and wealthier.
Think about it.
You can't get past paying less tax can you, it stops you being able to think of solutions. Very predictable
You have failed to think about any other points I made. How about the supporting rules, people in work longer, less people actually at the end of the scheme than at the start and a change to the amount of pension if you take the tax cuts.
I am able to understand that you offered a "solution" which benefits those who are already at their highest ranking potentials, including you.
There is already defer taking your state pension with a 5.8% increase for every year you do so.
That is a pitiful £10,600 if you have not made your own private provision, but an additional £530 for every year of deferral.
People would be more interested in working at all if they were paid a decent wage to begin with and by the corporations and one man that are allowed to limit their tax bills.
If wages grew with profits there would be more income tax collected to pay for pensions and everything else.
If companies invested in automation and other long term processes we would have higher productivity.
However, your preference is to look at narrow options that just so happen to benefit you directly...
Twas ever this, I suppose."You have backed yourself into a corner with high income earners. The average wage is approx 32k of which approx 7k is deducted, if the website I used is correct… If we reduced taxes by 15% every 5 years from 55, the average person would be now be approx 5k a year better off, until 60. They would then be 7k better off until retirement. If they chose to retire at 66, they could have saved 68k. Work to 70 and 100k is likely. I think this money could be held by HMRC, until retirement. Retire early and you get nothing it goes back in the coffers, die spouse gets half. Pay a little more up front when you start working maybe, lots of different things that can be done. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"100% agree. Folk flocking to labour like they will save working people. Disgraceful hypocrits the lot of em. Snouts in troff what would a good set of policies look like that would save working folk? Not my job pal. I will know when I see em tho which of the 2019 policies did you see as being detrimental or self serving ?
I thought it was a fairly left (and working class) focussed manifesto.
It was but there was no ability of Labour Mps to explain how it would be paid for. I watched corbyn evasive when andrew neil asked how the pledge to wispy women would be funded. Plus he was terrorist sympathiser. Right he was defeated and working man wanted brexit sorted.
*Waspi - pension at 65 women not 60 I'm lost what your view is about pension ages for the working man is now!
65 for all seems fair. 68 getting too old. Life not a football match with a guaranteed 90 mins (years). Life is lottery neighbour is 95 and has collected stated pension for 30 years!!! Other neighbor was dead at 70, gave up work 61. 4 years versus 30 years pension. Can't argue when Big Ref blows final whistle
65 is probably fair
But we are heading towards 68? trouble is £££.
As Rob says, the waspi promises was unfunded. Using some of the numbers I'm estimating for every year earlier state pension is, that's £10bn additional costs.
The more we want to retire earlier, the more burden we put on younger generations... And unless we can smash productivity the likely solution is increased immigration to have enough workers to foot the bill.
Why is increased immigration the answer to everything? Won't immigrants eventually want a pension at 65?
It's increased immigration which is bringing problems with getting a school place, dentist, doctor's appointment, pushing up rent and house prices, helping jam up the roads, filling up hotels, pushing up hotel room costs etc etc
Unless immigration decreases, the housing crisis will continue indefinitely, mainly to the detriment of young people. The UK’s green countryside will continue to be swallowed up by construction of housing.
Claims that immigration represents a fiscal benefit to the UK are very debatable.
What evidence do you have that migrants pay their way let alone finance the new infrastructure or anything else required by rapid population growth? Or finance a lower pension age for an ever increasing population?
You're left wing waffling again! it's not the answer to everything and my preference would be to invest in our schooling system to boost productivity. I suspect many lefties would waffle in the same way. I'm not actually anfan of immigration but see it as a necessary short term necessity.
How would you support an earlier retirement age?
I think the simplest way to encourage people to work longer, whilst allowing them to increase their wealth and removing the pressure on the state pension is to start to reduce their tax outlay as the people get older.
An example, when a person reaches 55 years of age reduce the tax on their income by 15% for every 5 years they remain working, at 65 they will be working tax free, not receiving a pension and are able to save a lot more money for their own pension.
The numbers I have used are plucked out of the air and are not at all water tight, it is an example of how we can start to manage better.
I would imagine the need for qualifying rules, such as, been working for the last X years, paying their tax in this country etc.
time to think outside the box
So as people earn more in later life and require more from the state in medical care they would contribute less tax to society at large so as to benefit themselves in having an earlier retirement and pass on more in their estate?
It's just another perspective on your solution.
Why not have everyone pay more NI. Isn't that fairer?
Early retirement? Read it again, it is about keeping people interested in working by reward.
Think about it.
Paying less as you get older and wealthier.
Think about it.
You can't get past paying less tax can you, it stops you being able to think of solutions. Very predictable
You have failed to think about any other points I made. How about the supporting rules, people in work longer, less people actually at the end of the scheme than at the start and a change to the amount of pension if you take the tax cuts.
I am able to understand that you offered a "solution" which benefits those who are already at their highest ranking potentials, including you.
There is already defer taking your state pension with a 5.8% increase for every year you do so.
That is a pitiful £10,600 if you have not made your own private provision, but an additional £530 for every year of deferral.
People would be more interested in working at all if they were paid a decent wage to begin with and by the corporations and one man that are allowed to limit their tax bills.
If wages grew with profits there would be more income tax collected to pay for pensions and everything else.
If companies invested in automation and other long term processes we would have higher productivity.
However, your preference is to look at narrow options that just so happen to benefit you directly...
Twas ever this, I suppose.
You have backed yourself into a corner with high income earners.
The average wage is approx 32k of which approx 7k is deducted, if the website I used is correct…
If we reduced taxes by 15% every 5 years from 55, the average person would be now be approx 5k a year better off, until 60. They would then be 7k better off until retirement. If they chose to retire at 66, they could have saved 68k. Work to 70 and 100k is likely. I think this money could be held by HMRC, until retirement. Retire early and you get nothing it goes back in the coffers, die spouse gets half.
Pay a little more up front when you start working maybe, lots of different things that can be done. "What like ending state pension and get a pension how in a manual job want to work past 60 anyway 45 year's will do me ill be done in buy then OK if its a desk type job. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"100% agree. Folk flocking to labour like they will save working people. Disgraceful hypocrits the lot of em. Snouts in troff what would a good set of policies look like that would save working folk? Not my job pal. I will know when I see em tho which of the 2019 policies did you see as being detrimental or self serving ?
I thought it was a fairly left (and working class) focussed manifesto.
It was but there was no ability of Labour Mps to explain how it would be paid for. I watched corbyn evasive when andrew neil asked how the pledge to wispy women would be funded. Plus he was terrorist sympathiser. Right he was defeated and working man wanted brexit sorted.
*Waspi - pension at 65 women not 60 I'm lost what your view is about pension ages for the working man is now!
65 for all seems fair. 68 getting too old. Life not a football match with a guaranteed 90 mins (years). Life is lottery neighbour is 95 and has collected stated pension for 30 years!!! Other neighbor was dead at 70, gave up work 61. 4 years versus 30 years pension. Can't argue when Big Ref blows final whistle
65 is probably fair
But we are heading towards 68? trouble is £££.
As Rob says, the waspi promises was unfunded. Using some of the numbers I'm estimating for every year earlier state pension is, that's £10bn additional costs.
The more we want to retire earlier, the more burden we put on younger generations... And unless we can smash productivity the likely solution is increased immigration to have enough workers to foot the bill.
Why is increased immigration the answer to everything? Won't immigrants eventually want a pension at 65?
It's increased immigration which is bringing problems with getting a school place, dentist, doctor's appointment, pushing up rent and house prices, helping jam up the roads, filling up hotels, pushing up hotel room costs etc etc
Unless immigration decreases, the housing crisis will continue indefinitely, mainly to the detriment of young people. The UK’s green countryside will continue to be swallowed up by construction of housing.
Claims that immigration represents a fiscal benefit to the UK are very debatable.
What evidence do you have that migrants pay their way let alone finance the new infrastructure or anything else required by rapid population growth? Or finance a lower pension age for an ever increasing population?
You're left wing waffling again! it's not the answer to everything and my preference would be to invest in our schooling system to boost productivity. I suspect many lefties would waffle in the same way. I'm not actually anfan of immigration but see it as a necessary short term necessity.
How would you support an earlier retirement age?
I think the simplest way to encourage people to work longer, whilst allowing them to increase their wealth and removing the pressure on the state pension is to start to reduce their tax outlay as the people get older.
An example, when a person reaches 55 years of age reduce the tax on their income by 15% for every 5 years they remain working, at 65 they will be working tax free, not receiving a pension and are able to save a lot more money for their own pension.
The numbers I have used are plucked out of the air and are not at all water tight, it is an example of how we can start to manage better.
I would imagine the need for qualifying rules, such as, been working for the last X years, paying their tax in this country etc.
time to think outside the box
So as people earn more in later life and require more from the state in medical care they would contribute less tax to society at large so as to benefit themselves in having an earlier retirement and pass on more in their estate?
It's just another perspective on your solution.
Why not have everyone pay more NI. Isn't that fairer?
Early retirement? Read it again, it is about keeping people interested in working by reward.
Think about it.
Paying less as you get older and wealthier.
Think about it.
You can't get past paying less tax can you, it stops you being able to think of solutions. Very predictable
You have failed to think about any other points I made. How about the supporting rules, people in work longer, less people actually at the end of the scheme than at the start and a change to the amount of pension if you take the tax cuts.
I am able to understand that you offered a "solution" which benefits those who are already at their highest ranking potentials, including you.
There is already defer taking your state pension with a 5.8% increase for every year you do so.
That is a pitiful £10,600 if you have not made your own private provision, but an additional £530 for every year of deferral.
People would be more interested in working at all if they were paid a decent wage to begin with and by the corporations and one man that are allowed to limit their tax bills.
If wages grew with profits there would be more income tax collected to pay for pensions and everything else.
If companies invested in automation and other long term processes we would have higher productivity.
However, your preference is to look at narrow options that just so happen to benefit you directly...
Twas ever this, I suppose.
You have backed yourself into a corner with high income earners.
The average wage is approx 32k of which approx 7k is deducted, if the website I used is correct…
If we reduced taxes by 15% every 5 years from 55, the average person would be now be approx 5k a year better off, until 60. They would then be 7k better off until retirement. If they chose to retire at 66, they could have saved 68k. Work to 70 and 100k is likely. I think this money could be held by HMRC, until retirement. Retire early and you get nothing it goes back in the coffers, die spouse gets half.
Pay a little more up front when you start working maybe, lots of different things that can be done.
What like ending state pension and get a pension how in a manual job want to work past 60 anyway 45 year's will do me ill be done in buy then OK if its a desk type job."Good point, but if you knew that was the end game when you started work, would that have changed your plans earlier on, in terms of moving from a manual role? I also wouldn't say ending the state pension, but give people a better chance of saving their own pension pots, reduce the state pension by a % based on how much a person has utilised the tax breaks. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"100% agree. Folk flocking to labour like they will save working people. Disgraceful hypocrits the lot of em. Snouts in troff what would a good set of policies look like that would save working folk? Not my job pal. I will know when I see em tho which of the 2019 policies did you see as being detrimental or self serving ?
I thought it was a fairly left (and working class) focussed manifesto.
It was but there was no ability of Labour Mps to explain how it would be paid for. I watched corbyn evasive when andrew neil asked how the pledge to wispy women would be funded. Plus he was terrorist sympathiser. Right he was defeated and working man wanted brexit sorted.
*Waspi - pension at 65 women not 60 I'm lost what your view is about pension ages for the working man is now!
65 for all seems fair. 68 getting too old. Life not a football match with a guaranteed 90 mins (years). Life is lottery neighbour is 95 and has collected stated pension for 30 years!!! Other neighbor was dead at 70, gave up work 61. 4 years versus 30 years pension. Can't argue when Big Ref blows final whistle
65 is probably fair
But we are heading towards 68? trouble is £££.
As Rob says, the waspi promises was unfunded. Using some of the numbers I'm estimating for every year earlier state pension is, that's £10bn additional costs.
The more we want to retire earlier, the more burden we put on younger generations... And unless we can smash productivity the likely solution is increased immigration to have enough workers to foot the bill.
Why is increased immigration the answer to everything? Won't immigrants eventually want a pension at 65?
It's increased immigration which is bringing problems with getting a school place, dentist, doctor's appointment, pushing up rent and house prices, helping jam up the roads, filling up hotels, pushing up hotel room costs etc etc
Unless immigration decreases, the housing crisis will continue indefinitely, mainly to the detriment of young people. The UK’s green countryside will continue to be swallowed up by construction of housing.
Claims that immigration represents a fiscal benefit to the UK are very debatable.
What evidence do you have that migrants pay their way let alone finance the new infrastructure or anything else required by rapid population growth? Or finance a lower pension age for an ever increasing population?
You're left wing waffling again! it's not the answer to everything and my preference would be to invest in our schooling system to boost productivity. I suspect many lefties would waffle in the same way. I'm not actually anfan of immigration but see it as a necessary short term necessity.
How would you support an earlier retirement age?
I think the simplest way to encourage people to work longer, whilst allowing them to increase their wealth and removing the pressure on the state pension is to start to reduce their tax outlay as the people get older.
An example, when a person reaches 55 years of age reduce the tax on their income by 15% for every 5 years they remain working, at 65 they will be working tax free, not receiving a pension and are able to save a lot more money for their own pension.
The numbers I have used are plucked out of the air and are not at all water tight, it is an example of how we can start to manage better.
I would imagine the need for qualifying rules, such as, been working for the last X years, paying their tax in this country etc.
time to think outside the box
So as people earn more in later life and require more from the state in medical care they would contribute less tax to society at large so as to benefit themselves in having an earlier retirement and pass on more in their estate?
It's just another perspective on your solution.
Why not have everyone pay more NI. Isn't that fairer?
Early retirement? Read it again, it is about keeping people interested in working by reward.
Think about it.
Paying less as you get older and wealthier.
Think about it.
You can't get past paying less tax can you, it stops you being able to think of solutions. Very predictable
You have failed to think about any other points I made. How about the supporting rules, people in work longer, less people actually at the end of the scheme than at the start and a change to the amount of pension if you take the tax cuts.
I am able to understand that you offered a "solution" which benefits those who are already at their highest ranking potentials, including you.
There is already defer taking your state pension with a 5.8% increase for every year you do so.
That is a pitiful £10,600 if you have not made your own private provision, but an additional £530 for every year of deferral.
People would be more interested in working at all if they were paid a decent wage to begin with and by the corporations and one man that are allowed to limit their tax bills.
If wages grew with profits there would be more income tax collected to pay for pensions and everything else.
If companies invested in automation and other long term processes we would have higher productivity.
However, your preference is to look at narrow options that just so happen to benefit you directly...
Twas ever this, I suppose.
You have backed yourself into a corner with high income earners.
The average wage is approx 32k of which approx 7k is deducted, if the website I used is correct…
If we reduced taxes by 15% every 5 years from 55, the average person would be now be approx 5k a year better off, until 60. They would then be 7k better off until retirement. If they chose to retire at 66, they could have saved 68k. Work to 70 and 100k is likely. I think this money could be held by HMRC, until retirement. Retire early and you get nothing it goes back in the coffers, die spouse gets half.
Pay a little more up front when you start working maybe, lots of different things that can be done. "what's the incentive to work longer again? That HMRC will take some tax and ringfence it to give it back to me later ... That doesn't feel a million miles better than today. I thought you were suggesting money on their pocket. Have I missunderstood? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"100% agree. Folk flocking to labour like they will save working people. Disgraceful hypocrits the lot of em. Snouts in troff what would a good set of policies look like that would save working folk? Not my job pal. I will know when I see em tho which of the 2019 policies did you see as being detrimental or self serving ?
I thought it was a fairly left (and working class) focussed manifesto.
It was but there was no ability of Labour Mps to explain how it would be paid for. I watched corbyn evasive when andrew neil asked how the pledge to wispy women would be funded. Plus he was terrorist sympathiser. Right he was defeated and working man wanted brexit sorted.
*Waspi - pension at 65 women not 60 I'm lost what your view is about pension ages for the working man is now!
65 for all seems fair. 68 getting too old. Life not a football match with a guaranteed 90 mins (years). Life is lottery neighbour is 95 and has collected stated pension for 30 years!!! Other neighbor was dead at 70, gave up work 61. 4 years versus 30 years pension. Can't argue when Big Ref blows final whistle
65 is probably fair
But we are heading towards 68? trouble is £££.
As Rob says, the waspi promises was unfunded. Using some of the numbers I'm estimating for every year earlier state pension is, that's £10bn additional costs.
The more we want to retire earlier, the more burden we put on younger generations... And unless we can smash productivity the likely solution is increased immigration to have enough workers to foot the bill.
Why is increased immigration the answer to everything? Won't immigrants eventually want a pension at 65?
It's increased immigration which is bringing problems with getting a school place, dentist, doctor's appointment, pushing up rent and house prices, helping jam up the roads, filling up hotels, pushing up hotel room costs etc etc
Unless immigration decreases, the housing crisis will continue indefinitely, mainly to the detriment of young people. The UK’s green countryside will continue to be swallowed up by construction of housing.
