Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being widely reported that the main driver of the BoE stepping in today was because a number of Pension Companies were on the brink of folding - TODAY. Meanwhile were is Truss? Where is Kwarteng? Irrespective of whether they have only been in office for just a few weeks, surely this level of incompetence means they should step down? Party politics aside, we need a calm and steadying hand at the moment - things seem to be going from bad to worse with each passing day. Pension funds collapsing would have been worse than the Northern Rock - because it was reportedly more than just one and the amounts held in the funds are going to be massively greater than what Northern Rock had." Well Andrew Bailey has form on the failed pensions front 
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Truss & Kwarteng have started out really fucking well, haven't they?" Tbh I thought she would be shit bit even Iam surprised at just how thick she is | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Truss & Kwarteng have started out really fucking well, haven't they? Tbh I thought she would be shit bit even Iam surprised at just how thick she is " Not just thick. Arrogant too. That's the real kicker. That arrogance lets them just play with the lives of millions without giving a damn about the damage done. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Gonna get some popcorn cos surely Mr Hay should be along soon with some comedy gold to defend Truss and Kamikwasi" He is currently creating yet another new profile,  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Gonna get some popcorn cos surely Mr Hay should be along soon with some comedy gold to defend Truss and Kamikwasi He is currently creating yet another new profile, "You lot are slow... Its Buck | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Gonna get some popcorn cos surely Mr Hay should be along soon with some comedy gold to defend Truss and Kamikwasi He is currently creating yet another new profile,
You lot are slow... Its Buck"You could be right, you never see them on the same thread  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Frankly if that is correct then it doesn't say a great deal for the regulatory environment that pension funds are operating in, that they can't cope with some fairly insignificant market movements." is it insignificant? It is the speed of the rises, said Dan Mikulskis, investment partner at LCP, an actuarial consultant advising pension schemes. You have had multiple record moves in yields on successive days, you have had a year’s worth of yield rises in just a few days. The size of [collateral] buffers has been based on historical moves in gilt yields. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Truss & Kwarteng have started out really fucking well, haven't they? Tbh I thought she would be shit bit even Iam surprised at just how thick she is " What the BOE financial committee have done is put a 2 week sticky plaster on it till the monetary committee meet to decide on what to do with interest rates… My fear is that you have the Conservative Party conference next week and kwasi is going to say something that will make the situation worse! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Gonna get some popcorn cos surely Mr Hay should be along soon with some comedy gold to defend Truss and Kamikwasi He is currently creating yet another new profile,
You lot are slow... Its Buck
You could be right, you never see them on the same thread "No it isn’t. Syntax is miles apart. We will recognise Pat’s new profile within a couple of posts as soon as he arrives. Disguise is not his strong point lol | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Gonna get some popcorn cos surely Mr Hay should be along soon with some comedy gold to defend Truss and Kamikwasi He is currently creating yet another new profile,
You lot are slow... Its Buck
You could be right, you never see them on the same thread "apart from the one where he got muddled up about which one of his multiple profiles he was using to post on a thread .... and then tried to delete but loads of forumites had already quoted him  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Gonna get some popcorn cos surely Mr Hay should be along soon with some comedy gold to defend Truss and Kamikwasi He is currently creating yet another new profile,
You lot are slow... Its Buck
You could be right, you never see them on the same thread
No it isn’t. Syntax is miles apart. We will recognise Pat’s new profile within a couple of posts as soon as he arrives. Disguise is not his strong point lol"Oh don’t be too sure….Mr Hay had become very repetitive over the last couple of months so maybe he has morphed into Buck, or perhaps he has been told he needs to have a lie down | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being widely reported that the main driver of the BoE stepping in today was because a number of Pension Companies were on the brink of folding - TODAY. Meanwhile were is Truss? Where is Kwarteng? Irrespective of whether they have only been in office for just a few weeks, surely this level of incompetence means they should step down? Party politics aside, we need a calm and steadying hand at the moment - things seem to be going from bad to worse with each passing day. Pension funds collapsing would have been worse than the Northern Rock - because it was reportedly more than just one and the amounts held in the funds are going to be massively greater than what Northern Rock had." . It seems very odd that a number of pensions fund would be on the brink of collapse. On the contrary , the recent fall backs may present a buying opportunity for liquid funds . With all the solvency controls in place a fund will hardly go from being liquid to being in financial difficulty in the space of a week. