Jump to content

Interesting trouble ahead


ditchman
 Share

Recommended Posts

Quote

Do you have anything to evidence the claim? 

It isn't as if HMRC would own up to this, but it is a fact. This was just a couple of examples, whereas the reality was far worse. It might be better than you remain in ignorance. It is depressing and it hasn't got any better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 94
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hello, It has been a very cold and wet here, Many houses flooded off the River Ock, 2nd time this year,  Despite being only 20c stuff the Labour Party !!! heatings on, Just come on a Labour Political Broadcast , Wheres my £300, Oh the  MPs  have it for their heating allowance 

Edited by oldypigeonpopper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, armsid said:

Could oowee with all his knowledge of Gov. tell us what is the minimum a person needs to live on

I think it’s £90.50/w

Thats what jobseekers allowance is.

So on top of that you would receive help with rent/council tax.

Pensioners is whatever the pension credit limit is plus help with rent/council tax

it all changes again if you are in receipt of a sickness benefit.

Single people claiming sickness benefit who live on their own and nobody claiming carers allowance for them can claim severe disability premium on top of that.

In order for couples to claim sdp they must both be in receipt of a sickness benefit.

But that changes again because if under pension age they could both claim carers premium 

Bet you’re glad you asked.. 🤣

Why hasn’t anyone asked the top tier of Govt why they took heating off pensioners but kept it for themselves 🤷🏻‍♂️

:shaun:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, shaun4860 said:

Why hasn’t anyone asked the top tier of Govt why they took heating off pensioners but kept it for themselves 🤷🏻‍♂️

Why hasn't anyone asked Starmer, was he lying to parliament when he said the Cons means testing the WFP would kill at least 4000, if not, why is he bringing in a policy that will kill at least 4000. Is his policy not genocide 🤷‍♂️

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a further twist, pre the election the Labour party (Starmer, Reeves, Rayner and front bench team) said many, many times that the various things on which they were to spend money - the NHS, investment in green policies, solving the 'boat people' crisis, and numerous other spending promises would be paid for by 'closing loopholes and taxing non doms' therefore getting the funds from "the broadest shoulders" - or in more direct speak, the rich.

Today on a BBC radio report, it seems (in what is presumably yet another leak) - that the non dom status changes will actually yield a net tax receipot gain of ............. wait for it ........ NOTHING.

It seems that after hearing for months that Labour were going to change the non dom rules, the "evil rich" have cunningly moved their money to places the changes proposed cannot reach. 

People get very rich because they are clever - notably clever in managing and accumulating money.     If you spend months broadcasting that you are 'coming for them', don't expect then to sit around like stuffed turkeys.

Also reported here;  https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/sep/25/labour-crackdown-on-non-doms-may-raise-no-money-officials-fear

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, oowee said:

Clearly they are not. So how do you know this? Do you have anything to evidence the claim? 

Not quite sure I follow but.. if the pension is set a set at a very minimum payment it will encourage others to either work longer and or save for retirement. This very minimal level of payment could be the basis of all benefits. 

I'm not sure I follow either, what I was trying to express was possibly my misinterpretation about saving for the future?

Forgetting the pure economics, the general mindset appears to be why bother because If you save it's plundered or at least denied help so creating  a perceived disadvantage?

This seems to be the scenario as now, save and prosper being a joke? Your own savings seem to support yourself least of all?

Personally I think your opinion that low pensions etc encourage people to work longer and harder is not how I see it. Pursuit of your thinking may well create more division?

Anyway got to go now to create more adventures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, old man said:

I'm not sure I follow either, what I was trying to express was possibly my misinterpretation about saving for the future?

Forgetting the pure economics, the general mindset appears to be why bother because If you save it's plundered or at least denied help so creating  a perceived disadvantage?

This seems to be the scenario as now, save and prosper being a joke? Your own savings seem to support yourself least of all?

Personally I think your opinion that low pensions etc encourage people to work longer and harder is not how I see it. Pursuit of your thinking may well create more division?

Anyway got to go now to create more adventures.

You have to remember that oowee lives in a different world to most of us 🤷🏻‍♂️

:shaun:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, Yellow Bear said:

Looks like their taxing of non doms has fallen apart now that they have realised that they will just leave.

So back to the magic money tree it is then (i.e.Joe Bloggs tax payer and pensioner)

Auntie Rachel has apparently found the "MONEY TREE"

She has got her team to look at changing the debt rules and to use debt against new borrowing.

ALL VERY creative, I wait with baited breath for the outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, shaun4860 said:

You have to remember that oowee lives in a different world to most of us 🤷🏻‍♂️

Mm, still trying to puzzle out the theory of encouraging people to save then penaliseing them for doing so by giving everything free to everyone who hasn't given a rodents rear?

A lie down methinks, oh no. I need to work more?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 25/09/2024 at 17:25, oowee said:

And where will the money come from?  Why should tax payers fork out for increasing benefits? Many on here feel the UK is a soft touch on benefits. Increasing them is not going to improve the situation. 

I'd certainly say that OUR pensioners should be getting looked after before we send any money abroad or we pay out yet more tax payers money on housing clothing and feeding yet more daily arriving illegal immigrants.