Claims that immigration represents a fiscal benefit to the UK are very debatable.
What evidence do you have that migrants pay their way let alone finance the new infrastructure or anything else required by rapid population growth? Or finance a lower pension age for an ever increasing population?
You're left wing waffling again! it's not the answer to everything and my preference would be to invest in our schooling system to boost productivity. I suspect many lefties would waffle in the same way. I'm not actually anfan of immigration but see it as a necessary short term necessity.
How would you support an earlier retirement age?
I think the simplest way to encourage people to work longer, whilst allowing them to increase their wealth and removing the pressure on the state pension is to start to reduce their tax outlay as the people get older.
An example, when a person reaches 55 years of age reduce the tax on their income by 15% for every 5 years they remain working, at 65 they will be working tax free, not receiving a pension and are able to save a lot more money for their own pension.
The numbers I have used are plucked out of the air and are not at all water tight, it is an example of how we can start to manage better.
I would imagine the need for qualifying rules, such as, been working for the last X years, paying their tax in this country etc.
time to think outside the box
So as people earn more in later life and require more from the state in medical care they would contribute less tax to society at large so as to benefit themselves in having an earlier retirement and pass on more in their estate?
It's just another perspective on your solution.
Why not have everyone pay more NI. Isn't that fairer?
Early retirement? Read it again, it is about keeping people interested in working by reward.
Think about it.
Paying less as you get older and wealthier.
Think about it.
You can't get past paying less tax can you, it stops you being able to think of solutions. Very predictable
You have failed to think about any other points I made. How about the supporting rules, people in work longer, less people actually at the end of the scheme than at the start and a change to the amount of pension if you take the tax cuts.
I am able to understand that you offered a "solution" which benefits those who are already at their highest ranking potentials, including you.
There is already defer taking your state pension with a 5.8% increase for every year you do so.
That is a pitiful £10,600 if you have not made your own private provision, but an additional £530 for every year of deferral.
People would be more interested in working at all if they were paid a decent wage to begin with and by the corporations and one man that are allowed to limit their tax bills.
If wages grew with profits there would be more income tax collected to pay for pensions and everything else.
If companies invested in automation and other long term processes we would have higher productivity.
However, your preference is to look at narrow options that just so happen to benefit you directly...
Twas ever this, I suppose.
You have backed yourself into a corner with high income earners.
The average wage is approx 32k of which approx 7k is deducted, if the website I used is correct…
If we reduced taxes by 15% every 5 years from 55, the average person would be now be approx 5k a year better off, until 60. They would then be 7k better off until retirement. If they chose to retire at 66, they could have saved 68k. Work to 70 and 100k is likely. I think this money could be held by HMRC, until retirement. Retire early and you get nothing it goes back in the coffers, die spouse gets half.
Pay a little more up front when you start working maybe, lots of different things that can be done. what's the incentive to work longer again? That HMRC will take some tax and ringfence it to give it back to me later ... That doesn't feel a million miles better than today. I thought you were suggesting money on their pocket. Have I missunderstood?"Incentive is the money you earn will be yours, bigger pot at the end. Put it directly in their pocket and it will be spent before retirement. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"100% agree. Folk flocking to labour like they will save working people. Disgraceful hypocrits the lot of em. Snouts in troff what would a good set of policies look like that would save working folk? Not my job pal. I will know when I see em tho which of the 2019 policies did you see as being detrimental or self serving ?
I thought it was a fairly left (and working class) focussed manifesto.
It was but there was no ability of Labour Mps to explain how it would be paid for. I watched corbyn evasive when andrew neil asked how the pledge to wispy women would be funded. Plus he was terrorist sympathiser. Right he was defeated and working man wanted brexit sorted.
*Waspi - pension at 65 women not 60 I'm lost what your view is about pension ages for the working man is now!
65 for all seems fair. 68 getting too old. Life not a football match with a guaranteed 90 mins (years). Life is lottery neighbour is 95 and has collected stated pension for 30 years!!! Other neighbor was dead at 70, gave up work 61. 4 years versus 30 years pension. Can't argue when Big Ref blows final whistle
65 is probably fair
But we are heading towards 68? trouble is £££.
As Rob says, the waspi promises was unfunded. Using some of the numbers I'm estimating for every year earlier state pension is, that's £10bn additional costs.
The more we want to retire earlier, the more burden we put on younger generations... And unless we can smash productivity the likely solution is increased immigration to have enough workers to foot the bill.
Why is increased immigration the answer to everything? Won't immigrants eventually want a pension at 65?
It's increased immigration which is bringing problems with getting a school place, dentist, doctor's appointment, pushing up rent and house prices, helping jam up the roads, filling up hotels, pushing up hotel room costs etc etc
Unless immigration decreases, the housing crisis will continue indefinitely, mainly to the detriment of young people. The UK’s green countryside will continue to be swallowed up by construction of housing.
Claims that immigration represents a fiscal benefit to the UK are very debatable.
What evidence do you have that migrants pay their way let alone finance the new infrastructure or anything else required by rapid population growth? Or finance a lower pension age for an ever increasing population?
You're left wing waffling again! it's not the answer to everything and my preference would be to invest in our schooling system to boost productivity. I suspect many lefties would waffle in the same way. I'm not actually anfan of immigration but see it as a necessary short term necessity.
How would you support an earlier retirement age?
I think the simplest way to encourage people to work longer, whilst allowing them to increase their wealth and removing the pressure on the state pension is to start to reduce their tax outlay as the people get older.
An example, when a person reaches 55 years of age reduce the tax on their income by 15% for every 5 years they remain working, at 65 they will be working tax free, not receiving a pension and are able to save a lot more money for their own pension.
The numbers I have used are plucked out of the air and are not at all water tight, it is an example of how we can start to manage better.
I would imagine the need for qualifying rules, such as, been working for the last X years, paying their tax in this country etc.
time to think outside the box
So as people earn more in later life and require more from the state in medical care they would contribute less tax to society at large so as to benefit themselves in having an earlier retirement and pass on more in their estate?
It's just another perspective on your solution.
Why not have everyone pay more NI. Isn't that fairer?
Early retirement? Read it again, it is about keeping people interested in working by reward.
Think about it.
Paying less as you get older and wealthier.
Think about it.
You can't get past paying less tax can you, it stops you being able to think of solutions. Very predictable
You have failed to think about any other points I made. How about the supporting rules, people in work longer, less people actually at the end of the scheme than at the start and a change to the amount of pension if you take the tax cuts.
I am able to understand that you offered a "solution" which benefits those who are already at their highest ranking potentials, including you.
There is already defer taking your state pension with a 5.8% increase for every year you do so.
That is a pitiful £10,600 if you have not made your own private provision, but an additional £530 for every year of deferral.
People would be more interested in working at all if they were paid a decent wage to begin with and by the corporations and one man that are allowed to limit their tax bills.
If wages grew with profits there would be more income tax collected to pay for pensions and everything else.
If companies invested in automation and other long term processes we would have higher productivity.
However, your preference is to look at narrow options that just so happen to benefit you directly...
Twas ever this, I suppose.
You have backed yourself into a corner with high income earners.
The average wage is approx 32k of which approx 7k is deducted, if the website I used is correct…
If we reduced taxes by 15% every 5 years from 55, the average person would be now be approx 5k a year better off, until 60. They would then be 7k better off until retirement. If they chose to retire at 66, they could have saved 68k. Work to 70 and 100k is likely. I think this money could be held by HMRC, until retirement. Retire early and you get nothing it goes back in the coffers, die spouse gets half.
Pay a little more up front when you start working maybe, lots of different things that can be done. what's the incentive to work longer again? That HMRC will take some tax and ringfence it to give it back to me later ... That doesn't feel a million miles better than today. I thought you were suggesting money on their pocket. Have I missunderstood?
Incentive is the money you earn will be yours, bigger pot at the end. Put it directly in their pocket and it will be spent before retirement.
"I'm probably missunderstanding but I can get close to that with pension contributions. I've lost track why we are trying to encourage ppl to work longer of it isn't to generate more tax. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"100% agree. Folk flocking to labour like they will save working people. Disgraceful hypocrits the lot of em. Snouts in troff what would a good set of policies look like that would save working folk? Not my job pal. I will know when I see em tho which of the 2019 policies did you see as being detrimental or self serving ?
I thought it was a fairly left (and working class) focussed manifesto.
It was but there was no ability of Labour Mps to explain how it would be paid for. I watched corbyn evasive when andrew neil asked how the pledge to wispy women would be funded. Plus he was terrorist sympathiser. Right he was defeated and working man wanted brexit sorted.
*Waspi - pension at 65 women not 60 I'm lost what your view is about pension ages for the working man is now!
65 for all seems fair. 68 getting too old. Life not a football match with a guaranteed 90 mins (years). Life is lottery neighbour is 95 and has collected stated pension for 30 years!!! Other neighbor was dead at 70, gave up work 61. 4 years versus 30 years pension. Can't argue when Big Ref blows final whistle
65 is probably fair
But we are heading towards 68? trouble is £££.
As Rob says, the waspi promises was unfunded. Using some of the numbers I'm estimating for every year earlier state pension is, that's £10bn additional costs.
The more we want to retire earlier, the more burden we put on younger generations... And unless we can smash productivity the likely solution is increased immigration to have enough workers to foot the bill.
Why is increased immigration the answer to everything? Won't immigrants eventually want a pension at 65?
It's increased immigration which is bringing problems with getting a school place, dentist, doctor's appointment, pushing up rent and house prices, helping jam up the roads, filling up hotels, pushing up hotel room costs etc etc
Unless immigration decreases, the housing crisis will continue indefinitely, mainly to the detriment of young people. The UK’s green countryside will continue to be swallowed up by construction of housing.
Claims that immigration represents a fiscal benefit to the UK are very debatable.
What evidence do you have that migrants pay their way let alone finance the new infrastructure or anything else required by rapid population growth? Or finance a lower pension age for an ever increasing population?
You're left wing waffling again! it's not the answer to everything and my preference would be to invest in our schooling system to boost productivity. I suspect many lefties would waffle in the same way. I'm not actually anfan of immigration but see it as a necessary short term necessity.
How would you support an earlier retirement age?
I think the simplest way to encourage people to work longer, whilst allowing them to increase their wealth and removing the pressure on the state pension is to start to reduce their tax outlay as the people get older.
An example, when a person reaches 55 years of age reduce the tax on their income by 15% for every 5 years they remain working, at 65 they will be working tax free, not receiving a pension and are able to save a lot more money for their own pension.
The numbers I have used are plucked out of the air and are not at all water tight, it is an example of how we can start to manage better.
I would imagine the need for qualifying rules, such as, been working for the last X years, paying their tax in this country etc.
time to think outside the box
So as people earn more in later life and require more from the state in medical care they would contribute less tax to society at large so as to benefit themselves in having an earlier retirement and pass on more in their estate?
It's just another perspective on your solution.
Why not have everyone pay more NI. Isn't that fairer?
Early retirement? Read it again, it is about keeping people interested in working by reward.
Think about it.
Paying less as you get older and wealthier.
Think about it.
You can't get past paying less tax can you, it stops you being able to think of solutions. Very predictable
You have failed to think about any other points I made. How about the supporting rules, people in work longer, less people actually at the end of the scheme than at the start and a change to the amount of pension if you take the tax cuts.
I am able to understand that you offered a "solution" which benefits those who are already at their highest ranking potentials, including you.
There is already defer taking your state pension with a 5.8% increase for every year you do so.
That is a pitiful £10,600 if you have not made your own private provision, but an additional £530 for every year of deferral.
People would be more interested in working at all if they were paid a decent wage to begin with and by the corporations and one man that are allowed to limit their tax bills.
If wages grew with profits there would be more income tax collected to pay for pensions and everything else.
If companies invested in automation and other long term processes we would have higher productivity.
However, your preference is to look at narrow options that just so happen to benefit you directly...
Twas ever this, I suppose.
You have backed yourself into a corner with high income earners.
The average wage is approx 32k of which approx 7k is deducted, if the website I used is correct…
If we reduced taxes by 15% every 5 years from 55, the average person would be now be approx 5k a year better off, until 60. They would then be 7k better off until retirement. If they chose to retire at 66, they could have saved 68k. Work to 70 and 100k is likely. I think this money could be held by HMRC, until retirement. Retire early and you get nothing it goes back in the coffers, die spouse gets half.
Pay a little more up front when you start working maybe, lots of different things that can be done. what's the incentive to work longer again? That HMRC will take some tax and ringfence it to give it back to me later ... That doesn't feel a million miles better than today. I thought you were suggesting money on their pocket. Have I missunderstood?
Incentive is the money you earn will be yours, bigger pot at the end. Put it directly in their pocket and it will be spent before retirement.
I'm probably missunderstanding but I can get close to that with pension contributions.
I've lost track why we are trying to encourage ppl to work longer of it isn't to generate more tax. "If people are working longer they are not drawing on the state pension and still contributing. The idea here is they do still contribute to NI, but have % of their tax reduces the longer they stay in work, until they get to around 60 - 65 based on their tax rate, from then on they don't pay tax at all, giving them the ability to earn a lot more and save a lot more for their retirement. I'm not sure you could have a traditional pension that would give those types of returns guaranteed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"100% agree. Folk flocking to labour like they will save working people. Disgraceful hypocrits the lot of em. Snouts in troff what would a good set of policies look like that would save working folk? Not my job pal. I will know when I see em tho which of the 2019 policies did you see as being detrimental or self serving ?
I thought it was a fairly left (and working class) focussed manifesto.
It was but there was no ability of Labour Mps to explain how it would be paid for. I watched corbyn evasive when andrew neil asked how the pledge to wispy women would be funded. Plus he was terrorist sympathiser. Right he was defeated and working man wanted brexit sorted.
*Waspi - pension at 65 women not 60 I'm lost what your view is about pension ages for the working man is now!
65 for all seems fair. 68 getting too old. Life not a football match with a guaranteed 90 mins (years). Life is lottery neighbour is 95 and has collected stated pension for 30 years!!! Other neighbor was dead at 70, gave up work 61. 4 years versus 30 years pension. Can't argue when Big Ref blows final whistle
65 is probably fair
But we are heading towards 68? trouble is £££.
As Rob says, the waspi promises was unfunded. Using some of the numbers I'm estimating for every year earlier state pension is, that's £10bn additional costs.
The more we want to retire earlier, the more burden we put on younger generations... And unless we can smash productivity the likely solution is increased immigration to have enough workers to foot the bill.
Why is increased immigration the answer to everything? Won't immigrants eventually want a pension at 65?
It's increased immigration which is bringing problems with getting a school place, dentist, doctor's appointment, pushing up rent and house prices, helping jam up the roads, filling up hotels, pushing up hotel room costs etc etc
Unless immigration decreases, the housing crisis will continue indefinitely, mainly to the detriment of young people. The UK’s green countryside will continue to be swallowed up by construction of housing.
Claims that immigration represents a fiscal benefit to the UK are very debatable.
What evidence do you have that migrants pay their way let alone finance the new infrastructure or anything else required by rapid population growth? Or finance a lower pension age for an ever increasing population?
You're left wing waffling again! it's not the answer to everything and my preference would be to invest in our schooling system to boost productivity. I suspect many lefties would waffle in the same way. I'm not actually anfan of immigration but see it as a necessary short term necessity.
How would you support an earlier retirement age?
I think the simplest way to encourage people to work longer, whilst allowing them to increase their wealth and removing the pressure on the state pension is to start to reduce their tax outlay as the people get older.
An example, when a person reaches 55 years of age reduce the tax on their income by 15% for every 5 years they remain working, at 65 they will be working tax free, not receiving a pension and are able to save a lot more money for their own pension.
The numbers I have used are plucked out of the air and are not at all water tight, it is an example of how we can start to manage better.
I would imagine the need for qualifying rules, such as, been working for the last X years, paying their tax in this country etc.
time to think outside the box
So as people earn more in later life and require more from the state in medical care they would contribute less tax to society at large so as to benefit themselves in having an earlier retirement and pass on more in their estate?
It's just another perspective on your solution.
Why not have everyone pay more NI. Isn't that fairer?
Early retirement? Read it again, it is about keeping people interested in working by reward.
Think about it.
Paying less as you get older and wealthier.
Think about it.
You can't get past paying less tax can you, it stops you being able to think of solutions. Very predictable
You have failed to think about any other points I made. How about the supporting rules, people in work longer, less people actually at the end of the scheme than at the start and a change to the amount of pension if you take the tax cuts.
I am able to understand that you offered a "solution" which benefits those who are already at their highest ranking potentials, including you.
There is already defer taking your state pension with a 5.8% increase for every year you do so.
That is a pitiful £10,600 if you have not made your own private provision, but an additional £530 for every year of deferral.
People would be more interested in working at all if they were paid a decent wage to begin with and by the corporations and one man that are allowed to limit their tax bills.
If wages grew with profits there would be more income tax collected to pay for pensions and everything else.
If companies invested in automation and other long term processes we would have higher productivity.