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being widely reported that the main driver of the BoE stepping in today was because a number of Pension Companies were on the brink of folding - TODAY. Meanwhile were is Truss? Where is Kwarteng? Irrespective of whether they have only been in office for just a few weeks, surely this level of incompetence means they should step down? Party politics aside, we need a calm and steadying hand at the moment - things seem to be going from bad to worse with each passing day. Pension funds collapsing would have been worse than the Northern Rock - because it was reportedly more than just one and the amounts held in the funds are going to be massively greater than what Northern Rock had.. It seems very odd that a number of pensions fund would be on the brink of collapse. On the contrary , the recent fall backs may present a buying opportunity for liquid funds . With all the solvency controls in place a fund will hardly go from being liquid to being in financial difficulty in the space of a week. " cash is king. And many had hedges to protect against reducing inflation. But that means posting collateral when interest rates go up... And the crazy gilt yields have meant they have burned through cash... So are selling assets (often gilts) which have bumped up yields (as supply demand, causing falling pieces = increasing yields). Cue a feedback loop. BOE is propping up prices to break the cycle. So yes, they were on trouble. And while this created opportunities for those not in the feedback loop... Most have been encouraged to hold gilts. Pension funds have been propping up national debt. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being widely reported that the main driver of the BoE stepping in today was because a number of Pension Companies were on the brink of folding - TODAY. Meanwhile were is Truss? Where is Kwarteng? Irrespective of whether they have only been in office for just a few weeks, surely this level of incompetence means they should step down? Party politics aside, we need a calm and steadying hand at the moment - things seem to be going from bad to worse with each passing day. Pension funds collapsing would have been worse than the Northern Rock - because it was reportedly more than just one and the amounts held in the funds are going to be massively greater than what Northern Rock had.. It seems very odd that a number of pensions fund would be on the brink of collapse. On the contrary , the recent fall backs may present a buying opportunity for liquid funds . With all the solvency controls in place a fund will hardly go from being liquid to being in financial difficulty in the space of a week. " Do you know more about finance and the economy than the BOE and the IMF? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being widely reported that the main driver of the BoE stepping in today was because a number of Pension Companies were on the brink of folding - TODAY. Meanwhile were is Truss? Where is Kwarteng? Irrespective of whether they have only been in office for just a few weeks, surely this level of incompetence means they should step down? Party politics aside, we need a calm and steadying hand at the moment - things seem to be going from bad to worse with each passing day. Pension funds collapsing would have been worse than the Northern Rock - because it was reportedly more than just one and the amounts held in the funds are going to be massively greater than what Northern Rock had.. It seems very odd that a number of pensions fund would be on the brink of collapse. On the contrary , the recent fall backs may present a buying opportunity for liquid funds . With all the solvency controls in place a fund will hardly go from being liquid to being in financial difficulty in the space of a week. Do you know more about finance and the economy than the BOE and the IMF? " Give him a chance, he needs to read tomorrow’s Faily Heil and Excess to crib some material from. It’s hard keeping up good satire! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being widely reported that the main driver of the BoE stepping in today was because a number of Pension Companies were on the brink of folding - TODAY. Meanwhile were is Truss? Where is Kwarteng? Irrespective of whether they have only been in office for just a few weeks, surely this level of incompetence means they should step down? Party politics aside, we need a calm and steadying hand at the moment - things seem to be going from bad to worse with each passing day. Pension funds collapsing would have been worse than the Northern Rock - because it was reportedly more than just one and the amounts held in the funds are going to be massively greater than what Northern Rock had.. It seems very odd that a number of pensions fund would be on the brink of collapse. On the contrary , the recent fall backs may present a buying opportunity for liquid funds . With all the solvency controls in place a fund will hardly go from being liquid to being in financial difficulty in the space of a week. Do you know more about finance and the economy than the BOE and the IMF? " This is the Bank of England whose job it is to keep inflation below 2%. And inflation is what? But sure, they know what they are doing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"With all the solvency controls in place a fund will hardly go from being liquid to being in financial difficulty in the space of a week. " Solvency and liquidity are two different things. An organisation is unlikely to go from solvent to insolvent in the space of a week. But if it has a sudden need to spend more cash than it has available, it can go from liquid to illiquid overnight. