Which my friend is why I hate most politicians and civil servants. I'd shrink the house of commons by half - 300 MPs is more than enough. Get rid of half the civil servants, at least. I want as few of them as possible, trying to fuck me over as little as possible.Let’s face it pal once you’ve retired they just want you to die so you aren’t a burden and your house comes up for sale, mad how they’ve wanted people to do the right thing and save for retirement and then fuck you over when you do. Remember when Brown told everyone to buy diesel as it was better then they pumped the price of that up, wouldn’t piss on them if they were all on fire.
Why would it discourage marriage? What I’m suggesting is that a couple effectively share their tax allowances, a bit like IHT.That would discourage people from getting married, which would also be madness.
I was on the receiving end of the injustice you cite though.
Prior to my retirement, I was fortunate to earn over £125k per year most years (and my wife did not work), which meant that we got no personal allowance whatsoever, and paid circa 85% of my pay at 40% tax rate. Vs my neighbours who worked for the NHS, earning about 60k each. That meant they both got a £12.5k personal allowance, and paid nearly all of their income tax at 20%.
Although our households earned the same, the difference in our net income was stark. £93k take home for them vs my £78k. I know I should not complain about such a figure, but our houses are the same - we live on a housing estate - and there is 2 of them and 2 of us. Yet we were vastly worse off.
To put it another way, on these figures, they were around £60 per day better off than us, just because of the tax system. Galling, to say the least. And they got a much better pension and more holidays.
More likely that’s why the rail line is paused so the scum can get their way.Would this mean there would be no money for the scum to move the swamp now, if so I applaud them.
And herein lies the problem. People assume they have "paid in" and that then is their right to a decent pension. We have seen that other countries that have a signifiacantly higher pension also have a significantly higher tax burden. If you want low taxes, the provision for a decent pension lies with the individual. The state pension is at it's best ever in real terms so it should come as no surprise that it is pretty poor in comparison to other countries.It is true however that the UK pension is shite compared to most comparable countries, which is why it is so fucking galling as I approach retirement and my pitiful state pension, that after paying a fucking fortune in tax for donkey's years, the bastards are thinking of making the state pension even worse by binning the triple lock.
This cuts to the core of why the country is up in arms at the moment. People - middle and high earners especially - have paying a shit load of tax for fucking years and getting fuck all back for it.
My conspiracy theorist friend is up in arms about this for some reason.Government issued Digital ID cards to be introduced.
It’s a pointless exercise that, far from doing anything useful, will lead to people being arrested for ‘not carrying it’. It’ll be sold as a way to ‘stop illegal migration’ but will, of course, do no such thing.My conspiracy theorist friend is up in arms about this for some reason.
Sorry I misunderstood. When you said "Best tax reform they could do is to treat couples as a single tax entity. A couple, both earning £51k get over £900 more, per month, than one of them earning £102k, which is madness." the implication is that such couples they should pay £900 more in tax than they do now. Which would discourage them from marrying, rather staying single to get twice the personal allowance and lower tax rates.Why would it discourage marriage? What I’m suggesting is that a couple effectively share their tax allowances, a bit like IHT.
So, for a married couple, the tax free amount would be, in approximate numbers, £25k and the 20% rate would apply to £100k. If anything, it’s the benefits system discourages marriage and, in a perverse way, actually encourages living apart.
For benefits purposes, you and your partner count almost as a single entity but, for tax purposes, you’re deemed as individuals.
We all agree that the state pension is poor but its poor because of how its funded. In some countries in Europe the money you pay in does go into a pot and is invested by the government, in ours it doesn't its just a pyramid scheme.It is true however that the UK pension is shite compared to most comparable countries, which is why it is so fucking galling as I approach retirement and my pitiful state pension, that after paying a fucking fortune in tax for donkey's years, the bastards are thinking of making the state pension even worse by binning the triple lock.
This cuts to the core of why the country is up in arms at the moment. People - middle and high earners especially - have paying a shit load of tax for fucking years and getting fuck all back for it.
As long as I don't have to do anything. That's my view on it.My conspiracy theorist friend is up in arms about this for some reason.
I agree with your logic and conclusions (that a load of people would complain about it). But it seems inherently fairer to me that the more you put in, the more you get out. And inherently unfair that people who have hardly contributed at all should get as much as someone who has paid in hundreds of thousands. Paraphrasing Gordon Gekko, inequality is good. What incentive is there to go the extra mile in life if there is no reward for it, or worse, you are penalised for it.We all agree that the state pension is poor but its poor because of how its funded. In some countries in Europe the money you pay in does go into a pot and is invested by the government, in ours it doesn't its just a pyramid scheme.
Comparing what you get in the UK and what you get somewhere else just doesn't work. Im sure there would be loads of complaints if we did as in Sweden where you pay much more in tax than in the UK and where those with high salaries get more than those on low salaries as a state pension with no real means testing.
For someone like me I would be quids in if we did that, but it would result in much more inequality in old age which isn't good.
Most of us start in deficit for what we've personally put in to the UK. Free education, free health care, free use of playgrounds...I don't want to extend it anywhere. If you have contributed you are allowed to claim it and use it . End of
Lots of immigrants in LuxembourgI was speaking to some people from Sweden and I asked what is the average pension there. The reply was depends what you have contributed . I said what is the average . I was astounded when they said about 4,000 Euros a month.
Can that be true? The best pension . Luxmenburg 6500Euro a month
A) Someone paid you 125k a year?, you?That would discourage people from getting married, which would also be madness.
I was on the receiving end of the injustice you cite though.
Prior to my retirement, I was fortunate to earn over £125k per year most years (and my wife did not work), which meant that we got no personal allowance whatsoever, and paid circa 85% of my pay at 40% tax rate. Vs my neighbours who worked for the NHS, earning about 60k each. That meant they both got a £12.5k personal allowance, and paid nearly all of their income tax at 20%.
Although our households earned the same, the difference in our net income was stark. £93k take home for them vs my £78k. I know I should not complain about such a figure, but our houses are the same - we live on a housing estate - and there is 2 of them and 2 of us. Yet we were vastly worse off.
To put it another way, on these figures, they were around £60 per day better off than us, just because of the tax system. Galling, to say the least. And they got a much better pension and more holidays.
So he earned that much and is moaning about the state pension? He's had ample opportunity to fund a decent private pension and get 40% tax relief in the process-double the couple he's comparing himself to.A) Someone paid you 125k a year?, you?
B) Poor thing, you must know how a kid from Chad feels, pmsl.
C) Wife did fuck all what were you expecting
So glad of that. I wouldn't have paid to see up Susan McAlisters skirt on that swing.Most of us start in deficit for what we've personally put in to the UK. Free education, free health care, free use of playgrounds...
Ah bless.A) Someone paid you 125k a year?, you?
B) Poor thing, you must know how a kid from Chad feels, pmsl.
C) Wife did fuck all what were you expecting
No shit:-)That did not go well for me
The reward is the higher wages during your whole working life and any private pension you daft twat:-)I agree with your logic and conclusions (that a load of people would complain about it). But it seems inherently fairer to me that the more you put in, the more you get out. And inherently unfair that people who have hardly contributed at all should get as much as someone who has paid in hundreds of thousands. Paraphrasing Gordon Gekko, inequality is good. What incentive is there to go the extra mile in life if there is no reward for it, or worse, you are penalised for it.
I am sure that view is not popular on here (understatement - I await the abuse!), but it is the Labour Government thread after all.
Is he saying his wife did not work and so should get nothing?The reward is the higher wages during your whole working life and any private pension you daft twat:-)