However, your preference is to look at narrow options that just so happen to benefit you directly...
Twas ever this, I suppose.
You have backed yourself into a corner with high income earners.
The average wage is approx 32k of which approx 7k is deducted, if the website I used is correct…
If we reduced taxes by 15% every 5 years from 55, the average person would be now be approx 5k a year better off, until 60. They would then be 7k better off until retirement. If they chose to retire at 66, they could have saved 68k. Work to 70 and 100k is likely. I think this money could be held by HMRC, until retirement. Retire early and you get nothing it goes back in the coffers, die spouse gets half.
Pay a little more up front when you start working maybe, lots of different things that can be done.
What like ending state pension and get a pension how in a manual job want to work past 60 anyway 45 year's will do me ill be done in buy then OK if its a desk type job.
Good point, but if you knew that was the end game when you started work, would that have changed your plans earlier on, in terms of moving from a manual role?
I also wouldn't say ending the state pension, but give people a better chance of saving their own pension pots, reduce the state pension by a % based on how much a person has utilised the tax breaks."Probably not I loved working in the theatre as a LX but leaders and lifting heavy lighting and cables have taken there toll along with the very long hours when I was young got use to working from Saterday lunchtime till Tuesday after a show with just enough time to eat and shit. lol Things are diferant now and just work for me as an electrical engineer.so do about 6 hours a day. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"100% agree. Folk flocking to labour like they will save working people. Disgraceful hypocrits the lot of em. Snouts in troff what would a good set of policies look like that would save working folk? Not my job pal. I will know when I see em tho which of the 2019 policies did you see as being detrimental or self serving ?
I thought it was a fairly left (and working class) focussed manifesto.
It was but there was no ability of Labour Mps to explain how it would be paid for. I watched corbyn evasive when andrew neil asked how the pledge to wispy women would be funded. Plus he was terrorist sympathiser. Right he was defeated and working man wanted brexit sorted.
*Waspi - pension at 65 women not 60 I'm lost what your view is about pension ages for the working man is now!
65 for all seems fair. 68 getting too old. Life not a football match with a guaranteed 90 mins (years). Life is lottery neighbour is 95 and has collected stated pension for 30 years!!! Other neighbor was dead at 70, gave up work 61. 4 years versus 30 years pension. Can't argue when Big Ref blows final whistle
65 is probably fair
But we are heading towards 68? trouble is £££.
As Rob says, the waspi promises was unfunded. Using some of the numbers I'm estimating for every year earlier state pension is, that's £10bn additional costs.
The more we want to retire earlier, the more burden we put on younger generations... And unless we can smash productivity the likely solution is increased immigration to have enough workers to foot the bill.
Why is increased immigration the answer to everything? Won't immigrants eventually want a pension at 65?
It's increased immigration which is bringing problems with getting a school place, dentist, doctor's appointment, pushing up rent and house prices, helping jam up the roads, filling up hotels, pushing up hotel room costs etc etc
Unless immigration decreases, the housing crisis will continue indefinitely, mainly to the detriment of young people. The UK’s green countryside will continue to be swallowed up by construction of housing.
Claims that immigration represents a fiscal benefit to the UK are very debatable.
What evidence do you have that migrants pay their way let alone finance the new infrastructure or anything else required by rapid population growth? Or finance a lower pension age for an ever increasing population?
You're left wing waffling again! it's not the answer to everything and my preference would be to invest in our schooling system to boost productivity. I suspect many lefties would waffle in the same way. I'm not actually anfan of immigration but see it as a necessary short term necessity.
How would you support an earlier retirement age?
I think the simplest way to encourage people to work longer, whilst allowing them to increase their wealth and removing the pressure on the state pension is to start to reduce their tax outlay as the people get older.
An example, when a person reaches 55 years of age reduce the tax on their income by 15% for every 5 years they remain working, at 65 they will be working tax free, not receiving a pension and are able to save a lot more money for their own pension.
The numbers I have used are plucked out of the air and are not at all water tight, it is an example of how we can start to manage better.
I would imagine the need for qualifying rules, such as, been working for the last X years, paying their tax in this country etc.
time to think outside the box
So as people earn more in later life and require more from the state in medical care they would contribute less tax to society at large so as to benefit themselves in having an earlier retirement and pass on more in their estate?
It's just another perspective on your solution.
Why not have everyone pay more NI. Isn't that fairer?
Early retirement? Read it again, it is about keeping people interested in working by reward.
Think about it.
Paying less as you get older and wealthier.
Think about it.
You can't get past paying less tax can you, it stops you being able to think of solutions. Very predictable
You have failed to think about any other points I made. How about the supporting rules, people in work longer, less people actually at the end of the scheme than at the start and a change to the amount of pension if you take the tax cuts.
I am able to understand that you offered a "solution" which benefits those who are already at their highest ranking potentials, including you.
There is already defer taking your state pension with a 5.8% increase for every year you do so.
That is a pitiful £10,600 if you have not made your own private provision, but an additional £530 for every year of deferral.
People would be more interested in working at all if they were paid a decent wage to begin with and by the corporations and one man that are allowed to limit their tax bills.
If wages grew with profits there would be more income tax collected to pay for pensions and everything else.
If companies invested in automation and other long term processes we would have higher productivity.
However, your preference is to look at narrow options that just so happen to benefit you directly...
Twas ever this, I suppose.
You have backed yourself into a corner with high income earners.
The average wage is approx 32k of which approx 7k is deducted, if the website I used is correct…
If we reduced taxes by 15% every 5 years from 55, the average person would be now be approx 5k a year better off, until 60. They would then be 7k better off until retirement. If they chose to retire at 66, they could have saved 68k. Work to 70 and 100k is likely. I think this money could be held by HMRC, until retirement. Retire early and you get nothing it goes back in the coffers, die spouse gets half.
Pay a little more up front when you start working maybe, lots of different things that can be done. what's the incentive to work longer again? That HMRC will take some tax and ringfence it to give it back to me later ... That doesn't feel a million miles better than today. I thought you were suggesting money on their pocket. Have I missunderstood?"Yes they want you to work longer then die and get jack shit back at least with a private pension the money comes back in to your estate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"100% agree. Folk flocking to labour like they will save working people. Disgraceful hypocrits the lot of em. Snouts in troff what would a good set of policies look like that would save working folk? Not my job pal. I will know when I see em tho which of the 2019 policies did you see as being detrimental or self serving ?
I thought it was a fairly left (and working class) focussed manifesto.
It was but there was no ability of Labour Mps to explain how it would be paid for. I watched corbyn evasive when andrew neil asked how the pledge to wispy women would be funded. Plus he was terrorist sympathiser. Right he was defeated and working man wanted brexit sorted.
*Waspi - pension at 65 women not 60 I'm lost what your view is about pension ages for the working man is now!
65 for all seems fair. 68 getting too old. Life not a football match with a guaranteed 90 mins (years). Life is lottery neighbour is 95 and has collected stated pension for 30 years!!! Other neighbor was dead at 70, gave up work 61. 4 years versus 30 years pension. Can't argue when Big Ref blows final whistle
65 is probably fair
But we are heading towards 68? trouble is £££.
As Rob says, the waspi promises was unfunded. Using some of the numbers I'm estimating for every year earlier state pension is, that's £10bn additional costs.
The more we want to retire earlier, the more burden we put on younger generations... And unless we can smash productivity the likely solution is increased immigration to have enough workers to foot the bill.
Why is increased immigration the answer to everything? Won't immigrants eventually want a pension at 65?
It's increased immigration which is bringing problems with getting a school place, dentist, doctor's appointment, pushing up rent and house prices, helping jam up the roads, filling up hotels, pushing up hotel room costs etc etc
Unless immigration decreases, the housing crisis will continue indefinitely, mainly to the detriment of young people. The UK’s green countryside will continue to be swallowed up by construction of housing.
Claims that immigration represents a fiscal benefit to the UK are very debatable.
What evidence do you have that migrants pay their way let alone finance the new infrastructure or anything else required by rapid population growth? Or finance a lower pension age for an ever increasing population?
You're left wing waffling again! it's not the answer to everything and my preference would be to invest in our schooling system to boost productivity. I suspect many lefties would waffle in the same way. I'm not actually anfan of immigration but see it as a necessary short term necessity.
How would you support an earlier retirement age?
I think the simplest way to encourage people to work longer, whilst allowing them to increase their wealth and removing the pressure on the state pension is to start to reduce their tax outlay as the people get older.
An example, when a person reaches 55 years of age reduce the tax on their income by 15% for every 5 years they remain working, at 65 they will be working tax free, not receiving a pension and are able to save a lot more money for their own pension.
The numbers I have used are plucked out of the air and are not at all water tight, it is an example of how we can start to manage better.
I would imagine the need for qualifying rules, such as, been working for the last X years, paying their tax in this country etc.
time to think outside the box
So as people earn more in later life and require more from the state in medical care they would contribute less tax to society at large so as to benefit themselves in having an earlier retirement and pass on more in their estate?
It's just another perspective on your solution.
Why not have everyone pay more NI. Isn't that fairer?
Early retirement? Read it again, it is about keeping people interested in working by reward.
Think about it.
Paying less as you get older and wealthier.
Think about it.
You can't get past paying less tax can you, it stops you being able to think of solutions. Very predictable
You have failed to think about any other points I made. How about the supporting rules, people in work longer, less people actually at the end of the scheme than at the start and a change to the amount of pension if you take the tax cuts.
I am able to understand that you offered a "solution" which benefits those who are already at their highest ranking potentials, including you.
There is already defer taking your state pension with a 5.8% increase for every year you do so.
That is a pitiful £10,600 if you have not made your own private provision, but an additional £530 for every year of deferral.
People would be more interested in working at all if they were paid a decent wage to begin with and by the corporations and one man that are allowed to limit their tax bills.
If wages grew with profits there would be more income tax collected to pay for pensions and everything else.
If companies invested in automation and other long term processes we would have higher productivity.
However, your preference is to look at narrow options that just so happen to benefit you directly...
Twas ever this, I suppose.
You have backed yourself into a corner with high income earners.
The average wage is approx 32k of which approx 7k is deducted, if the website I used is correct…
If we reduced taxes by 15% every 5 years from 55, the average person would be now be approx 5k a year better off, until 60. They would then be 7k better off until retirement. If they chose to retire at 66, they could have saved 68k. Work to 70 and 100k is likely. I think this money could be held by HMRC, until retirement. Retire early and you get nothing it goes back in the coffers, die spouse gets half.
Pay a little more up front when you start working maybe, lots of different things that can be done. what's the incentive to work longer again? That HMRC will take some tax and ringfence it to give it back to me later ... That doesn't feel a million miles better than today. I thought you were suggesting money on their pocket. Have I missunderstood?
Incentive is the money you earn will be yours, bigger pot at the end. Put it directly in their pocket and it will be spent before retirement.
I'm probably missunderstanding but I can get close to that with pension contributions.
I've lost track why we are trying to encourage ppl to work longer of it isn't to generate more tax.
If people are working longer they are not drawing on the state pension and still contributing.
The idea here is they do still contribute to NI, but have % of their tax reduces the longer they stay in work, until they get to around 60 - 65 based on their tax rate, from then on they don't pay tax at all, giving them the ability to earn a lot more and save a lot more for their retirement.
I'm not sure you could have a traditional pension that would give those types of returns guaranteed. "are you getting rid of the perk that delaying the state pension increases it ? I get your approach is more generous than a pension. Especially if you give me that ringfenced tax back tax free. But if it doesn't reduce the state pension bill, it feels nicer for the wealthier with no real benefit overall. My sense anyway. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"100% agree. Folk flocking to labour like they will save working people. Disgraceful hypocrits the lot of em. Snouts in troff what would a good set of policies look like that would save working folk? Not my job pal. I will know when I see em tho which of the 2019 policies did you see as being detrimental or self serving ?
I thought it was a fairly left (and working class) focussed manifesto.
It was but there was no ability of Labour Mps to explain how it would be paid for. I watched corbyn evasive when andrew neil asked how the pledge to wispy women would be funded. Plus he was terrorist sympathiser. Right he was defeated and working man wanted brexit sorted.
*Waspi - pension at 65 women not 60 I'm lost what your view is about pension ages for the working man is now!
65 for all seems fair. 68 getting too old. Life not a football match with a guaranteed 90 mins (years). Life is lottery neighbour is 95 and has collected stated pension for 30 years!!! Other neighbor was dead at 70, gave up work 61. 4 years versus 30 years pension. Can't argue when Big Ref blows final whistle
65 is probably fair
But we are heading towards 68? trouble is £££.
As Rob says, the waspi promises was unfunded. Using some of the numbers I'm estimating for every year earlier state pension is, that's £10bn additional costs.
The more we want to retire earlier, the more burden we put on younger generations... And unless we can smash productivity the likely solution is increased immigration to have enough workers to foot the bill.
Why is increased immigration the answer to everything? Won't immigrants eventually want a pension at 65?
It's increased immigration which is bringing problems with getting a school place, dentist, doctor's appointment, pushing up rent and house prices, helping jam up the roads, filling up hotels, pushing up hotel room costs etc etc
Unless immigration decreases, the housing crisis will continue indefinitely, mainly to the detriment of young people. The UK’s green countryside will continue to be swallowed up by construction of housing.
Claims that immigration represents a fiscal benefit to the UK are very debatable.
What evidence do you have that migrants pay their way let alone finance the new infrastructure or anything else required by rapid population growth? Or finance a lower pension age for an ever increasing population?
You're left wing waffling again! it's not the answer to everything and my preference would be to invest in our schooling system to boost productivity. I suspect many lefties would waffle in the same way. I'm not actually anfan of immigration but see it as a necessary short term necessity.
How would you support an earlier retirement age?
I think the simplest way to encourage people to work longer, whilst allowing them to increase their wealth and removing the pressure on the state pension is to start to reduce their tax outlay as the people get older.
An example, when a person reaches 55 years of age reduce the tax on their income by 15% for every 5 years they remain working, at 65 they will be working tax free, not receiving a pension and are able to save a lot more money for their own pension.
The numbers I have used are plucked out of the air and are not at all water tight, it is an example of how we can start to manage better.
I would imagine the need for qualifying rules, such as, been working for the last X years, paying their tax in this country etc.
time to think outside the box
So as people earn more in later life and require more from the state in medical care they would contribute less tax to society at large so as to benefit themselves in having an earlier retirement and pass on more in their estate?
It's just another perspective on your solution.
Why not have everyone pay more NI. Isn't that fairer?
Early retirement? Read it again, it is about keeping people interested in working by reward.
Think about it.
Paying less as you get older and wealthier.
Think about it.
You can't get past paying less tax can you, it stops you being able to think of solutions. Very predictable
You have failed to think about any other points I made. How about the supporting rules, people in work longer, less people actually at the end of the scheme than at the start and a change to the amount of pension if you take the tax cuts.
I am able to understand that you offered a "solution" which benefits those who are already at their highest ranking potentials, including you.
There is already defer taking your state pension with a 5.8% increase for every year you do so.
That is a pitiful £10,600 if you have not made your own private provision, but an additional £530 for every year of deferral.
People would be more interested in working at all if they were paid a decent wage to begin with and by the corporations and one man that are allowed to limit their tax bills.
If wages grew with profits there would be more income tax collected to pay for pensions and everything else.
If companies invested in automation and other long term processes we would have higher productivity.
However, your preference is to look at narrow options that just so happen to benefit you directly...
Twas ever this, I suppose.
You have backed yourself into a corner with high income earners.
The average wage is approx 32k of which approx 7k is deducted, if the website I used is correct…
If we reduced taxes by 15% every 5 years from 55, the average person would be now be approx 5k a year better off, until 60. They would then be 7k better off until retirement. If they chose to retire at 66, they could have saved 68k. Work to 70 and 100k is likely. I think this money could be held by HMRC, until retirement. Retire early and you get nothing it goes back in the coffers, die spouse gets half.
Pay a little more up front when you start working maybe, lots of different things that can be done. what's the incentive to work longer again? That HMRC will take some tax and ringfence it to give it back to me later ... That doesn't feel a million miles better than today. I thought you were suggesting money on their pocket. Have I missunderstood?
Incentive is the money you earn will be yours, bigger pot at the end. Put it directly in their pocket and it will be spent before retirement.
I'm probably missunderstanding but I can get close to that with pension contributions.
I've lost track why we are trying to encourage ppl to work longer of it isn't to generate more tax.
If people are working longer they are not drawing on the state pension and still contributing.
The idea here is they do still contribute to NI, but have % of their tax reduces the longer they stay in work, until they get to around 60 - 65 based on their tax rate, from then on they don't pay tax at all, giving them the ability to earn a lot more and save a lot more for their retirement.
I'm not sure you could have a traditional pension that would give those types of returns guaranteed. are you getting rid of the perk that delaying the state pension increases it ?