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being widely reported that the main driver of the BoE stepping in today was because a number of Pension Companies were on the brink of folding - TODAY. Meanwhile were is Truss? Where is Kwarteng? Irrespective of whether they have only been in office for just a few weeks, surely this level of incompetence means they should step down? Party politics aside, we need a calm and steadying hand at the moment - things seem to be going from bad to worse with each passing day. Pension funds collapsing would have been worse than the Northern Rock - because it was reportedly more than just one and the amounts held in the funds are going to be massively greater than what Northern Rock had.. It seems very odd that a number of pensions fund would be on the brink of collapse. On the contrary , the recent fall backs may present a buying opportunity for liquid funds . With all the solvency controls in place a fund will hardly go from being liquid to being in financial difficulty in the space of a week. Do you know more about finance and the economy than the BOE and the IMF? " Maybe he's Truss and Kwartengs mystery advisor, one up from the tea leaves that last Friday's feck up was based upon.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The BoE made an emergency intervention, saying it will step in and stave off a crash by buying long-dated bonds. It was looking very bad particularly for Pension funds. They're some of biggest holders of long-dated govt bonds and had seen the value of those plunge in recent days. Kwarteng and Truss have created a situation verging on a financial crisis, requiring the central bank to step in to make amends for their joke of an economic plan. The lunatics have taken over the asylum. " Very deep grey Friday..? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The BoE made an emergency intervention, saying it will step in and stave off a crash by buying long-dated bonds. It was looking very bad particularly for Pension funds. They're some of biggest holders of long-dated govt bonds and had seen the value of those plunge in recent days. Kwarteng and Truss have created a situation verging on a financial crisis, requiring the central bank to step in to make amends for their joke of an economic plan. The lunatics have taken over the asylum. " The Bank of England should have raised interest rates much more quickly, and they need to continue raising them until inflation comes down, which of course the Bank of England got completely wrong. Labour says it will keep the lower rate income tax cut, and otherwise reinstate the 45% tax rate (which raises nothing). Labour has already spent the purported reinstatement on more nurses, breakfast clubs, as well presumably as whatever the money was being spent on already. It doesn't strike me that that is much of a difference. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The BoE made an emergency intervention, saying it will step in and stave off a crash by buying long-dated bonds. It was looking very bad particularly for Pension funds. They're some of biggest holders of long-dated govt bonds and had seen the value of those plunge in recent days. Kwarteng and Truss have created a situation verging on a financial crisis, requiring the central bank to step in to make amends for their joke of an economic plan. The lunatics have taken over the asylum. The Bank of England should have raised interest rates much more quickly, and they need to continue raising them until inflation comes down, which of course the Bank of England got completely wrong. Labour says it will keep the lower rate income tax cut, and otherwise reinstate the 45% tax rate (which raises nothing). Labour has already spent the purported reinstatement on more nurses, breakfast clubs, as well presumably as whatever the money was being spent on already. It doesn't strike me that that is much of a difference. " Your point on the 45% tax band being reinstated (if it ever actually gets removed) not raising anything totally misses the point. Cutting the tax costs Treasury so can only be funded/offset with Govt borrowing. Far better to stand still then make things worse! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The BoE made an emergency intervention, saying it will step in and stave off a crash by buying long-dated bonds. It was looking very bad particularly for Pension funds. They're some of biggest holders of long-dated govt bonds and had seen the value of those plunge in recent days. Kwarteng and Truss have created a situation verging on a financial crisis, requiring the central bank to step in to make amends for their joke of an economic plan. The lunatics have taken over the asylum. The Bank of England should have raised interest rates much more quickly, and they need to continue raising them until inflation comes down, which of course the Bank of England got completely wrong. Labour says it will keep the lower rate income tax cut, and otherwise reinstate the 45% tax rate (which raises nothing). Labour has already spent the purported reinstatement on more nurses, breakfast clubs, as well presumably as whatever the money was being spent on already. It doesn't strike me that that is much of a difference. " raising interest rates will add even more cashflow issues on pensions as they have increasing margin calls. While watching their asset price plummet | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The BoE made an emergency intervention, saying it will step in and stave off a crash by buying long-dated bonds. It was looking very bad particularly for Pension funds. They're some of biggest holders of long-dated govt bonds and had seen the value of those plunge in recent days. Kwarteng and Truss have created a situation verging on a financial crisis, requiring the central bank to step in to make amends for their joke of an economic plan. The lunatics have taken over the asylum. The Bank of England should have raised interest rates much more quickly, and they need to continue raising them until inflation comes down, which of course the Bank of England got completely wrong. Labour says it will keep the lower rate income tax cut, and otherwise reinstate the 45% tax rate (which raises nothing). Labour has already spent the purported reinstatement on more nurses, breakfast clubs, as well presumably as whatever the money was being spent on already. It doesn't strike me that that is much of a difference. Your point on the 45% tax band being reinstated (if it ever actually gets removed) not raising anything totally misses the point. Cutting the tax costs Treasury so can only be funded/offset with Govt borrowing. Far better to stand still then make things worse!" And how is standing still helping things? You are happy with the bumbling along stagnation of the past thirty years? