Member Since: 6th Dec 2013
14th Sep 2021
Er, I think you'll find that it was Gordon Brown who sold the family silver to pay for his ineptness.
Selling council houses allowed people to take more control of their own lives, give them more responsibility and the result was an economic boom until the stupidity of Major and co allowed a property crash with a resulting recession, when lots of people lost their business and houses. Things have not been the same since. It was because of this I voted for Tony Blair.
I was pretty sure that Government owned companies were sold off in the 1980s but perhaps my memory fails me.
Thatcher robbed the poor to pay the rich.
Thatcher is the worst Prime Minister this country has ever had. We are still paying the price for her abject failure today, and will for many more years. The biggest problem is that the effects of many of her policies are largely irreversible.
It may well be a piece in the Scotsman (and linking to there is the only thing worse than linking to the guardian, surely) but this article, for me, summarises her perfectly :
14th Sep 2021
I probably know more about how this issue affects women as I am a member of a Waspi group. I also employ staff who are in this category.
You seem determined not to understand how much a women's earnings and employment status have been, and still can be, affected by having children and/or other caring responsibilities. And yes, I know that more men are starting to do this too, but they are still very much the exception. Therefore I am disengaging with you on this matter.
Interesting that, again, i point out the gaping holes in your position, and again you accuse me of 'refusing to understand' (actually that might be an upgrade - you may have suggested i was incapable of understanding before) the situation. I understand it perfectly well thanks although I do appreciate that it is easier to witter about me not accepting/understanding than it is to come up with any actual counter-argument. Unfortunately for your cause, however, the simple fact of the matter is that they had ages to plan for this and didn't 'have to' retire anyway.
So fundamentally that want to overturn a longstanding policy because it doesn't suit them and they want someone else (me, and other taxpayers) to fund their early retirement/preserve the advantage they have by virtue of their gender. And they have the gall to claim it's in the name of 'equality'!
The comment about caring responsibilities is completely irrelevant to the point at hand. WASPI's spurious claim is about State Pension entitlement and not only will they have got an NI credit for the year they were caring for children, if they have had an extended period out of work then the extra years' employment will give them the opportunity to top up their qualifying years. But no they'd rather pack it in now and let us pay those years for them.
I'm glad your giving me the last word - better that than get another "but, but but it's not fair because it's just not and if you dont agree then you dont understand" reply, which youve done to death already.
14th Sep 2021
If your old/closed account was transferred to a new account via one of these switchign services then the money probably wont have gone back to your employer but will have (eventually) ended up in the account it switched to. If that account is still open then check it for the money.
That said, you do state that your bank has confirmed the return of the money to the employer so (unless you've fallen victim to a muppet on the till) back to the employer you go
9th Sep 2021
Gosh. You really don’t have a clue, or care about facts do you?
1) if their ‘other’ pension provision isn’t enough to allow them to retire at 60 because their official retirement age has gone up:
1a) don’t retire early
1b) or use the seventeen years notice period to adjust plans/increase provision.
2) you can’t say it’s my misunderstanding because their other pensions won’t plug the gap - then say most of them don’t have other pensions. It’s ludicrous.
3) if they were unemployed or in low paid jobs and seventeen years notice wasn’t enough, then 20 or even 25 years wouldn’t have been enough either.
4) the survey is available online. You could find it, or you could find your own survey. Instead you make up stats claiming a majority blissfully unaware, tiny minority aware etc - based on what? You making stuff up to support your case by the looks of it.
5) I don’t believe HMRC admit anything of the sort. If they did, show me a link. Not an opposition MP grandstanding. Not a campaign group, not even a different government department. I’d like to see HMRC admitting that
5a) even if they did (which I doubt) that doesn’t negate points 1-4, or the fact that most women knew about this.
5b) there was actually a suggestion that the formal communication by direct/individual letter was a bit late - but since most of them already knew that’s not particularly relevant in terms of their claims
As previously stated, the whole WASPI argument is reverse engineered from ‘I don’t like this’ to ‘how can I justify this as unfair’.
8th Sep 2021
Under Ireallyshould's proposal though (assuming i read it right) mega-rich Tories wouldn't be affected. I read it that he was suggesting IHT on all inheritance over £100k, with a 'starting rate' of 10% for the masses. So the average estate(which i understand to be about £140k in the UK) might pay £4k in IHT.