I get your approach is more generous than a pension. Especially if you give me that ringfenced tax back tax free. But if it doesn't reduce the state pension bill, it feels nicer for the wealthier with no real benefit overall. My sense anyway. "Hey ho, it's a good job I'm not trying to get this through the Fab house for approval
Come to think of it, it is a good job that Fab house doesn't exist, filibuster springs to mind | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"100% agree. Folk flocking to labour like they will save working people. Disgraceful hypocrits the lot of em. Snouts in troff what would a good set of policies look like that would save working folk? Not my job pal. I will know when I see em tho which of the 2019 policies did you see as being detrimental or self serving ?
I thought it was a fairly left (and working class) focussed manifesto.
It was but there was no ability of Labour Mps to explain how it would be paid for. I watched corbyn evasive when andrew neil asked how the pledge to wispy women would be funded. Plus he was terrorist sympathiser. Right he was defeated and working man wanted brexit sorted.
*Waspi - pension at 65 women not 60 I'm lost what your view is about pension ages for the working man is now!
65 for all seems fair. 68 getting too old. Life not a football match with a guaranteed 90 mins (years). Life is lottery neighbour is 95 and has collected stated pension for 30 years!!! Other neighbor was dead at 70, gave up work 61. 4 years versus 30 years pension. Can't argue when Big Ref blows final whistle
65 is probably fair
But we are heading towards 68? trouble is £££.
As Rob says, the waspi promises was unfunded. Using some of the numbers I'm estimating for every year earlier state pension is, that's £10bn additional costs.
The more we want to retire earlier, the more burden we put on younger generations... And unless we can smash productivity the likely solution is increased immigration to have enough workers to foot the bill.
Why is increased immigration the answer to everything? Won't immigrants eventually want a pension at 65?
It's increased immigration which is bringing problems with getting a school place, dentist, doctor's appointment, pushing up rent and house prices, helping jam up the roads, filling up hotels, pushing up hotel room costs etc etc
Unless immigration decreases, the housing crisis will continue indefinitely, mainly to the detriment of young people. The UK’s green countryside will continue to be swallowed up by construction of housing.
Claims that immigration represents a fiscal benefit to the UK are very debatable.
What evidence do you have that migrants pay their way let alone finance the new infrastructure or anything else required by rapid population growth? Or finance a lower pension age for an ever increasing population?
You're left wing waffling again! it's not the answer to everything and my preference would be to invest in our schooling system to boost productivity. I suspect many lefties would waffle in the same way. I'm not actually anfan of immigration but see it as a necessary short term necessity.
How would you support an earlier retirement age?
I think the simplest way to encourage people to work longer, whilst allowing them to increase their wealth and removing the pressure on the state pension is to start to reduce their tax outlay as the people get older.
An example, when a person reaches 55 years of age reduce the tax on their income by 15% for every 5 years they remain working, at 65 they will be working tax free, not receiving a pension and are able to save a lot more money for their own pension.
The numbers I have used are plucked out of the air and are not at all water tight, it is an example of how we can start to manage better.
I would imagine the need for qualifying rules, such as, been working for the last X years, paying their tax in this country etc.
time to think outside the box
So as people earn more in later life and require more from the state in medical care they would contribute less tax to society at large so as to benefit themselves in having an earlier retirement and pass on more in their estate?
It's just another perspective on your solution.
Why not have everyone pay more NI. Isn't that fairer?
Early retirement? Read it again, it is about keeping people interested in working by reward.
Think about it.
Paying less as you get older and wealthier.
Think about it.
You can't get past paying less tax can you, it stops you being able to think of solutions. Very predictable
You have failed to think about any other points I made. How about the supporting rules, people in work longer, less people actually at the end of the scheme than at the start and a change to the amount of pension if you take the tax cuts.
I am able to understand that you offered a "solution" which benefits those who are already at their highest ranking potentials, including you.
There is already defer taking your state pension with a 5.8% increase for every year you do so.
That is a pitiful £10,600 if you have not made your own private provision, but an additional £530 for every year of deferral.
People would be more interested in working at all if they were paid a decent wage to begin with and by the corporations and one man that are allowed to limit their tax bills.
If wages grew with profits there would be more income tax collected to pay for pensions and everything else.
If companies invested in automation and other long term processes we would have higher productivity.
However, your preference is to look at narrow options that just so happen to benefit you directly...
Twas ever this, I suppose.
You have backed yourself into a corner with high income earners.
The average wage is approx 32k of which approx 7k is deducted, if the website I used is correct…
If we reduced taxes by 15% every 5 years from 55, the average person would be now be approx 5k a year better off, until 60. They would then be 7k better off until retirement. If they chose to retire at 66, they could have saved 68k. Work to 70 and 100k is likely. I think this money could be held by HMRC, until retirement. Retire early and you get nothing it goes back in the coffers, die spouse gets half.
Pay a little more up front when you start working maybe, lots of different things that can be done. what's the incentive to work longer again? That HMRC will take some tax and ringfence it to give it back to me later ... That doesn't feel a million miles better than today. I thought you were suggesting money on their pocket. Have I missunderstood?
Incentive is the money you earn will be yours, bigger pot at the end. Put it directly in their pocket and it will be spent before retirement.
I'm probably missunderstanding but I can get close to that with pension contributions.
I've lost track why we are trying to encourage ppl to work longer of it isn't to generate more tax.
If people are working longer they are not drawing on the state pension and still contributing.
The idea here is they do still contribute to NI, but have % of their tax reduces the longer they stay in work, until they get to around 60 - 65 based on their tax rate, from then on they don't pay tax at all, giving them the ability to earn a lot more and save a lot more for their retirement.
I'm not sure you could have a traditional pension that would give those types of returns guaranteed. are you getting rid of the perk that delaying the state pension increases it ?
I get your approach is more generous than a pension. Especially if you give me that ringfenced tax back tax free. But if it doesn't reduce the state pension bill, it feels nicer for the wealthier with no real benefit overall. My sense anyway.
Hey ho, it's a good job I'm not trying to get this through the Fab house for approval
Come to think of it, it is a good job that Fab house doesn't exist, filibuster springs to mind "
(+1post) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"100% agree. Folk flocking to labour like they will save working people. Disgraceful hypocrits the lot of em. Snouts in troff what would a good set of policies look like that would save working folk? Not my job pal. I will know when I see em tho which of the 2019 policies did you see as being detrimental or self serving ?
I thought it was a fairly left (and working class) focussed manifesto.
It was but there was no ability of Labour Mps to explain how it would be paid for. I watched corbyn evasive when andrew neil asked how the pledge to wispy women would be funded. Plus he was terrorist sympathiser. Right he was defeated and working man wanted brexit sorted.
*Waspi - pension at 65 women not 60 I'm lost what your view is about pension ages for the working man is now!
65 for all seems fair. 68 getting too old. Life not a football match with a guaranteed 90 mins (years). Life is lottery neighbour is 95 and has collected stated pension for 30 years!!! Other neighbor was dead at 70, gave up work 61. 4 years versus 30 years pension. Can't argue when Big Ref blows final whistle
65 is probably fair
But we are heading towards 68? trouble is £££.
As Rob says, the waspi promises was unfunded. Using some of the numbers I'm estimating for every year earlier state pension is, that's £10bn additional costs.
The more we want to retire earlier, the more burden we put on younger generations... And unless we can smash productivity the likely solution is increased immigration to have enough workers to foot the bill.
Why is increased immigration the answer to everything? Won't immigrants eventually want a pension at 65?
It's increased immigration which is bringing problems with getting a school place, dentist, doctor's appointment, pushing up rent and house prices, helping jam up the roads, filling up hotels, pushing up hotel room costs etc etc
Unless immigration decreases, the housing crisis will continue indefinitely, mainly to the detriment of young people. The UK’s green countryside will continue to be swallowed up by construction of housing.
Claims that immigration represents a fiscal benefit to the UK are very debatable.
What evidence do you have that migrants pay their way let alone finance the new infrastructure or anything else required by rapid population growth? Or finance a lower pension age for an ever increasing population?
You're left wing waffling again! it's not the answer to everything and my preference would be to invest in our schooling system to boost productivity. I suspect many lefties would waffle in the same way. I'm not actually anfan of immigration but see it as a necessary short term necessity.
How would you support an earlier retirement age?
I think the simplest way to encourage people to work longer, whilst allowing them to increase their wealth and removing the pressure on the state pension is to start to reduce their tax outlay as the people get older.
An example, when a person reaches 55 years of age reduce the tax on their income by 15% for every 5 years they remain working, at 65 they will be working tax free, not receiving a pension and are able to save a lot more money for their own pension.
The numbers I have used are plucked out of the air and are not at all water tight, it is an example of how we can start to manage better.
I would imagine the need for qualifying rules, such as, been working for the last X years, paying their tax in this country etc.
time to think outside the box
So as people earn more in later life and require more from the state in medical care they would contribute less tax to society at large so as to benefit themselves in having an earlier retirement and pass on more in their estate?
It's just another perspective on your solution.
Why not have everyone pay more NI. Isn't that fairer?
Early retirement? Read it again, it is about keeping people interested in working by reward.
Think about it.
Paying less as you get older and wealthier.
Think about it.
You can't get past paying less tax can you, it stops you being able to think of solutions. Very predictable
You have failed to think about any other points I made. How about the supporting rules, people in work longer, less people actually at the end of the scheme than at the start and a change to the amount of pension if you take the tax cuts.
I am able to understand that you offered a "solution" which benefits those who are already at their highest ranking potentials, including you.
There is already defer taking your state pension with a 5.8% increase for every year you do so.
That is a pitiful £10,600 if you have not made your own private provision, but an additional £530 for every year of deferral.
People would be more interested in working at all if they were paid a decent wage to begin with and by the corporations and one man that are allowed to limit their tax bills.
If wages grew with profits there would be more income tax collected to pay for pensions and everything else.
If companies invested in automation and other long term processes we would have higher productivity.
However, your preference is to look at narrow options that just so happen to benefit you directly...
Twas ever this, I suppose.
You have backed yourself into a corner with high income earners.
The average wage is approx 32k of which approx 7k is deducted, if the website I used is correct…
If we reduced taxes by 15% every 5 years from 55, the average person would be now be approx 5k a year better off, until 60. They would then be 7k better off until retirement. If they chose to retire at 66, they could have saved 68k. Work to 70 and 100k is likely. I think this money could be held by HMRC, until retirement. Retire early and you get nothing it goes back in the coffers, die spouse gets half.
Pay a little more up front when you start working maybe, lots of different things that can be done. what's the incentive to work longer again? That HMRC will take some tax and ringfence it to give it back to me later ... That doesn't feel a million miles better than today. I thought you were suggesting money on their pocket. Have I missunderstood?
Incentive is the money you earn will be yours, bigger pot at the end. Put it directly in their pocket and it will be spent before retirement.
I'm probably missunderstanding but I can get close to that with pension contributions.
I've lost track why we are trying to encourage ppl to work longer of it isn't to generate more tax.
If people are working longer they are not drawing on the state pension and still contributing.
The idea here is they do still contribute to NI, but have % of their tax reduces the longer they stay in work, until they get to around 60 - 65 based on their tax rate, from then on they don't pay tax at all, giving them the ability to earn a lot more and save a lot more for their retirement.
I'm not sure you could have a traditional pension that would give those types of returns guaranteed. are you getting rid of the perk that delaying the state pension increases it ?
I get your approach is more generous than a pension. Especially if you give me that ringfenced tax back tax free. But if it doesn't reduce the state pension bill, it feels nicer for the wealthier with no real benefit overall. My sense anyway.
Hey ho, it's a good job I'm not trying to get this through the Fab house for approval
Come to think of it, it is a good job that Fab house doesn't exist, filibuster springs to mind
(+1post)" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"100% agree. Folk flocking to labour like they will save working people. Disgraceful hypocrits the lot of em. Snouts in troff what would a good set of policies look like that would save working folk? Not my job pal. I will know when I see em tho which of the 2019 policies did you see as being detrimental or self serving ?
I thought it was a fairly left (and working class) focussed manifesto.
It was but there was no ability of Labour Mps to explain how it would be paid for. I watched corbyn evasive when andrew neil asked how the pledge to wispy women would be funded. Plus he was terrorist sympathiser. Right he was defeated and working man wanted brexit sorted.
*Waspi - pension at 65 women not 60 I'm lost what your view is about pension ages for the working man is now!
65 for all seems fair. 68 getting too old. Life not a football match with a guaranteed 90 mins (years). Life is lottery neighbour is 95 and has collected stated pension for 30 years!!! Other neighbor was dead at 70, gave up work 61. 4 years versus 30 years pension. Can't argue when Big Ref blows final whistle
65 is probably fair
But we are heading towards 68? trouble is £££.
As Rob says, the waspi promises was unfunded. Using some of the numbers I'm estimating for every year earlier state pension is, that's £10bn additional costs.
The more we want to retire earlier, the more burden we put on younger generations... And unless we can smash productivity the likely solution is increased immigration to have enough workers to foot the bill.
Why is increased immigration the answer to everything? Won't immigrants eventually want a pension at 65?
It's increased immigration which is bringing problems with getting a school place, dentist, doctor's appointment, pushing up rent and house prices, helping jam up the roads, filling up hotels, pushing up hotel room costs etc etc
Unless immigration decreases, the housing crisis will continue indefinitely, mainly to the detriment of young people. The UK’s green countryside will continue to be swallowed up by construction of housing.
Claims that immigration represents a fiscal benefit to the UK are very debatable.
What evidence do you have that migrants pay their way let alone finance the new infrastructure or anything else required by rapid population growth? Or finance a lower pension age for an ever increasing population?
You're left wing waffling again! it's not the answer to everything and my preference would be to invest in our schooling system to boost productivity. I suspect many lefties would waffle in the same way. I'm not actually anfan of immigration but see it as a necessary short term necessity.
How would you support an earlier retirement age?
I think the simplest way to encourage people to work longer, whilst allowing them to increase their wealth and removing the pressure on the state pension is to start to reduce their tax outlay as the people get older.
An example, when a person reaches 55 years of age reduce the tax on their income by 15% for every 5 years they remain working, at 65 they will be working tax free, not receiving a pension and are able to save a lot more money for their own pension.
The numbers I have used are plucked out of the air and are not at all water tight, it is an example of how we can start to manage better.
I would imagine the need for qualifying rules, such as, been working for the last X years, paying their tax in this country etc.
time to think outside the box
So as people earn more in later life and require more from the state in medical care they would contribute less tax to society at large so as to benefit themselves in having an earlier retirement and pass on more in their estate?
It's just another perspective on your solution.
Why not have everyone pay more NI. Isn't that fairer?
Early retirement? Read it again, it is about keeping people interested in working by reward.
Think about it.
Paying less as you get older and wealthier.
Think about it.
You can't get past paying less tax can you, it stops you being able to think of solutions. Very predictable
You have failed to think about any other points I made. How about the supporting rules, people in work longer, less people actually at the end of the scheme than at the start and a change to the amount of pension if you take the tax cuts.
I am able to understand that you offered a "solution" which benefits those who are already at their highest ranking potentials, including you.
There is already defer taking your state pension with a 5.8% increase for every year you do so.
That is a pitiful £10,600 if you have not made your own private provision, but an additional £530 for every year of deferral.
People would be more interested in working at all if they were paid a decent wage to begin with and by the corporations and one man that are allowed to limit their tax bills.
If wages grew with profits there would be more income tax collected to pay for pensions and everything else.
If companies invested in automation and other long term processes we would have higher productivity.
However, your preference is to look at narrow options that just so happen to benefit you directly...
Twas ever this, I suppose.
You have backed yourself into a corner with high income earners.
The average wage is approx 32k of which approx 7k is deducted, if the website I used is correct…
If we reduced taxes by 15% every 5 years from 55, the average person would be now be approx 5k a year better off, until 60. They would then be 7k better off until retirement. If they chose to retire at 66, they could have saved 68k. Work to 70 and 100k is likely. I think this money could be held by HMRC, until retirement. Retire early and you get nothing it goes back in the coffers, die spouse gets half.
Pay a little more up front when you start working maybe, lots of different things that can be done. "I haven't "backed myself into a corner" about anything. We already do not have enough revenue as a country to pay for what we need. You are proposing further reducing current revenue to put in "an account" to give back to you when you retire. You are basically saying that we should all have a bigger state pension which is paid for out of tax that would have been spent on public services. That is bonkers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"100% agree. Folk flocking to labour like they will save working people. Disgraceful hypocrits the lot of em. Snouts in troff what would a good set of policies look like that would save working folk? Not my job pal. I will know when I see em tho which of the 2019 policies did you see as being detrimental or self serving ?
I thought it was a fairly left (and working class) focussed manifesto.
It was but there was no ability of Labour Mps to explain how it would be paid for. I watched corbyn evasive when andrew neil asked how the pledge to wispy women would be funded. Plus he was terrorist sympathiser. Right he was defeated and working man wanted brexit sorted.
*Waspi - pension at 65 women not 60 I'm lost what your view is about pension ages for the working man is now!
65 for all seems fair. 68 getting too old. Life not a football match with a guaranteed 90 mins (years). Life is lottery neighbour is 95 and has collected stated pension for 30 years!!! Other neighbor was dead at 70, gave up work 61. 4 years versus 30 years pension. Can't argue when Big Ref blows final whistle
65 is probably fair
But we are heading towards 68? trouble is £££.