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The BoE made an emergency intervention, saying it will step in and stave off a crash by buying long-dated bonds. It was looking very bad particularly for Pension funds. They're some of biggest holders of long-dated govt bonds and had seen the value of those plunge in recent days. Kwarteng and Truss have created a situation verging on a financial crisis, requiring the central bank to step in to make amends for their joke of an economic plan. The lunatics have taken over the asylum. The Bank of England should have raised interest rates much more quickly, and they need to continue raising them until inflation comes down, which of course the Bank of England got completely wrong. Labour says it will keep the lower rate income tax cut, and otherwise reinstate the 45% tax rate (which raises nothing). Labour has already spent the purported reinstatement on more nurses, breakfast clubs, as well presumably as whatever the money was being spent on already. It doesn't strike me that that is much of a difference. raising interest rates will add even more cashflow issues on pensions as they have increasing margin calls. While watching their asset price plummet" Interest rate rises are inevitable. Even the bumblers at the Bank of England must have realised that by now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" This is the Bank of England whose job it is to keep inflation below 2%. And inflation is what? But sure, they know what they are doing." Because whilst covid was happening, both they and the government both prioritised keeping job’s over inflation! Does help keeping inflation down if the government are making inflationary moves by giving the richest tax cuts! The government are pushing the accelerator whilst the BOE are now having to push the brakes! The only thing I can say is that thank goodness the BOE is independent! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The only thing I can say is that thank goodness the BOE is independent! " yeah .... but for how long? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The BoE made an emergency intervention, saying it will step in and stave off a crash by buying long-dated bonds. It was looking very bad particularly for Pension funds. They're some of biggest holders of long-dated govt bonds and had seen the value of those plunge in recent days. Kwarteng and Truss have created a situation verging on a financial crisis, requiring the central bank to step in to make amends for their joke of an economic plan. The lunatics have taken over the asylum. The Bank of England should have raised interest rates much more quickly, and they need to continue raising them until inflation comes down, which of course the Bank of England got completely wrong. Labour says it will keep the lower rate income tax cut, and otherwise reinstate the 45% tax rate (which raises nothing). Labour has already spent the purported reinstatement on more nurses, breakfast clubs, as well presumably as whatever the money was being spent on already. It doesn't strike me that that is much of a difference. Your point on the 45% tax band being reinstated (if it ever actually gets removed) not raising anything totally misses the point. Cutting the tax costs Treasury so can only be funded/offset with Govt borrowing. Far better to stand still then make things worse! And how is standing still helping things? You are happy with the bumbling along stagnation of the past thirty years?" Standing still won’t help but it better than the Truss and Kamikwasi approach which makes things even worse! Advocating increased Govt borrowing at a time when borrowing is getting more expensive is nuts. The markets agree. And the IMF. It’s politics so they won’t say it yet, but Labour will/should increase taxes at the higher end, uplift corporation tax slightly, windfall tax energy extractors, change tax law to require companies to pay tax in the country they generate revenue from/in to remove IP/royalty charging snd offshoring. They’ll soon be the right amount of tax revenue to right the ship again. They should simplify the tax code, introduce more tax bands/thresholds with smaller increments to lessen the cliff edge effect. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The BoE made an emergency intervention, saying it will step in and stave off a crash by buying long-dated bonds. It was looking very bad particularly for Pension funds. They're some of biggest holders of long-dated govt bonds and had seen the value of those plunge in recent days. Kwarteng and Truss have created a situation verging on a financial crisis, requiring the central bank to step in to make amends for their joke of an economic plan. The lunatics have taken over the asylum. The Bank of England should have raised interest rates much more quickly, and they need to continue raising them until inflation comes down, which of course the Bank of England got completely wrong. Labour says it will keep the lower rate income tax cut, and otherwise reinstate the 45% tax rate (which raises nothing). Labour has already spent the purported reinstatement on more nurses, breakfast clubs, as well presumably as whatever the money was being spent on already. It doesn't strike me that that is much of a difference. raising interest rates will add even more cashflow issues on pensions as they have increasing margin calls. While watching their asset price plummet Interest rate rises are inevitable. Even the bumblers at the Bank of England must have realised that by now." For every 1% the interest rate goes up that is 600 pound per year on every 100k of a mortgage someone has…. So if someone had a 200k mortgage (average uk house price at the moment is 292k… but let’s tsk out London and the south east) last year, they are already paying 3600 more than they were last year!