It would bring IHT into play for a lot of people who don't currently have to worry about such stuff, so kind of a tax on the poor, but as it would have a low rate and a modest ceiling it would probably be defendable. Let's face it, 40% tax on capital is obscenely high but so is being able to pass down £1m tax free. My worry about a sensible rate at lower estate values would be that it would soon creep up, to say 20% or so.
8th Sep 2021
Oh do me a favour. They had a minimum of 15 years to start planning for it........
No, they didn't.
It was just under 10 years.
And the raising of the age to 66 was announced at a lot less notice than that.
To be honest, I was flabbergasted when that was brought in so quickly. It should've been tagged onto the end of the existing arrangement for raising the pension age for women from 60 to 65.
Absolute Rubbish. Ken Clarke announced in his budget on 30 November 1993 that the State Pension Age for women would be increased to 65 - phased in over ten years starting 2010. The Pensions Act received Royal Assent on 19 July 1995 and the first people affected are those due to retire in June/July 2010.
I will let you recalculate how many years there were between the announcement and the first persons affected but i think you will find that it is not only more than ten, but (as i said) more than fifteen too. Even longer for those due to retire later and therefore those more affected.
To be honest, even if they had received the notice youd thought they had, they STILL had penty of time to realise that they wouldnt be retiring when they thought they would. I find it hard to believe that this was a shock to anybody.
The WASPI idiots' main gripe appears to be that the didn't get a (handwritten, personally delivered) letter back then - only receiving postal notification a year or so before.
The whole campaign stinks of "i don't like this so here's a load of reasons I've thought of as to why it is unfair" rather than genuine injustice. And let's not forget they don't actually HAVE to retire if they are facing a funding gap.
One final point - in 2006/07 a survey found that 'less educated' women were more likely to be affected - at that time 92% of women with 'high levels of education' knew about it vs 80% of women with 'low levels of education'. If it was such a closely guarded secret then how comes over 80% (and possibly as high as 90% - i don't have the overall figures) of women knew about it?
The raising of the age to 66 was a much less radical change and didn't need anything like the same level of notice. I know my (current) state pension age prediction but how many times over the last ten years have people referred to 'if it stays at that age' or even 'if there is still a state pension by then'?
8th Sep 2021
Michael Davies wrote:
Basically the new contribution will be kicking in for some 4 1/2 years;before claims start to be made.Even by then a raft of potential claimants will be dead within those three years.
perhaps (i wont comment on, or even consider the accuracy of that suggestion) but (because) i suspect there will be very few people, if any, that will pay into the new scheme and need care before the cap comes in.
So, although the funds are supposed to be 'ring fenced' (ha) and therefore you might expect some alignment on dates, as long as the surplus is c/fwd it is very unlikely that anyone who misses out on the cap will have paid into the pot anyway*
* Unless of course you consider the consequential losses by the children of the elderly who may end up funding the costs charged to their parent(s), either directly or via reduced inheritance
7th Sep 2021
Well if we are talking about £75 of shares for an employee earning £20k per annum then you are in the right place because it really doesn’t matter and the tax implications will be insignificant.
On the other hand, if we are talking about £25k of shares to someone who habitually earns north of £100k then the tax implications are more interesting, and it would be worth giving someone a copy of the paperwork and paying them to advise you properly (plus of course, it also means you can probably afford to do that).
As you have subsequently been advised, any answer without the fact is likely to be a best guess.
7th Sep 2021
I would say this, but I’ve never suffered from premature squirting. I did, however, once suffer from prolonged squirting - at the hands of a pump attendant no less.
I’d hired a bike abroad and the hire company advised me there was just enough fuel in it to get me to the petroleum station up the road, where I should fill it up. With no idea of the size of the tank or the price of fuel amd being caught by surprise at there being attended service I asked the attendant to put $10 of fuel in the tank, which he duly did - not letting the fact that from $7 onwards it was pouring all over the floor deter him from making a sale!
7th Sep 2021
I agree - and to an extent, applying the new social care levy (or some other form of NI) to pension income would appear sensible.
It is an outdated concept that people should stop paying NI when they get to pension age though. If they’re still working then they should be taxed just like any other worker. In fact given all the claims of ‘age discrimination’ for much less valid reasons im surprised nobody has complained