As Rob says, the waspi promises was unfunded. Using some of the numbers I'm estimating for every year earlier state pension is, that's £10bn additional costs.
The more we want to retire earlier, the more burden we put on younger generations... And unless we can smash productivity the likely solution is increased immigration to have enough workers to foot the bill.
Why is increased immigration the answer to everything? Won't immigrants eventually want a pension at 65?
It's increased immigration which is bringing problems with getting a school place, dentist, doctor's appointment, pushing up rent and house prices, helping jam up the roads, filling up hotels, pushing up hotel room costs etc etc
Unless immigration decreases, the housing crisis will continue indefinitely, mainly to the detriment of young people. The UK’s green countryside will continue to be swallowed up by construction of housing.
Claims that immigration represents a fiscal benefit to the UK are very debatable.
What evidence do you have that migrants pay their way let alone finance the new infrastructure or anything else required by rapid population growth? Or finance a lower pension age for an ever increasing population?
You're left wing waffling again! it's not the answer to everything and my preference would be to invest in our schooling system to boost productivity. I suspect many lefties would waffle in the same way. I'm not actually anfan of immigration but see it as a necessary short term necessity.
How would you support an earlier retirement age?
I think the simplest way to encourage people to work longer, whilst allowing them to increase their wealth and removing the pressure on the state pension is to start to reduce their tax outlay as the people get older.
An example, when a person reaches 55 years of age reduce the tax on their income by 15% for every 5 years they remain working, at 65 they will be working tax free, not receiving a pension and are able to save a lot more money for their own pension.
The numbers I have used are plucked out of the air and are not at all water tight, it is an example of how we can start to manage better.
I would imagine the need for qualifying rules, such as, been working for the last X years, paying their tax in this country etc.
time to think outside the box
So as people earn more in later life and require more from the state in medical care they would contribute less tax to society at large so as to benefit themselves in having an earlier retirement and pass on more in their estate?
It's just another perspective on your solution.
Why not have everyone pay more NI. Isn't that fairer?
Early retirement? Read it again, it is about keeping people interested in working by reward.
Think about it.
Paying less as you get older and wealthier.
Think about it.
You can't get past paying less tax can you, it stops you being able to think of solutions. Very predictable
You have failed to think about any other points I made. How about the supporting rules, people in work longer, less people actually at the end of the scheme than at the start and a change to the amount of pension if you take the tax cuts.
I am able to understand that you offered a "solution" which benefits those who are already at their highest ranking potentials, including you.
There is already defer taking your state pension with a 5.8% increase for every year you do so.
That is a pitiful £10,600 if you have not made your own private provision, but an additional £530 for every year of deferral.
People would be more interested in working at all if they were paid a decent wage to begin with and by the corporations and one man that are allowed to limit their tax bills.
If wages grew with profits there would be more income tax collected to pay for pensions and everything else.
If companies invested in automation and other long term processes we would have higher productivity.
However, your preference is to look at narrow options that just so happen to benefit you directly...
Twas ever this, I suppose.
You have backed yourself into a corner with high income earners.
The average wage is approx 32k of which approx 7k is deducted, if the website I used is correct…
If we reduced taxes by 15% every 5 years from 55, the average person would be now be approx 5k a year better off, until 60. They would then be 7k better off until retirement. If they chose to retire at 66, they could have saved 68k. Work to 70 and 100k is likely. I think this money could be held by HMRC, until retirement. Retire early and you get nothing it goes back in the coffers, die spouse gets half.
Pay a little more up front when you start working maybe, lots of different things that can be done.
I haven't "backed myself into a corner" about anything.
We already do not have enough revenue as a country to pay for what we need.
You are proposing further reducing current revenue to put in "an account" to give back to you when you retire.
You are basically saying that we should all have a bigger state pension which is paid for out of tax that would have been spent on public services.
That is bonkers."They can find it for things when they want too. I don't believe all we pay in tax is saved for public services. Glorified crooks. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is bonkers." I love how you see tax cuts as bonkers, it is your kryptonite
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"100% agree. Folk flocking to labour like they will save working people. Disgraceful hypocrits the lot of em. Snouts in troff what would a good set of policies look like that would save working folk? Not my job pal. I will know when I see em tho which of the 2019 policies did you see as being detrimental or self serving ?
I thought it was a fairly left (and working class) focussed manifesto.
It was but there was no ability of Labour Mps to explain how it would be paid for. I watched corbyn evasive when andrew neil asked how the pledge to wispy women would be funded. Plus he was terrorist sympathiser. Right he was defeated and working man wanted brexit sorted.
*Waspi - pension at 65 women not 60 I'm lost what your view is about pension ages for the working man is now!
65 for all seems fair. 68 getting too old. Life not a football match with a guaranteed 90 mins (years). Life is lottery neighbour is 95 and has collected stated pension for 30 years!!! Other neighbor was dead at 70, gave up work 61. 4 years versus 30 years pension. Can't argue when Big Ref blows final whistle
65 is probably fair
But we are heading towards 68? trouble is £££.
As Rob says, the waspi promises was unfunded. Using some of the numbers I'm estimating for every year earlier state pension is, that's £10bn additional costs.
The more we want to retire earlier, the more burden we put on younger generations... And unless we can smash productivity the likely solution is increased immigration to have enough workers to foot the bill.
Why is increased immigration the answer to everything? Won't immigrants eventually want a pension at 65?
It's increased immigration which is bringing problems with getting a school place, dentist, doctor's appointment, pushing up rent and house prices, helping jam up the roads, filling up hotels, pushing up hotel room costs etc etc
Unless immigration decreases, the housing crisis will continue indefinitely, mainly to the detriment of young people. The UK’s green countryside will continue to be swallowed up by construction of housing.
Claims that immigration represents a fiscal benefit to the UK are very debatable.
What evidence do you have that migrants pay their way let alone finance the new infrastructure or anything else required by rapid population growth? Or finance a lower pension age for an ever increasing population?
You're left wing waffling again! it's not the answer to everything and my preference would be to invest in our schooling system to boost productivity. I suspect many lefties would waffle in the same way. I'm not actually anfan of immigration but see it as a necessary short term necessity.
How would you support an earlier retirement age?
I think the simplest way to encourage people to work longer, whilst allowing them to increase their wealth and removing the pressure on the state pension is to start to reduce their tax outlay as the people get older.
An example, when a person reaches 55 years of age reduce the tax on their income by 15% for every 5 years they remain working, at 65 they will be working tax free, not receiving a pension and are able to save a lot more money for their own pension.
The numbers I have used are plucked out of the air and are not at all water tight, it is an example of how we can start to manage better.
I would imagine the need for qualifying rules, such as, been working for the last X years, paying their tax in this country etc.
time to think outside the box
So as people earn more in later life and require more from the state in medical care they would contribute less tax to society at large so as to benefit themselves in having an earlier retirement and pass on more in their estate?
It's just another perspective on your solution.
Why not have everyone pay more NI. Isn't that fairer?
Early retirement? Read it again, it is about keeping people interested in working by reward.
Think about it.
Paying less as you get older and wealthier.
Think about it.
You can't get past paying less tax can you, it stops you being able to think of solutions. Very predictable
You have failed to think about any other points I made. How about the supporting rules, people in work longer, less people actually at the end of the scheme than at the start and a change to the amount of pension if you take the tax cuts.
I am able to understand that you offered a "solution" which benefits those who are already at their highest ranking potentials, including you.
There is already defer taking your state pension with a 5.8% increase for every year you do so.
That is a pitiful £10,600 if you have not made your own private provision, but an additional £530 for every year of deferral.
People would be more interested in working at all if they were paid a decent wage to begin with and by the corporations and one man that are allowed to limit their tax bills.
If wages grew with profits there would be more income tax collected to pay for pensions and everything else.
If companies invested in automation and other long term processes we would have higher productivity.
However, your preference is to look at narrow options that just so happen to benefit you directly...
Twas ever this, I suppose.
You have backed yourself into a corner with high income earners.
The average wage is approx 32k of which approx 7k is deducted, if the website I used is correct…
If we reduced taxes by 15% every 5 years from 55, the average person would be now be approx 5k a year better off, until 60. They would then be 7k better off until retirement. If they chose to retire at 66, they could have saved 68k. Work to 70 and 100k is likely. I think this money could be held by HMRC, until retirement. Retire early and you get nothing it goes back in the coffers, die spouse gets half.
Pay a little more up front when you start working maybe, lots of different things that can be done.
I haven't "backed myself into a corner" about anything.
We already do not have enough revenue as a country to pay for what we need.
You are proposing further reducing current revenue to put in "an account" to give back to you when you retire.
You are basically saying that we should all have a bigger state pension which is paid for out of tax that would have been spent on public services.
That is bonkers.
They can find it for things when they want too. I don't believe all we pay in tax is saved for public services. Glorified crooks."It's all spent. The rest is borrowed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is bonkers. I love how you see tax cuts as bonkers, it is your kryptonite
"Try the whole point rather than trying to be selective: "You are basically saying that we should all have a bigger state pension which is paid for out of tax that would have been spent on public services. That is bonkers." You're shaking the magic money tree. You want a tax cut with the same public services and an increase in pensions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is bonkers. I love how you see tax cuts as bonkers, it is your kryptonite
Try the whole point rather than trying to be selective:
"You are basically saying that we should all have a bigger state pension which is paid for out of tax that would have been spent on public services.
That is bonkers."
You're shaking the magic money tree.
You want a tax cut with the same public services and an increase in pensions."So just scrap state pension, it won't be long and it will be means tested so if you have saved most of you working life in to a pension you will get a top up at best at worst you will a kick up the ass.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is bonkers. I love how you see tax cuts as bonkers, it is your kryptonite
Try the whole point rather than trying to be selective:
"You are basically saying that we should all have a bigger state pension which is paid for out of tax that would have been spent on public services.
That is bonkers."
You're shaking the magic money tree.
You want a tax cut with the same public services and an increase in pensions.
So just scrap state pension, it won't be long and it will be means tested so if you have saved most of you working life in to a pension you will get a top up at best at worst you will a kick up the ass.."Why would you be bothered about anyone else anyway? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is bonkers. I love how you see tax cuts as bonkers, it is your kryptonite
Try the whole point rather than trying to be selective:
"You are basically saying that we should all have a bigger state pension which is paid for out of tax that would have been spent on public services.
That is bonkers."
You're shaking the magic money tree.
You want a tax cut with the same public services and an increase in pensions.
So just scrap state pension, it won't be long and it will be means tested so if you have saved most of you working life in to a pension you will get a top up at best at worst you will a kick up the ass..
Why would you be bothered about anyone else anyway?"Ouch someone's not happy guess you happy with hi tax and a low income. I just think more people need to wake up and look after there own finances as best they can your not 10 years behind me so you must be getting there in life. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is bonkers. I love how you see tax cuts as bonkers, it is your kryptonite
Try the whole point rather than trying to be selective:
"You are basically saying that we should all have a bigger state pension which is paid for out of tax that would have been spent on public services.
That is bonkers."
You're shaking the magic money tree.
You want a tax cut with the same public services and an increase in pensions.
So just scrap state pension, it won't be long and it will be means tested so if you have saved most of you working life in to a pension you will get a top up at best at worst you will a kick up the ass..
Why would you be bothered about anyone else anyway?
Ouch someone's not happy guess you happy with hi tax and a low income.
I just think more people need to wake up and look after there own finances as best they can your not 10 years behind me so you must be getting there in life."I'm fine. You are the one who doesn't want to contribute to anyone else. I'd like high salaries, low tax and well funded public services. I'll go with a reasonable compromise and am quite capable of making my own additional financial provisions. I am also aware that not everyone is, as much out of lack of opportunity or ability as choice. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is bonkers. I love how you see tax cuts as bonkers, it is your kryptonite
Try the whole point rather than trying to be selective:
"You are basically saying that we should all have a bigger state pension which is paid for out of tax that would have been spent on public services.
That is bonkers."
You're shaking the magic money tree.
You want a tax cut with the same public services and an increase in pensions.
So just scrap state pension, it won't be long and it will be means tested so if you have saved most of you working life in to a pension you will get a top up at best at worst you will a kick up the ass..
Why would you be bothered about anyone else anyway?
Ouch someone's not happy guess you happy with hi tax and a low income.
I just think more people need to wake up and look after there own finances as best they can your not 10 years behind me so you must be getting there in life.
I'm fine. You are the one who doesn't want to contribute to anyone else.
I'd like high salaries, low tax and well funded public services.
I'll go with a reasonable compromise and am quite capable of making my own additional financial provisions. I am also aware that not everyone is, as much out of lack of opportunity or ability as choice."Considering work place pensions are law from 5th of April. It will be the same people moving from one benifit to another basically. I give to charity where I think the money will do good government is like a big hole loosing and wasting so much money it obscene. MP's are the biggest crooks and tax evaders how much did Boris spend on No10 decorating. Is it still a free bar in Westminster. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is bonkers. I love how you see tax cuts as bonkers, it is your kryptonite
Try the whole point rather than trying to be selective:
"You are basically saying that we should all have a bigger state pension which is paid for out of tax that would have been spent on public services.
That is bonkers."
You're shaking the magic money tree.
You want a tax cut with the same public services and an increase in pensions.
So just scrap state pension, it won't be long and it will be means tested so if you have saved most of you working life in to a pension you will get a top up at best at worst you will a kick up the ass..
Why would you be bothered about anyone else anyway?
Ouch someone's not happy guess you happy with hi tax and a low income.
I just think more people need to wake up and look after there own finances as best they can your not 10 years behind me so you must be getting there in life.
I'm fine. You are the one who doesn't want to contribute to anyone else.
I'd like high salaries, low tax and well funded public services.
I'll go with a reasonable compromise and am quite capable of making my own additional financial provisions. I am also aware that not everyone is, as much out of lack of opportunity or ability as choice.
Considering work place pensions are law from 5th of April. It will be the same people moving from one benifit to another basically.
I give to charity where I think the money will do good government is like a big hole loosing and wasting so much money it obscene. MP's are the biggest crooks and tax evaders how much did Boris spend on No10 decorating. Is it still a free bar in Westminster."Work place pensions have been in place for many years. Curious definition of "benefit". How good of you to give money to charities of your own choice and at your discretion but minimise your contribution to any other part of society. Heart warming  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is bonkers. I love how you see tax cuts as bonkers, it is your kryptonite
Try the whole point rather than trying to be selective:
"You are basically saying that we should all have a bigger state pension which is paid for out of tax that would have been spent on public services.
That is bonkers."
You're shaking the magic money tree.
You want a tax cut with the same public services and an increase in pensions.
So just scrap state pension, it won't be long and it will be means tested so if you have saved most of you working life in to a pension you will get a top up at best at worst you will a kick up the ass..
Why would you be bothered about anyone else anyway?
Ouch someone's not happy guess you happy with hi tax and a low income.
I just think more people need to wake up and look after there own finances as best they can your not 10 years behind me so you must be getting there in life.
I'm fine. You are the one who doesn't want to contribute to anyone else.
I'd like high salaries, low tax and well funded public services.
I'll go with a reasonable compromise and am quite capable of making my own additional financial provisions. I am also aware that not everyone is, as much out of lack of opportunity or ability as choice.
Considering work place pensions are law from 5th of April. It will be the same people moving from one benifit to another basically.
I give to charity where I think the money will do good government is like a big hole loosing and wasting so much money it obscene. MP's are the biggest crooks and tax evaders how much did Boris spend on No10 decorating. Is it still a free bar in Westminster.
Work place pensions have been in place for many years. Curious definition of "benefit".
How good of you to give money to charities of your own choice and at your discretion but minimise your contribution to any other part of society. Heart warming "This is where tax money goes Prices at one of the House of Commons bars appear from the outside world to be stuck in time - especially in relation to London prices and the spiraling cost of living increases. The pub frequented by many MPs was highlighted today by the Jeremy Vine Show, as they wondered if you could get a cheaper pint elsewhere in the capital. And why are the prices so low? It turns out Strangers' - as well as other catering services in Parliament - is subsidised by the taxpayer. This fact provoked a fierce reaction on social media, especially as prices in pubs throughout the country have gone up by 50 pence a pint in the last month. Buy them all a pint on the tax man. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is bonkers. I love how you see tax cuts as bonkers, it is your kryptonite
Try the whole point rather than trying to be selective:
"You are basically saying that we should all have a bigger state pension which is paid for out of tax that would have been spent on public services.
That is bonkers."
You're shaking the magic money tree.
You want a tax cut with the same public services and an increase in pensions.
So just scrap state pension, it won't be long and it will be means tested so if you have saved most of you working life in to a pension you will get a top up at best at worst you will a kick up the ass..
Why would you be bothered about anyone else anyway?
Ouch someone's not happy guess you happy with hi tax and a low income.
I just think more people need to wake up and look after there own finances as best they can your not 10 years behind me so you must be getting there in life.
I'm fine. You are the one who doesn't want to contribute to anyone else.