…. And if interest rates do go up from 3 to 6%… than is an extra 3600 per year I don’t know about you… do you have 7200 per year extra down the sofa?? 600 per month extra is going to cripple people! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They should simplify the tax code, introduce more tax bands/thresholds with smaller increments to lessen the cliff edge effect." Why should people pay a higher rate of tax if they earn more? By default they are paying more tax even if the rate doesn't change. The current system is grossly unfair to families where one partner earns most or all of the money. For example, two graduates with a few years experience earning £30k each get two tax free allowances and pay basic rate tax on the rest. They also get child benefit and £1000 savings interest tax free each. If one partner earns £60k and the other nothing then a small amount of the tax allowance can be transferred but they pay basic rate tax on £10k more than the first couple then also pay 40% tax on another £10k while losing the child benefit and having their interest allowance halved. They are much worse off, but are classed by some as "rich". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They should simplify the tax code, introduce more tax bands/thresholds with smaller increments to lessen the cliff edge effect. Why should people pay a higher rate of tax if they earn more? By default they are paying more tax even if the rate doesn't change. The current system is grossly unfair to families where one partner earns most or all of the money. For example, two graduates with a few years experience earning £30k each get two tax free allowances and pay basic rate tax on the rest. They also get child benefit and £1000 savings interest tax free each. If one partner earns £60k and the other nothing then a small amount of the tax allowance can be transferred but they pay basic rate tax on £10k more than the first couple then also pay 40% tax on another £10k while losing the child benefit and having their interest allowance halved. They are much worse off, but are classed by some as "rich"." the partner needs to work for a living instead of sponging off everyone else in that case. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They should simplify the tax code, introduce more tax bands/thresholds with smaller increments to lessen the cliff edge effect. Why should people pay a higher rate of tax if they earn more? By default they are paying more tax even if the rate doesn't change. The current system is grossly unfair to families where one partner earns most or all of the money. For example, two graduates with a few years experience earning £30k each get two tax free allowances and pay basic rate tax on the rest. They also get child benefit and £1000 savings interest tax free each. If one partner earns £60k and the other nothing then a small amount of the tax allowance can be transferred but they pay basic rate tax on £10k more than the first couple then also pay 40% tax on another £10k while losing the child benefit and having their interest allowance halved. They are much worse off, but are classed by some as "rich". the partner needs to work for a living instead of sponging off everyone else in that case. "There could be all sorts of reasons one partner doesn't work, ranging from laziness to looking after children or relatives. Your comment only applies to the first one. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They should simplify the tax code, introduce more tax bands/thresholds with smaller increments to lessen the cliff edge effect. Why should people pay a higher rate of tax if they earn more? By default they are paying more tax even if the rate doesn't change. The current system is grossly unfair to families where one partner earns most or all of the money. For example, two graduates with a few years experience earning £30k each get two tax free allowances and pay basic rate tax on the rest. They also get child benefit and £1000 savings interest tax free each. If one partner earns £60k and the other nothing then a small amount of the tax allowance can be transferred but they pay basic rate tax on £10k more than the first couple then also pay 40% tax on another £10k while losing the child benefit and having their interest allowance halved. They are much worse off, but are classed by some as "rich". the partner needs to work for a living instead of sponging off everyone else in that case. "I presume you pay 40% tax then | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They should simplify the tax code, introduce more tax bands/thresholds with smaller increments to lessen the cliff edge effect. Why should people pay a higher rate of tax if they earn more? By default they are paying more tax even if the rate doesn't change. The current system is grossly unfair to families where one partner earns most or all of the money. For example, two graduates with a few years experience earning £30k each get two tax free allowances and pay basic rate tax on the rest. They also get child benefit and £1000 savings interest tax free each. If one partner earns £60k and the other nothing then a small amount of the tax allowance can be transferred but they pay basic rate tax on £10k more than the first couple then also pay 40% tax on another £10k while losing the child benefit and having their interest allowance halved. They are much worse off, but are classed by some as "rich". the partner needs to work for a living instead of sponging off everyone else in that case.