On 25/09/2024 at 18:35, oowee said:

Not quite sure I follow but.. if the pension is set a set at a very minimum payment it will encourage others to either work longer and or save for retirement. This very minimal level of payment could be the basis of all benefits. 

Why would we want people who are old enough to retire to keep working? And I don't mean those in cushy jobs with massive pensions,  I mean those earning low income left with no choice but to keep working. 

What those on great money with secure pensions like civil servants seem to forget is that Doris and Bob get by, but that probably doesn't mean they've got money they can put aside. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mice! said:

I'd certainly say that OUR pensioners should be getting looked after before we send any money abroad or we pay out yet more tax payers money on housing clothing and feeding yet more daily arriving illegal immigrants.

Why would we want people who are old enough to retire to keep working? And I don't mean those in cushy jobs with massive pensions,  I mean those earning low income left with no choice but to keep working. 

What those on great money with secure pensions like civil servants seem to forget is that Doris and Bob get by, but that probably doesn't mean they've got money they can put aside. 

Why. I think you answered your own question.  Because they are on low incomes and they are left with no choice. 

We have a choice. Pay great high levels of benefits and it's a disincentive to work or save. Pay a bare minimum and it encourages productive hard work and saving for the future. You get out relative to what you put in. 

What we don't want is what @old man alludes to is saving hard and being robbed by govt (ala Gordon Brown). It's compounded of course by an increasingly aged population and a reducing working population. One can be solved with immigration the other with reduced healthcare. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, oowee said:

We have a choice. Pay great high levels of benefits and it's a disincentive to work or save. Pay a bare minimum and it encourages productive hard work and saving for the future. You get out relative to what you put in. 

I don't see it, once you reach retirement age having worked all your life that should be it, state pension isn't likely to let you live like a king, but you should be comfortable and warm, taking a small amount off a lot of pensioners who have paid their taxes is criminal.

11 minutes ago, oowee said:

What we don't want is what @old man alludes to is saving hard and being robbed by govt (ala Gordon Brown). It's compounded of course by an increasingly aged population and a reducing working population. One can be solved with immigration the other with reduced healthcare. 

Of course we don't,  I worked with a chap well into his late 60s, he was only there because his pension had effectively been robbed, so you could argue that he was taking someone else's job when he should have been enjoying his retirement.

Can't see how anything is solved by immigration,  bringing in more low paid workers isn't going to help anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Mice! said:

I don't see it, once you reach retirement age having worked all your life that should be it, state pension isn't likely to let you live like a king, but you should be comfortable and warm, taking a small amount off a lot of pensioners who have paid their taxes is criminal.

 

Can't see how anything is solved by immigration,  bringing in more low paid workers isn't going to help anyone.

It's simply a question of balance. 

How do you propose we pay for the increasingly retired population? Currently the pension benefits bill is £125bn up £6bn from last year. It's not going to come from overseas aid £9bn or asylum seeker costs £4bn. We need more productivity (working smarter harder and longer), more people and less pensioners. 

It would be great for all pensioners to live well in retirement but why should they at the expense of the working man? Why have a flat rate pension when it could be related to earnings? The more benefits the less productive the workforce. 

You have already voted for 100's of thousands of migrant workers and 100's of thousands of dependants as a result of Brexit. These are largely skilled workers. They make a huge economic impact. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, oowee said:

It's simply a question of balance. 

How do you propose we pay for the increasingly retired population? Currently the pension benefits bill is £125bn up £6bn from last year. It's not going to come from overseas aid £9bn or asylum seeker costs £4bn. We need more productivity (working smarter harder and longer), more people and less pensioners. 

It would be great for all pensioners to live well in retirement but why should they at the expense of the working man? Why have a flat rate pension when it could be related to earnings? The more benefits the less productive the workforce. 

You have already voted for 100's of thousands of migrant workers and 100's of thousands of dependants as a result of Brexit. These are largely skilled workers. They make a huge economic impact. 

Maybe we could make a common sense start?

Stop funding/bunging cash at countries where 99.9% of the money never reaches the target? Stop the freebies to rubber boat people, cash and free health care then huge accommodation costs? Make it impossible for free health care tourism?

An almost endless list of easy targets? 

For years successive politicians have become lazy, vacuous, greedy and uncaring towards the electorate? The country has become a playground for their fantasies?

Just let's have some common sense and action towards helping the people prosper?

We have become a third rate little place that the world laughs at, giving everything away?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Having backtracked (as above in this thread) on taxing 'non doms' as it is unlikely to actually raise any money net, it seems that another flagship policy to raise funds from the "rich" is to be 'postponed/delayed' pending further review.  This is the addition of vat to private school fees;

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2024/oct/05/doubts-grow-over-labours-vat-plan-for-private-schools

These ' tax the rich' money grab schemes were always impractical to implement and were based on jealousy and bile, not sound economic policy.  Typical Labour economics in fact.

Sound economics is about making real money, not simply taking it from one person and giving it to another ......... and to have any incentive to make real money, the people able and capable to doing it need to keep some of the rewards and be able to educate their children as they wish, not as the 'state' dictates - or they will just go and make their money elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...