I'd like high salaries, low tax and well funded public services.
I'll go with a reasonable compromise and am quite capable of making my own additional financial provisions. I am also aware that not everyone is, as much out of lack of opportunity or ability as choice.
Considering work place pensions are law from 5th of April. It will be the same people moving from one benifit to another basically.
I give to charity where I think the money will do good government is like a big hole loosing and wasting so much money it obscene. MP's are the biggest crooks and tax evaders how much did Boris spend on No10 decorating. Is it still a free bar in Westminster.
Work place pensions have been in place for many years. Curious definition of "benefit".
How good of you to give money to charities of your own choice and at your discretion but minimise your contribution to any other part of society. Heart warming "I was implying that some one how never works and lives on benefits at 67 will move to a pension. But someone who has a work place pension will probably get means tested and the state pension reduces to save money. No not now but I can see it coming. Like the scrapping of free bus passes,TV licence, winter fule payment. It won't be like it is forever. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is bonkers. I love how you see tax cuts as bonkers, it is your kryptonite
Try the whole point rather than trying to be selective:
"You are basically saying that we should all have a bigger state pension which is paid for out of tax that would have been spent on public services.
That is bonkers."
You're shaking the magic money tree.
You want a tax cut with the same public services and an increase in pensions.
So just scrap state pension, it won't be long and it will be means tested so if you have saved most of you working life in to a pension you will get a top up at best at worst you will a kick up the ass..
Why would you be bothered about anyone else anyway?
Ouch someone's not happy guess you happy with hi tax and a low income.
I just think more people need to wake up and look after there own finances as best they can your not 10 years behind me so you must be getting there in life.
I'm fine. You are the one who doesn't want to contribute to anyone else.
I'd like high salaries, low tax and well funded public services.
I'll go with a reasonable compromise and am quite capable of making my own additional financial provisions. I am also aware that not everyone is, as much out of lack of opportunity or ability as choice.
Considering work place pensions are law from 5th of April. It will be the same people moving from one benifit to another basically.
I give to charity where I think the money will do good government is like a big hole loosing and wasting so much money it obscene. MP's are the biggest crooks and tax evaders how much did Boris spend on No10 decorating. Is it still a free bar in Westminster.
Work place pensions have been in place for many years. Curious definition of "benefit".
How good of you to give money to charities of your own choice and at your discretion but minimise your contribution to any other part of society. Heart warming
This is where tax money goes
Prices at one of the House of Commons bars appear from the outside world to be stuck in time - especially in relation to London prices and the spiraling cost of living increases. The pub frequented by many MPs was highlighted today by the Jeremy Vine Show, as they wondered if you could get a cheaper pint elsewhere in the capital.
And why are the prices so low? It turns out Strangers' - as well as other catering services in Parliament - is subsidised by the taxpayer. This fact provoked a fierce reaction on social media, especially as prices in pubs throughout the country have gone up by 50 pence a pint in the last month.
Buy them all a pint on the tax man."
I imagine them sitting back sipping on a pint, whilst laughing at the tax payers | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is bonkers. I love how you see tax cuts as bonkers, it is your kryptonite
Try the whole point rather than trying to be selective:
"You are basically saying that we should all have a bigger state pension which is paid for out of tax that would have been spent on public services.
That is bonkers."
You're shaking the magic money tree.
You want a tax cut with the same public services and an increase in pensions.
So just scrap state pension, it won't be long and it will be means tested so if you have saved most of you working life in to a pension you will get a top up at best at worst you will a kick up the ass..
Why would you be bothered about anyone else anyway?
Ouch someone's not happy guess you happy with hi tax and a low income.
I just think more people need to wake up and look after there own finances as best they can your not 10 years behind me so you must be getting there in life.
I'm fine. You are the one who doesn't want to contribute to anyone else.
I'd like high salaries, low tax and well funded public services.
I'll go with a reasonable compromise and am quite capable of making my own additional financial provisions. I am also aware that not everyone is, as much out of lack of opportunity or ability as choice.
Considering work place pensions are law from 5th of April. It will be the same people moving from one benifit to another basically.
I give to charity where I think the money will do good government is like a big hole loosing and wasting so much money it obscene. MP's are the biggest crooks and tax evaders how much did Boris spend on No10 decorating. Is it still a free bar in Westminster.
Work place pensions have been in place for many years. Curious definition of "benefit".
How good of you to give money to charities of your own choice and at your discretion but minimise your contribution to any other part of society. Heart warming
This is where tax money goes
Prices at one of the House of Commons bars appear from the outside world to be stuck in time - especially in relation to London prices and the spiraling cost of living increases. The pub frequented by many MPs was highlighted today by the Jeremy Vine Show, as they wondered if you could get a cheaper pint elsewhere in the capital.
And why are the prices so low? It turns out Strangers' - as well as other catering services in Parliament - is subsidised by the taxpayer. This fact provoked a fierce reaction on social media, especially as prices in pubs throughout the country have gone up by 50 pence a pint in the last month.
Buy them all a pint on the tax man.
I imagine them sitting back sipping on a pint, whilst laughing at the tax payers "More then a pint at the price they get it for in there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is bonkers. I love how you see tax cuts as bonkers, it is your kryptonite
Try the whole point rather than trying to be selective:
"You are basically saying that we should all have a bigger state pension which is paid for out of tax that would have been spent on public services.
That is bonkers."
You're shaking the magic money tree.
You want a tax cut with the same public services and an increase in pensions.
So just scrap state pension, it won't be long and it will be means tested so if you have saved most of you working life in to a pension you will get a top up at best at worst you will a kick up the ass..
Why would you be bothered about anyone else anyway?
Ouch someone's not happy guess you happy with hi tax and a low income.
I just think more people need to wake up and look after there own finances as best they can your not 10 years behind me so you must be getting there in life.
I'm fine. You are the one who doesn't want to contribute to anyone else.
I'd like high salaries, low tax and well funded public services.
I'll go with a reasonable compromise and am quite capable of making my own additional financial provisions. I am also aware that not everyone is, as much out of lack of opportunity or ability as choice.
Considering work place pensions are law from 5th of April. It will be the same people moving from one benifit to another basically.
I give to charity where I think the money will do good government is like a big hole loosing and wasting so much money it obscene. MP's are the biggest crooks and tax evaders how much did Boris spend on No10 decorating. Is it still a free bar in Westminster.
Work place pensions have been in place for many years. Curious definition of "benefit".
How good of you to give money to charities of your own choice and at your discretion but minimise your contribution to any other part of society. Heart warming
This is where tax money goes
Prices at one of the House of Commons bars appear from the outside world to be stuck in time - especially in relation to London prices and the spiraling cost of living increases. The pub frequented by many MPs was highlighted today by the Jeremy Vine Show, as they wondered if you could get a cheaper pint elsewhere in the capital.
And why are the prices so low? It turns out Strangers' - as well as other catering services in Parliament - is subsidised by the taxpayer. This fact provoked a fierce reaction on social media, especially as prices in pubs throughout the country have gone up by 50 pence a pint in the last month.
Buy them all a pint on the tax man."Money goes on NHS healthcare, social care, the Police, the fire service, roads, rail, air travel, traffic lights, building inspection, food safety, the armed forces, research and development spending, foreign and diplomatic relations etc. etc. etc. Pretending that some subsidised drinks in a bar justifies paying as little tax as you can get away with is pretty self-serving. That is established though. You are who you are. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is bonkers. I love how you see tax cuts as bonkers, it is your kryptonite
Try the whole point rather than trying to be selective:
"You are basically saying that we should all have a bigger state pension which is paid for out of tax that would have been spent on public services.
That is bonkers."
You're shaking the magic money tree.
You want a tax cut with the same public services and an increase in pensions.
So just scrap state pension, it won't be long and it will be means tested so if you have saved most of you working life in to a pension you will get a top up at best at worst you will a kick up the ass..
Why would you be bothered about anyone else anyway?
Ouch someone's not happy guess you happy with hi tax and a low income.
I just think more people need to wake up and look after there own finances as best they can your not 10 years behind me so you must be getting there in life.
I'm fine. You are the one who doesn't want to contribute to anyone else.
I'd like high salaries, low tax and well funded public services.
I'll go with a reasonable compromise and am quite capable of making my own additional financial provisions. I am also aware that not everyone is, as much out of lack of opportunity or ability as choice.
Considering work place pensions are law from 5th of April. It will be the same people moving from one benifit to another basically.
I give to charity where I think the money will do good government is like a big hole loosing and wasting so much money it obscene. MP's are the biggest crooks and tax evaders how much did Boris spend on No10 decorating. Is it still a free bar in Westminster.
Work place pensions have been in place for many years. Curious definition of "benefit".
How good of you to give money to charities of your own choice and at your discretion but minimise your contribution to any other part of society. Heart warming
I was implying that some one how never works and lives on benefits at 67 will move to a pension.
But someone who has a work place pension will probably get means tested and the state pension reduces to save money. No not now but I can see it coming. Like the scrapping of free bus passes,TV licence, winter fule payment. It won't be like it is forever.
"You are now imagining things to justify contributing as little to society as possible. Gotcha | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is bonkers. I love how you see tax cuts as bonkers, it is your kryptonite
Try the whole point rather than trying to be selective:
"You are basically saying that we should all have a bigger state pension which is paid for out of tax that would have been spent on public services.
That is bonkers."
You're shaking the magic money tree.
You want a tax cut with the same public services and an increase in pensions.
So just scrap state pension, it won't be long and it will be means tested so if you have saved most of you working life in to a pension you will get a top up at best at worst you will a kick up the ass..
Why would you be bothered about anyone else anyway?
Ouch someone's not happy guess you happy with hi tax and a low income.
I just think more people need to wake up and look after there own finances as best they can your not 10 years behind me so you must be getting there in life.
I'm fine. You are the one who doesn't want to contribute to anyone else.
I'd like high salaries, low tax and well funded public services.
I'll go with a reasonable compromise and am quite capable of making my own additional financial provisions. I am also aware that not everyone is, as much out of lack of opportunity or ability as choice.
Considering work place pensions are law from 5th of April. It will be the same people moving from one benifit to another basically.
I give to charity where I think the money will do good government is like a big hole loosing and wasting so much money it obscene. MP's are the biggest crooks and tax evaders how much did Boris spend on No10 decorating. Is it still a free bar in Westminster.
Work place pensions have been in place for many years. Curious definition of "benefit".
How good of you to give money to charities of your own choice and at your discretion but minimise your contribution to any other part of society. Heart warming
This is where tax money goes
Prices at one of the House of Commons bars appear from the outside world to be stuck in time - especially in relation to London prices and the spiraling cost of living increases. The pub frequented by many MPs was highlighted today by the Jeremy Vine Show, as they wondered if you could get a cheaper pint elsewhere in the capital.
And why are the prices so low? It turns out Strangers' - as well as other catering services in Parliament - is subsidised by the taxpayer. This fact provoked a fierce reaction on social media, especially as prices in pubs throughout the country have gone up by 50 pence a pint in the last month.
Buy them all a pint on the tax man.
Money goes on NHS healthcare, social care, the Police, the fire service, roads, rail, air travel, traffic lights, building inspection, food safety, the armed forces, research and development spending, foreign and diplomatic relations etc. etc. etc.
Pretending that some subsidised drinks in a bar justifies paying as little tax as you can get away with is pretty self-serving.
That is established though. You are who you are."No they have staff to serve them its not like they have to pore ther own drinks there are bar staff there. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is bonkers. I love how you see tax cuts as bonkers, it is your kryptonite
Try the whole point rather than trying to be selective:
"You are basically saying that we should all have a bigger state pension which is paid for out of tax that would have been spent on public services.
That is bonkers."
You're shaking the magic money tree.
You want a tax cut with the same public services and an increase in pensions.
So just scrap state pension, it won't be long and it will be means tested so if you have saved most of you working life in to a pension you will get a top up at best at worst you will a kick up the ass..
Why would you be bothered about anyone else anyway?
Ouch someone's not happy guess you happy with hi tax and a low income.
I just think more people need to wake up and look after there own finances as best they can your not 10 years behind me so you must be getting there in life.
I'm fine. You are the one who doesn't want to contribute to anyone else.
I'd like high salaries, low tax and well funded public services.
I'll go with a reasonable compromise and am quite capable of making my own additional financial provisions. I am also aware that not everyone is, as much out of lack of opportunity or ability as choice.
Considering work place pensions are law from 5th of April. It will be the same people moving from one benifit to another basically.
I give to charity where I think the money will do good government is like a big hole loosing and wasting so much money it obscene. MP's are the biggest crooks and tax evaders how much did Boris spend on No10 decorating. Is it still a free bar in Westminster.
Work place pensions have been in place for many years. Curious definition of "benefit".
How good of you to give money to charities of your own choice and at your discretion but minimise your contribution to any other part of society. Heart warming
I was implying that some one how never works and lives on benefits at 67 will move to a pension.
But someone who has a work place pension will probably get means tested and the state pension reduces to save money. No not now but I can see it coming. Like the scrapping of free bus passes,TV licence, winter fule payment. It won't be like it is forever.
You are now imagining things to justify contributing as little to society as possible.
Gotcha "Yes you have the buss pass is still free but you have to be 75 now for a free TV license and qualify guess means tested. And I guess why should a state pension not be means tested? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is bonkers. I love how you see tax cuts as bonkers, it is your kryptonite
Try the whole point rather than trying to be selective:
"You are basically saying that we should all have a bigger state pension which is paid for out of tax that would have been spent on public services.
That is bonkers."
You're shaking the magic money tree.
You want a tax cut with the same public services and an increase in pensions.
So just scrap state pension, it won't be long and it will be means tested so if you have saved most of you working life in to a pension you will get a top up at best at worst you will a kick up the ass..
Why would you be bothered about anyone else anyway?
Ouch someone's not happy guess you happy with hi tax and a low income.
I just think more people need to wake up and look after there own finances as best they can your not 10 years behind me so you must be getting there in life.
I'm fine. You are the one who doesn't want to contribute to anyone else.
I'd like high salaries, low tax and well funded public services.
I'll go with a reasonable compromise and am quite capable of making my own additional financial provisions. I am also aware that not everyone is, as much out of lack of opportunity or ability as choice.
Considering work place pensions are law from 5th of April. It will be the same people moving from one benifit to another basically.
I give to charity where I think the money will do good government is like a big hole loosing and wasting so much money it obscene. MP's are the biggest crooks and tax evaders how much did Boris spend on No10 decorating. Is it still a free bar in Westminster.
Work place pensions have been in place for many years. Curious definition of "benefit".
How good of you to give money to charities of your own choice and at your discretion but minimise your contribution to any other part of society. Heart warming
This is where tax money goes
Prices at one of the House of Commons bars appear from the outside world to be stuck in time - especially in relation to London prices and the spiraling cost of living increases. The pub frequented by many MPs was highlighted today by the Jeremy Vine Show, as they wondered if you could get a cheaper pint elsewhere in the capital.
And why are the prices so low? It turns out Strangers' - as well as other catering services in Parliament - is subsidised by the taxpayer. This fact provoked a fierce reaction on social media, especially as prices in pubs throughout the country have gone up by 50 pence a pint in the last month.
Buy them all a pint on the tax man.
Money goes on NHS healthcare, social care, the Police, the fire service, roads, rail, air travel, traffic lights, building inspection, food safety, the armed forces, research and development spending, foreign and diplomatic relations etc. etc. etc.
Pretending that some subsidised drinks in a bar justifies paying as little tax as you can get away with is pretty self-serving.
That is established though. You are who you are."Those things you mention above are also paid for by Income tax, council tax, NI x 2, VAT, corporation tax, inheritance tax, capital gains tax, stamp duty, customs taxes, petrol taxes, road taxes and excise duties to name a few..... You also mention social care which they will take your home away to pay for if you haven't got the cash to pay. I could go on but it will fall on deaf ears. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is bonkers. I love how you see tax cuts as bonkers, it is your kryptonite
Try the whole point rather than trying to be selective:
"You are basically saying that we should all have a bigger state pension which is paid for out of tax that would have been spent on public services.
That is bonkers."
You're shaking the magic money tree.
You want a tax cut with the same public services and an increase in pensions.
So just scrap state pension, it won't be long and it will be means tested so if you have saved most of you working life in to a pension you will get a top up at best at worst you will a kick up the ass..
Why would you be bothered about anyone else anyway?
Ouch someone's not happy guess you happy with hi tax and a low income.
I just think more people need to wake up and look after there own finances as best they can your not 10 years behind me so you must be getting there in life.
I'm fine. You are the one who doesn't want to contribute to anyone else.
I'd like high salaries, low tax and well funded public services.
I'll go with a reasonable compromise and am quite capable of making my own additional financial provisions. I am also aware that not everyone is, as much out of lack of opportunity or ability as choice.
Considering work place pensions are law from 5th of April. It will be the same people moving from one benifit to another basically.
I give to charity where I think the money will do good government is like a big hole loosing and wasting so much money it obscene. MP's are the biggest crooks and tax evaders how much did Boris spend on No10 decorating. Is it still a free bar in Westminster.