I presume you pay 40% tax then "i pay more than that thanks | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They should simplify the tax code, introduce more tax bands/thresholds with smaller increments to lessen the cliff edge effect. Why should people pay a higher rate of tax if they earn more? By default they are paying more tax even if the rate doesn't change. The current system is grossly unfair to families where one partner earns most or all of the money. For example, two graduates with a few years experience earning £30k each get two tax free allowances and pay basic rate tax on the rest. They also get child benefit and £1000 savings interest tax free each. If one partner earns £60k and the other nothing then a small amount of the tax allowance can be transferred but they pay basic rate tax on £10k more than the first couple then also pay 40% tax on another £10k while losing the child benefit and having their interest allowance halved. They are much worse off, but are classed by some as "rich"." You’ve conflated different issues. I totally agree that things like the Child Benefit clawback being based on one person earning over a threshold is stupid and unfair. Without a shadow of a doubt, a couple where both people are earning £50k are better off (together) then a household where one person earns £100k and the other doesn’t work. As I said above, we should simplify the tax code in the UK. The cost of administering is eye-watering. Simplify it and admin costs dramatically reduce. We have a nonsense where people pay HMRC tax and can then get some it back as credits! The cost benefit analysis must be nuts! With Child Benefit either give to all or none! I day do away with it and increase the tax free allowance instead. We should remove stealth taxes and clawbacks such as the nonsense of taking back the tax free allowance once you earn between £100-123k. This complexity isn’t helpful to anyone. To your point on “Why should people pay a higher rate of tax if they earn more?“ because progressive tax is fairer and it is right that those with more share a larger burden. I say this as a 45% tax payer. Of course I would like to keep more of my money but I also think that if we have a healthier, better educated, happier and more equitable society, then we will also be richer through higher productivity with reduced levels of crime and a generally better country. While I am fortunate (today, could lose it tomorrow) to be able to afford private medical insurance or fund private school for kids etc etc, my wealth depends on the wellbeing, happiness and productivity of others. I want to live in a safe and happy society. I don’t want high levels of anti-social behaviour (leading to life of crime) due to kids having nothing to do, nowhere to go or occupy them. I want good youth programmes, sports facilities, education, health etc because long term all those things help to create a better society. All those things cost money. So we need to pay tax and as you get richer the proportion of your income that has to be used on essentials for life becomes ever smaller. It isn’t simply morally the right thing to do of course. Purely selfishly, I wouldn’t be worried about the house being burgled or the car getting scratched or the kids getting in with wrong’uns or people being less angry and generally aggressive. Is there a cut off point tax wise? Absolutely. IMHO you should retain the larger portion of your money you earn so 45% is ok but 50% is not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They should simplify the tax code, introduce more tax bands/thresholds with smaller increments to lessen the cliff edge effect. Why should people pay a higher rate of tax if they earn more? By default they are paying more tax even if the rate doesn't change. The current system is grossly unfair to families where one partner earns most or all of the money. For example, two graduates with a few years experience earning £30k each get two tax free allowances and pay basic rate tax on the rest. They also get child benefit and £1000 savings interest tax free each. If one partner earns £60k and the other nothing then a small amount of the tax allowance can be transferred but they pay basic rate tax on £10k more than the first couple then also pay 40% tax on another £10k while losing the child benefit and having their interest allowance halved. They are much worse off, but are classed by some as "rich"." It's an imperfect system. But I think it's better than squeezing as much as possible out of poor people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We should remove stealth taxes and clawbacks such as the nonsense of taking back the tax free allowance once you earn between £100-123k. This complexity isn’t helpful to anyone. To your point on “Why should people pay a higher rate of tax if they earn more?