Work place pensions have been in place for many years. Curious definition of "benefit".
How good of you to give money to charities of your own choice and at your discretion but minimise your contribution to any other part of society. Heart warming
This is where tax money goes
Prices at one of the House of Commons bars appear from the outside world to be stuck in time - especially in relation to London prices and the spiraling cost of living increases. The pub frequented by many MPs was highlighted today by the Jeremy Vine Show, as they wondered if you could get a cheaper pint elsewhere in the capital.
And why are the prices so low? It turns out Strangers' - as well as other catering services in Parliament - is subsidised by the taxpayer. This fact provoked a fierce reaction on social media, especially as prices in pubs throughout the country have gone up by 50 pence a pint in the last month.
Buy them all a pint on the tax man.
Money goes on NHS healthcare, social care, the Police, the fire service, roads, rail, air travel, traffic lights, building inspection, food safety, the armed forces, research and development spending, foreign and diplomatic relations etc. etc. etc.
Pretending that some subsidised drinks in a bar justifies paying as little tax as you can get away with is pretty self-serving.
That is established though. You are who you are.
Those things you mention above are also paid for by Income tax, council tax, NI x 2, VAT, corporation tax, inheritance tax, capital gains tax, stamp duty, customs taxes, petrol taxes, road taxes and excise duties to name a few.....
You also mention social care which they will take your home away to pay for if you haven't got the cash to pay.
I could go on but it will fall on deaf ears."Ah. Well done, I to the s. That's fine, we increase Council tax, VAT and all the other taxes to make up for those not paid in income tax and NI. Did you have a different plan to make up for the shortfall in revenue from avoiding the payment of those taxes? If they eventually take some of the value home to pay for part of your social care, it's because there is no funding mechanism for it now. Surely you should be demanding that we should take full responsibility for social care ourselves, whatever your income has been over your lifetime. If you're poor, tough. I could go on, but you just seem to want to contribute as little to society as possible. That's your right, but don't pretend it's a positive argument. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is bonkers. I love how you see tax cuts as bonkers, it is your kryptonite
Try the whole point rather than trying to be selective:
"You are basically saying that we should all have a bigger state pension which is paid for out of tax that would have been spent on public services.
That is bonkers."
You're shaking the magic money tree.
You want a tax cut with the same public services and an increase in pensions.
So just scrap state pension, it won't be long and it will be means tested so if you have saved most of you working life in to a pension you will get a top up at best at worst you will a kick up the ass..
Why would you be bothered about anyone else anyway?
Ouch someone's not happy guess you happy with hi tax and a low income.
I just think more people need to wake up and look after there own finances as best they can your not 10 years behind me so you must be getting there in life.
I'm fine. You are the one who doesn't want to contribute to anyone else.
I'd like high salaries, low tax and well funded public services.
I'll go with a reasonable compromise and am quite capable of making my own additional financial provisions. I am also aware that not everyone is, as much out of lack of opportunity or ability as choice.
Considering work place pensions are law from 5th of April. It will be the same people moving from one benifit to another basically.
I give to charity where I think the money will do good government is like a big hole loosing and wasting so much money it obscene. MP's are the biggest crooks and tax evaders how much did Boris spend on No10 decorating. Is it still a free bar in Westminster.
Work place pensions have been in place for many years. Curious definition of "benefit".
How good of you to give money to charities of your own choice and at your discretion but minimise your contribution to any other part of society. Heart warming
This is where tax money goes
Prices at one of the House of Commons bars appear from the outside world to be stuck in time - especially in relation to London prices and the spiraling cost of living increases. The pub frequented by many MPs was highlighted today by the Jeremy Vine Show, as they wondered if you could get a cheaper pint elsewhere in the capital.
And why are the prices so low? It turns out Strangers' - as well as other catering services in Parliament - is subsidised by the taxpayer. This fact provoked a fierce reaction on social media, especially as prices in pubs throughout the country have gone up by 50 pence a pint in the last month.
Buy them all a pint on the tax man.
Money goes on NHS healthcare, social care, the Police, the fire service, roads, rail, air travel, traffic lights, building inspection, food safety, the armed forces, research and development spending, foreign and diplomatic relations etc. etc. etc.
Pretending that some subsidised drinks in a bar justifies paying as little tax as you can get away with is pretty self-serving.
That is established though. You are who you are.
Those things you mention above are also paid for by Income tax, council tax, NI x 2, VAT, corporation tax, inheritance tax, capital gains tax, stamp duty, customs taxes, petrol taxes, road taxes and excise duties to name a few.....
You also mention social care which they will take your home away to pay for if you haven't got the cash to pay.
I could go on but it will fall on deaf ears.
Ah. Well done, I to the s.
That's fine, we increase Council tax, VAT and all the other taxes to make up for those not paid in income tax and NI.
Did you have a different plan to make up for the shortfall in revenue from avoiding the payment of those taxes?
If they eventually take some of the value home to pay for part of your social care, it's because there is no funding mechanism for it now.
Surely you should be demanding that we should take full responsibility for social care ourselves, whatever your income has been over your lifetime. If you're poor, tough.
I could go on, but you just seem to want to contribute as little to society as possible.
That's your right, but don't pretend it's a positive argument."I want to feel that I'm not having large amounts of money taken from me for no return, it is that simple. I have said many times my tax £ is not spent wisely or does not provide adequate services. Your answer to this is to pay more taxes because you know no other way. My thinking is alien to you, but not to most people. Can you think of 1 solution to a problem that does not involve increasing taxes? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is bonkers. I love how you see tax cuts as bonkers, it is your kryptonite
Try the whole point rather than trying to be selective:
"You are basically saying that we should all have a bigger state pension which is paid for out of tax that would have been spent on public services.
That is bonkers."
You're shaking the magic money tree.
You want a tax cut with the same public services and an increase in pensions.
So just scrap state pension, it won't be long and it will be means tested so if you have saved most of you working life in to a pension you will get a top up at best at worst you will a kick up the ass..
Why would you be bothered about anyone else anyway?
Ouch someone's not happy guess you happy with hi tax and a low income.
I just think more people need to wake up and look after there own finances as best they can your not 10 years behind me so you must be getting there in life.
I'm fine. You are the one who doesn't want to contribute to anyone else.
I'd like high salaries, low tax and well funded public services.
I'll go with a reasonable compromise and am quite capable of making my own additional financial provisions. I am also aware that not everyone is, as much out of lack of opportunity or ability as choice.
Considering work place pensions are law from 5th of April. It will be the same people moving from one benifit to another basically.
I give to charity where I think the money will do good government is like a big hole loosing and wasting so much money it obscene. MP's are the biggest crooks and tax evaders how much did Boris spend on No10 decorating. Is it still a free bar in Westminster.
Work place pensions have been in place for many years. Curious definition of "benefit".
How good of you to give money to charities of your own choice and at your discretion but minimise your contribution to any other part of society. Heart warming
This is where tax money goes
Prices at one of the House of Commons bars appear from the outside world to be stuck in time - especially in relation to London prices and the spiraling cost of living increases. The pub frequented by many MPs was highlighted today by the Jeremy Vine Show, as they wondered if you could get a cheaper pint elsewhere in the capital.
And why are the prices so low? It turns out Strangers' - as well as other catering services in Parliament - is subsidised by the taxpayer. This fact provoked a fierce reaction on social media, especially as prices in pubs throughout the country have gone up by 50 pence a pint in the last month.
Buy them all a pint on the tax man.
Money goes on NHS healthcare, social care, the Police, the fire service, roads, rail, air travel, traffic lights, building inspection, food safety, the armed forces, research and development spending, foreign and diplomatic relations etc. etc. etc.
Pretending that some subsidised drinks in a bar justifies paying as little tax as you can get away with is pretty self-serving.
That is established though. You are who you are.
Those things you mention above are also paid for by Income tax, council tax, NI x 2, VAT, corporation tax, inheritance tax, capital gains tax, stamp duty, customs taxes, petrol taxes, road taxes and excise duties to name a few.....
You also mention social care which they will take your home away to pay for if you haven't got the cash to pay.
I could go on but it will fall on deaf ears.
Ah. Well done, I to the s.
That's fine, we increase Council tax, VAT and all the other taxes to make up for those not paid in income tax and NI.
Did you have a different plan to make up for the shortfall in revenue from avoiding the payment of those taxes?
If they eventually take some of the value home to pay for part of your social care, it's because there is no funding mechanism for it now.
Surely you should be demanding that we should take full responsibility for social care ourselves, whatever your income has been over your lifetime. If you're poor, tough.
I could go on, but you just seem to want to contribute as little to society as possible.
That's your right, but don't pretend it's a positive argument.
I want to feel that I'm not having large amounts of money taken from me for no return, it is that simple. I have said many times my tax £ is not spent wisely or does not provide adequate services. Your answer to this is to pay more taxes because you know no other way.
My thinking is alien to you, but not to most people. Can you think of 1 solution to a problem that does not involve increasing taxes?"One point to make on reducing income tax at 55 and progressively reducing it to 65. The shortfall as I have mentioned before could be picked up at either the start or a point in time of a persons employment if they sign up to the scheme. There will be a lot more people at the start / mid than at the end, theoretically allowing a smaller increase at the start to cover the shortfall at the end. There would also be wiggle room in the amount of sate pension paid to someone who took full advantage tax reductions who hit a threshold or % of the threshold. And finally, it could be packaged as whatever you pay in % income tax extra at the start will be deducted in % income tax at 55, again more people in at the start than at the end, would it ever pay for itself who knows but it is a way demonstrating alternative thinking to take, take, take! All very progressive in my books | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is bonkers. I love how you see tax cuts as bonkers, it is your kryptonite
Try the whole point rather than trying to be selective:
"You are basically saying that we should all have a bigger state pension which is paid for out of tax that would have been spent on public services.
That is bonkers."
You're shaking the magic money tree.
You want a tax cut with the same public services and an increase in pensions.
So just scrap state pension, it won't be long and it will be means tested so if you have saved most of you working life in to a pension you will get a top up at best at worst you will a kick up the ass..
Why would you be bothered about anyone else anyway?
Ouch someone's not happy guess you happy with hi tax and a low income.
I just think more people need to wake up and look after there own finances as best they can your not 10 years behind me so you must be getting there in life.
I'm fine. You are the one who doesn't want to contribute to anyone else.
I'd like high salaries, low tax and well funded public services.
I'll go with a reasonable compromise and am quite capable of making my own additional financial provisions. I am also aware that not everyone is, as much out of lack of opportunity or ability as choice.
Considering work place pensions are law from 5th of April. It will be the same people moving from one benifit to another basically.
I give to charity where I think the money will do good government is like a big hole loosing and wasting so much money it obscene. MP's are the biggest crooks and tax evaders how much did Boris spend on No10 decorating. Is it still a free bar in Westminster.
Work place pensions have been in place for many years. Curious definition of "benefit".
How good of you to give money to charities of your own choice and at your discretion but minimise your contribution to any other part of society. Heart warming
This is where tax money goes
Prices at one of the House of Commons bars appear from the outside world to be stuck in time - especially in relation to London prices and the spiraling cost of living increases. The pub frequented by many MPs was highlighted today by the Jeremy Vine Show, as they wondered if you could get a cheaper pint elsewhere in the capital.
And why are the prices so low? It turns out Strangers' - as well as other catering services in Parliament - is subsidised by the taxpayer. This fact provoked a fierce reaction on social media, especially as prices in pubs throughout the country have gone up by 50 pence a pint in the last month.
Buy them all a pint on the tax man.
Money goes on NHS healthcare, social care, the Police, the fire service, roads, rail, air travel, traffic lights, building inspection, food safety, the armed forces, research and development spending, foreign and diplomatic relations etc. etc. etc.
Pretending that some subsidised drinks in a bar justifies paying as little tax as you can get away with is pretty self-serving.
That is established though. You are who you are.
Those things you mention above are also paid for by Income tax, council tax, NI x 2, VAT, corporation tax, inheritance tax, capital gains tax, stamp duty, customs taxes, petrol taxes, road taxes and excise duties to name a few.....
You also mention social care which they will take your home away to pay for if you haven't got the cash to pay.
I could go on but it will fall on deaf ears.
Ah. Well done, I to the s.
That's fine, we increase Council tax, VAT and all the other taxes to make up for those not paid in income tax and NI.
Did you have a different plan to make up for the shortfall in revenue from avoiding the payment of those taxes?
If they eventually take some of the value home to pay for part of your social care, it's because there is no funding mechanism for it now.
Surely you should be demanding that we should take full responsibility for social care ourselves, whatever your income has been over your lifetime. If you're poor, tough.
I could go on, but you just seem to want to contribute as little to society as possible.
That's your right, but don't pretend it's a positive argument.
I want to feel that I'm not having large amounts of money taken from me for no return, it is that simple. I have said many times my tax £ is not spent wisely or does not provide adequate services. Your answer to this is to pay more taxes because you know no other way.
My thinking is alien to you, but not to most people. Can you think of 1 solution to a problem that does not involve increasing taxes?"Your "feelings" do not pay for or plan for or manage and organise the NHS or any other public services. Money in a hugely complex system is not spent exactly how you decide it should be spent, therefore you should be able to withhold as much as possible. If it doesn't work 100% perfectly it should be defunded. I have never said pay more tax, have I? You are making that up to create a nice tidy argument and imply "taking" more from you to pay for "waste". Them and us as usual. I have only said that we should all pay what is due and Government should enforce that. There might even be an opportunity to cut taxes if the Exchequer received all that it should. However, if you want the circumstances to stay the same and pay as little as possible but expect public services to improve and pensions to be maintained despite costs rising then pay more tax, accept cuts or come up with a new solution. You aren't really thinking at all. You are just arguing to justify a selfish position. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is bonkers. I love how you see tax cuts as bonkers, it is your kryptonite
Try the whole point rather than trying to be selective:
"You are basically saying that we should all have a bigger state pension which is paid for out of tax that would have been spent on public services.
That is bonkers."
You're shaking the magic money tree.
You want a tax cut with the same public services and an increase in pensions.
So just scrap state pension, it won't be long and it will be means tested so if you have saved most of you working life in to a pension you will get a top up at best at worst you will a kick up the ass..
Why would you be bothered about anyone else anyway?
Ouch someone's not happy guess you happy with hi tax and a low income.
I just think more people need to wake up and look after there own finances as best they can your not 10 years behind me so you must be getting there in life.
I'm fine. You are the one who doesn't want to contribute to anyone else.
I'd like high salaries, low tax and well funded public services.
I'll go with a reasonable compromise and am quite capable of making my own additional financial provisions. I am also aware that not everyone is, as much out of lack of opportunity or ability as choice.
Considering work place pensions are law from 5th of April. It will be the same people moving from one benifit to another basically.
I give to charity where I think the money will do good government is like a big hole loosing and wasting so much money it obscene. MP's are the biggest crooks and tax evaders how much did Boris spend on No10 decorating. Is it still a free bar in Westminster.
Work place pensions have been in place for many years. Curious definition of "benefit".
How good of you to give money to charities of your own choice and at your discretion but minimise your contribution to any other part of society. Heart warming
This is where tax money goes
Prices at one of the House of Commons bars appear from the outside world to be stuck in time - especially in relation to London prices and the spiraling cost of living increases. The pub frequented by many MPs was highlighted today by the Jeremy Vine Show, as they wondered if you could get a cheaper pint elsewhere in the capital.
And why are the prices so low? It turns out Strangers' - as well as other catering services in Parliament - is subsidised by the taxpayer. This fact provoked a fierce reaction on social media, especially as prices in pubs throughout the country have gone up by 50 pence a pint in the last month.
Buy them all a pint on the tax man.
Money goes on NHS healthcare, social care, the Police, the fire service, roads, rail, air travel, traffic lights, building inspection, food safety, the armed forces, research and development spending, foreign and diplomatic relations etc. etc. etc.
Pretending that some subsidised drinks in a bar justifies paying as little tax as you can get away with is pretty self-serving.
That is established though. You are who you are.
Those things you mention above are also paid for by Income tax, council tax, NI x 2, VAT, corporation tax, inheritance tax, capital gains tax, stamp duty, customs taxes, petrol taxes, road taxes and excise duties to name a few.....
You also mention social care which they will take your home away to pay for if you haven't got the cash to pay.
I could go on but it will fall on deaf ears.
Ah. Well done, I to the s.
That's fine, we increase Council tax, VAT and all the other taxes to make up for those not paid in income tax and NI.
Did you have a different plan to make up for the shortfall in revenue from avoiding the payment of those taxes?
If they eventually take some of the value home to pay for part of your social care, it's because there is no funding mechanism for it now.
Surely you should be demanding that we should take full responsibility for social care ourselves, whatever your income has been over your lifetime. If you're poor, tough.
I could go on, but you just seem to want to contribute as little to society as possible.
That's your right, but don't pretend it's a positive argument.
I want to feel that I'm not having large amounts of money taken from me for no return, it is that simple. I have said many times my tax £ is not spent wisely or does not provide adequate services. Your answer to this is to pay more taxes because you know no other way.
My thinking is alien to you, but not to most people. Can you think of 1 solution to a problem that does not involve increasing taxes?
Your "feelings" do not pay for or plan for or manage and organise the NHS or any other public services.
Money in a hugely complex system is not spent exactly how you decide it should be spent, therefore you should be able to withhold as much as possible. If it doesn't work 100% perfectly it should be defunded.
I have never said pay more tax, have I? You are making that up to create a nice tidy argument and imply "taking" more from you to pay for "waste". Them and us as usual.
I have only said that we should all pay what is due and Government should enforce that. There might even be an opportunity to cut taxes if the Exchequer received all that it should.
However, if you want the circumstances to stay the same and pay as little as possible but expect public services to improve and pensions to be maintained despite costs rising then pay more tax, accept cuts or come up with a new solution.
You aren't really thinking at all. You are just arguing to justify a selfish position."Oh dear.... You actually do continue to speak of paying more taxes, take inheritance tax as a prime example. A view of the family home should not be part of that tax was strongly repelled by yourself. When asked about leaving to your children or my children you were not budging, in fact you went on to say they did not deserve it because they had contributed nothing. Take the 60% and be happy you have had money for nothing would sum it up. Warren Buffet who you have thrown around a few times seems to resinate with you when he said he won the lottery by being born in the US, white and male. This resonates with you, it is all a lottery, and nobody should benefit above another. In my opinion we would still be rubbing sticks together for warmth if we followed your feelings... I pay my tax, taxes and more taxes and I see very little evidence that it is providing what it should be providing. Those are my observations, you think selfish I think justified. I will say that your statement of having the ability or capacity to pay a bit more is something I would like to pursue further, but that would give you a platform that I will never be able to verify, shame really. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is bonkers. I love how you see tax cuts as bonkers, it is your kryptonite
Try the whole point rather than trying to be selective:
"You are basically saying that we should all have a bigger state pension which is paid for out of tax that would have been spent on public services.
That is bonkers."
You're shaking the magic money tree.
You want a tax cut with the same public services and an increase in pensions.
So just scrap state pension, it won't be long and it will be means tested so if you have saved most of you working life in to a pension you will get a top up at best at worst you will a kick up the ass..
Why would you be bothered about anyone else anyway?
Ouch someone's not happy guess you happy with hi tax and a low income.
I just think more people need to wake up and look after there own finances as best they can your not 10 years behind me so you must be getting there in life.
I'm fine. You are the one who doesn't want to contribute to anyone else.
I'd like high salaries, low tax and well funded public services.
I'll go with a reasonable compromise and am quite capable of making my own additional financial provisions. I am also aware that not everyone is, as much out of lack of opportunity or ability as choice.
Considering work place pensions are law from 5th of April. It will be the same people moving from one benifit to another basically.
I give to charity where I think the money will do good government is like a big hole loosing and wasting so much money it obscene. MP's are the biggest crooks and tax evaders how much did Boris spend on No10 decorating. Is it still a free bar in Westminster.
Work place pensions have been in place for many years. Curious definition of "benefit".
How good of you to give money to charities of your own choice and at your discretion but minimise your contribution to any other part of society. Heart warming
This is where tax money goes
Prices at one of the House of Commons bars appear from the outside world to be stuck in time - especially in relation to London prices and the spiraling cost of living increases. The pub frequented by many MPs was highlighted today by the Jeremy Vine Show, as they wondered if you could get a cheaper pint elsewhere in the capital.
And why are the prices so low? It turns out Strangers' - as well as other catering services in Parliament - is subsidised by the taxpayer. This fact provoked a fierce reaction on social media, especially as prices in pubs throughout the country have gone up by 50 pence a pint in the last month.
Buy them all a pint on the tax man.
Money goes on NHS healthcare, social care, the Police, the fire service, roads, rail, air travel, traffic lights, building inspection, food safety, the armed forces, research and development spending, foreign and diplomatic relations etc. etc. etc.
Pretending that some subsidised drinks in a bar justifies paying as little tax as you can get away with is pretty self-serving.
That is established though. You are who you are.
Those things you mention above are also paid for by Income tax, council tax, NI x 2, VAT, corporation tax, inheritance tax, capital gains tax, stamp duty, customs taxes, petrol taxes, road taxes and excise duties to name a few.....
You also mention social care which they will take your home away to pay for if you haven't got the cash to pay.
I could go on but it will fall on deaf ears.
Ah. Well done, I to the s.
That's fine, we increase Council tax, VAT and all the other taxes to make up for those not paid in income tax and NI.
Did you have a different plan to make up for the shortfall in revenue from avoiding the payment of those taxes?
If they eventually take some of the value home to pay for part of your social care, it's because there is no funding mechanism for it now.
Surely you should be demanding that we should take full responsibility for social care ourselves, whatever your income has been over your lifetime. If you're poor, tough.
I could go on, but you just seem to want to contribute as little to society as possible.
That's your right, but don't pretend it's a positive argument.
I want to feel that I'm not having large amounts of money taken from me for no return, it is that simple. I have said many times my tax £ is not spent wisely or does not provide adequate services. Your answer to this is to pay more taxes because you know no other way.
My thinking is alien to you, but not to most people. Can you think of 1 solution to a problem that does not involve increasing taxes?
Your "feelings" do not pay for or plan for or manage and organise the NHS or any other public services.
Money in a hugely complex system is not spent exactly how you decide it should be spent, therefore you should be able to withhold as much as possible. If it doesn't work 100% perfectly it should be defunded.
I have never said pay more tax, have I? You are making that up to create a nice tidy argument and imply "taking" more from you to pay for "waste". Them and us as usual.
I have only said that we should all pay what is due and Government should enforce that. There might even be an opportunity to cut taxes if the Exchequer received all that it should.
However, if you want the circumstances to stay the same and pay as little as possible but expect public services to improve and pensions to be maintained despite costs rising then pay more tax, accept cuts or come up with a new solution.
You aren't really thinking at all. You are just arguing to justify a selfish position.
Oh dear....
You actually do continue to speak of paying more taxes, take inheritance tax as a prime example.
A view of the family home should not be part of that tax was strongly repelled by yourself. When asked about leaving to your children or my children you were not budging, in fact you went on to say they did not deserve it because they had contributed nothing. Take the 60% and be happy you have had money for nothing would sum it up.
Warren Buffet who you have thrown around a few times seems to resinate with you when he said he won the lottery by being born in the US, white and male. This resonates with you, it is all a lottery, and nobody should benefit above another.
In my opinion we would still be rubbing sticks together for warmth if we followed your feelings...
I pay my tax, taxes and more taxes and I see very little evidence that it is providing what it should be providing. Those are my observations, you think selfish I think justified.
I will say that your statement of having the ability or capacity to pay a bit more is something I would like to pursue further, but that would give you a platform that I will never be able to verify, shame really."Again, I didn't say that anyone should pay more inheritance tax. I said that £325k is quite a lot for any individual to receive for free having done nothing to earn it. £500k if you give your home to your children. I also said that receiving this much or significantly more with 60% of larger inheritance creates an enduring generational wealth gap to the "have-nots". With identical jobs and who work just as hard but foolish enough not to be born to parents who could give them hundreds of thousands of pounds for doing nothing. Why should you not be happy if that happens? You'd be delighted if you won it in a lottery. It's no different. You receive an inheritance out of pure luck without even spending any money to buy a ticket. That is literally what happens. Please do explain it another way if you can. I'm not even saying they shouldn't receive a life changing amount of money, but for you to think that it is somehow unfair to not be allowed to hand over even more to someone for doing absolutely nothing is utterly baffling to me. Why should someone receive a fortune with no effort on their part? Why should anyone have such entitlement? That's how we ended up with a hereditary aristocracy and monarchy and that is what is happening again. People who literally have all of the money. More that they can ever spend on multiple lifetimes being passed on to those who have not earned it on anyway other than being related to them. It took a deliberate effort for society to redistribute wealth and provide opportunities with talent and the ability to move society on at the immense pace that it has in recent years rather than the inbred complacency and maintenance of the status-quo of unearned affluence. That process has to be continuous. Why should Jeeves serve Wooster? The belief of so many that what they have achieved in life was solely due to them with no acknowledgement of the pure blind luck at every point in life that got them to where they are is what the foolish simpleton billionaire Warren Buffet is trying to communicate. Some other poor bugger, every bit as clever and hard working as you is in a gutter somewhere else. Do they deserve their misery just as you deserve your rewards? If you live in comfort and free from want why would you not wish to surrender some small luxury so that someone else can experience a material benefit? When you are at the bottom of a pile, tiny differences mean everything. You not feeling that you get what you expect from your taxes is a self-indulgence. You will never even experience the majority of what it is spent on, let alone benefit from it. That is the entire point. Most people are, thankfully in many ways, completely ignorant of what taxes are used for. The infinite minutiae which are needed to keep a country running and can literally mean the difference between safety and fear or life and death to people. '"I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there.” “Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.” “If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”' Of course something so huge and complex as the state does not function smoothly. It's no surprise that it's always going wrong, but the more people (like you it would seem) withdraw their support to help themselves, the worse things get. Pay your taxes, spend your money, take some pleasure in helping others and allowing someone the opportunity to do great things or just survive and give your children hundreds of thousands of pounds. Selfishness, and that is exactly what you are extolling, always creates mistrust and resentment. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"That is bonkers. I love how you see tax cuts as bonkers, it is your kryptonite
Try the whole point rather than trying to be selective:
"You are basically saying that we should all have a bigger state pension which is paid for out of tax that would have been spent on public services.
That is bonkers."
You're shaking the magic money tree.
You want a tax cut with the same public services and an increase in pensions.
So just scrap state pension, it won't be long and it will be means tested so if you have saved most of you working life in to a pension you will get a top up at best at worst you will a kick up the ass..
Why would you be bothered about anyone else anyway?
Ouch someone's not happy guess you happy with hi tax and a low income.
I just think more people need to wake up and look after there own finances as best they can your not 10 years behind me so you must be getting there in life.
I'm fine. You are the one who doesn't want to contribute to anyone else.
I'd like high salaries, low tax and well funded public services.
I'll go with a reasonable compromise and am quite capable of making my own additional financial provisions. I am also aware that not everyone is, as much out of lack of opportunity or ability as choice.
Considering work place pensions are law from 5th of April. It will be the same people moving from one benifit to another basically.
I give to charity where I think the money will do good government is like a big hole loosing and wasting so much money it obscene. MP's are the biggest crooks and tax evaders how much did Boris spend on No10 decorating. Is it still a free bar in Westminster.
Work place pensions have been in place for many years. Curious definition of "benefit".
How good of you to give money to charities of your own choice and at your discretion but minimise your contribution to any other part of society. Heart warming
This is where tax money goes
Prices at one of the House of Commons bars appear from the outside world to be stuck in time - especially in relation to London prices and the spiraling cost of living increases. The pub frequented by many MPs was highlighted today by the Jeremy Vine Show, as they wondered if you could get a cheaper pint elsewhere in the capital.
And why are the prices so low? It turns out Strangers' - as well as other catering services in Parliament - is subsidised by the taxpayer. This fact provoked a fierce reaction on social media, especially as prices in pubs throughout the country have gone up by 50 pence a pint in the last month.
Buy them all a pint on the tax man.
Money goes on NHS healthcare, social care, the Police, the fire service, roads, rail, air travel, traffic lights, building inspection, food safety, the armed forces, research and development spending, foreign and diplomatic relations etc. etc. etc.
Pretending that some subsidised drinks in a bar justifies paying as little tax as you can get away with is pretty self-serving.
That is established though. You are who you are.
Those things you mention above are also paid for by Income tax, council tax, NI x 2, VAT, corporation tax, inheritance tax, capital gains tax, stamp duty, customs taxes, petrol taxes, road taxes and excise duties to name a few.....
You also mention social care which they will take your home away to pay for if you haven't got the cash to pay.
I could go on but it will fall on deaf ears.
Ah. Well done, I to the s.
That's fine, we increase Council tax, VAT and all the other taxes to make up for those not paid in income tax and NI.
Did you have a different plan to make up for the shortfall in revenue from avoiding the payment of those taxes?
If they eventually take some of the value home to pay for part of your social care, it's because there is no funding mechanism for it now.
Surely you should be demanding that we should take full responsibility for social care ourselves, whatever your income has been over your lifetime. If you're poor, tough.
I could go on, but you just seem to want to contribute as little to society as possible.
That's your right, but don't pretend it's a positive argument.
I want to feel that I'm not having large amounts of money taken from me for no return, it is that simple. I have said many times my tax £ is not spent wisely or does not provide adequate services. Your answer to this is to pay more taxes because you know no other way.
My thinking is alien to you, but not to most people. Can you think of 1 solution to a problem that does not involve increasing taxes?
Your "feelings" do not pay for or plan for or manage and organise the NHS or any other public services.
Money in a hugely complex system is not spent exactly how you decide it should be spent, therefore you should be able to withhold as much as possible. If it doesn't work 100% perfectly it should be defunded.
I have never said pay more tax, have I? You are making that up to create a nice tidy argument and imply "taking" more from you to pay for "waste". Them and us as usual.
I have only said that we should all pay what is due and Government should enforce that. There might even be an opportunity to cut taxes if the Exchequer received all that it should.
However, if you want the circumstances to stay the same and pay as little as possible but expect public services to improve and pensions to be maintained despite costs rising then pay more tax, accept cuts or come up with a new solution.
You aren't really thinking at all. You are just arguing to justify a selfish position.
Oh dear....
You actually do continue to speak of paying more taxes, take inheritance tax as a prime example.
A view of the family home should not be part of that tax was strongly repelled by yourself. When asked about leaving to your children or my children you were not budging, in fact you went on to say they did not deserve it because they had contributed nothing. Take the 60% and be happy you have had money for nothing would sum it up.
Warren Buffet who you have thrown around a few times seems to resinate with you when he said he won the lottery by being born in the US, white and male. This resonates with you, it is all a lottery, and nobody should benefit above another.
In my opinion we would still be rubbing sticks together for warmth if we followed your feelings...
I pay my tax, taxes and more taxes and I see very little evidence that it is providing what it should be providing. Those are my observations, you think selfish I think justified.
I will say that your statement of having the ability or capacity to pay a bit more is something I would like to pursue further, but that would give you a platform that I will never be able to verify, shame really.
Again, I didn't say that anyone should pay more inheritance tax.
I said that £325k is quite a lot for any individual to receive for free having done nothing to earn it. £500k if you give your home to your children.
I also said that receiving this much or significantly more with 60% of larger inheritance creates an enduring generational wealth gap to the "have-nots". With identical jobs and who work just as hard but foolish enough not to be born to parents who could give them hundreds of thousands of pounds for doing nothing. Why should you not be happy if that happens? You'd be delighted if you won it in a lottery. It's no different. You receive an inheritance out of pure luck without even spending any money to buy a ticket.
That is literally what happens. Please do explain it another way if you can.
I'm not even saying they shouldn't receive a life changing amount of money, but for you to think that it is somehow unfair to not be allowed to hand over even more to someone for doing absolutely nothing is utterly baffling to me.
Why should someone receive a fortune with no effort on their part? Why should anyone have such entitlement?
That's how we ended up with a hereditary aristocracy and monarchy and that is what is happening again. People who literally have all of the money. More that they can ever spend on multiple lifetimes being passed on to those who have not earned it on anyway other than being related to them.
It took a deliberate effort for society to redistribute wealth and provide opportunities with talent and the ability to move society on at the immense pace that it has in recent years rather than the inbred complacency and maintenance of the status-quo of unearned affluence. That process has to be continuous.
Why should Jeeves serve Wooster?
The belief of so many that what they have achieved in life was solely due to them with no acknowledgement of the pure blind luck at every point in life that got them to where they are is what the foolish simpleton billionaire Warren Buffet is trying to communicate. Some other poor bugger, every bit as clever and hard working as you is in a gutter somewhere else. Do they deserve their misery just as you deserve your rewards?
If you live in comfort and free from want why would you not wish to surrender some small luxury so that someone else can experience a material benefit? When you are at the bottom of a pile, tiny differences mean everything.
You not feeling that you get what you expect from your taxes is a self-indulgence. You will never even experience the majority of what it is spent on, let alone benefit from it. That is the entire point. Most people are, thankfully in many ways, completely ignorant of what taxes are used for. The infinite minutiae which are needed to keep a country running and can literally mean the difference between safety and fear or life and death to people.
'"I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there.”
“Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.”
“If they would rather die,” said Scrooge, “they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”'
Of course something so huge and complex as the state does not function smoothly. It's no surprise that it's always going wrong, but the more people (like you it would seem) withdraw their support to help themselves, the worse things get.
Pay your taxes, spend your money, take some pleasure in helping others and allowing someone the opportunity to do great things or just survive and give your children hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Selfishness, and that is exactly what you are extolling, always creates mistrust and resentment."That is well thought out response. It could have been made significantly shorter by saying that your utopian views want everyone to have equal shares in everything, where as I want my family to prosper. Tough call but my family comes first | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