“ because progressive tax is fairer and it is right that those with more share a larger burden. Is there a cut off point tax wise? Absolutely. IMHO you should retain the larger portion of your money you earn so 45% is ok but 50% is not." Whilst we fully agree with reducing complexity, it is still fundamentally unfair to increase tax rates based on the amount earnt. We would increase the nil rate band to protect the very poorest but above that everyone should pay one flat rate encompassing tax and NI. Somewhere around 33% may be necessary. The nil rate band should be fully transferrable between married couples to make the system fairer and encourage stable family units which have as much chance of influencing youth outcomes as your suggestions. This would result in a much smaller requirement for monitoring, therefore staff at HMRC. Immediate savings there. Then reducing the criminal waste across state departments and projects would pay for much of the rest. Cancel Victorian era vanity projects such as HS2, sort out white elephant IT, get rid of / rent out the central London offices and move the small number of staff still required to cheaper areas or ensure they can work productively from home. The books would balance quite quickly. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We should remove stealth taxes and clawbacks such as the nonsense of taking back the tax free allowance once you earn between £100-123k. This complexity isn’t helpful to anyone. To your point on “Why should people pay a higher rate of tax if they earn more?“ because progressive tax is fairer and it is right that those with more share a larger burden. Is there a cut off point tax wise? Absolutely. IMHO you should retain the larger portion of your money you earn so 45% is ok but 50% is not. Whilst we fully agree with reducing complexity, it is still fundamentally unfair to increase tax rates based on the amount earnt. We would increase the nil rate band to protect the very poorest but above that everyone should pay one flat rate encompassing tax and NI. Somewhere around 33% may be necessary. The nil rate band should be fully transferrable between married couples to make the system fairer and encourage stable family units which have as much chance of influencing youth outcomes as your suggestions. This would result in a much smaller requirement for monitoring, therefore staff at HMRC. Immediate savings there. Then reducing the criminal waste across state departments and projects would pay for much of the rest. Cancel Victorian era vanity projects such as HS2, sort out white elephant IT, get rid of / rent out the central London offices and move the small number of staff still required to cheaper areas or ensure they can work productively from home. The books would balance quite quickly." or the economically inactive partner poncing off their high earning partner and the state and everybody else, could get a job and start contributing | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
".or the economically inactive partner poncing off their high earning partner and the state and everybody else, could get a job and start contributing" The whole point of the post was that no state or other help is available, in fact this arrangement is heavily penalised. Why should everyone be forced to work? Not having a parent at home to look after the children is detrimental to family life and society as a whole. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We should remove stealth taxes and clawbacks such as the nonsense of taking back the tax free allowance once you earn between £100-123k. This complexity isn’t helpful to anyone. To your point on “Why should people pay a higher rate of tax if they earn more?“ because progressive tax is fairer and it is right that those with more share a larger burden. Is there a cut off point tax wise? Absolutely. IMHO you should retain the larger portion of your money you earn so 45% is ok but 50% is not. Whilst we fully agree with reducing complexity, it is still fundamentally unfair to increase tax rates based on the amount earnt. We would increase the nil rate band to protect the very poorest but above that everyone should pay one flat rate encompassing tax and NI. Somewhere around 33% may be necessary. The nil rate band should be fully transferrable between married couples to make the system fairer and encourage stable family units which have as much chance of influencing youth outcomes as your suggestions. This would result in a much smaller requirement for monitoring, therefore staff at HMRC. Immediate savings there. Then reducing the criminal waste across state departments and projects would pay for much of the rest. Cancel Victorian era vanity projects such as HS2, sort out white elephant IT, get rid of / rent out the central London offices and move the small number of staff still required to cheaper areas or ensure they can work productively from home. The books would balance quite quickly." Well as far as simplifying the system goes, having a single band does achieve that I suppose. Progressive systems have their merits too though but as has been shown when it comes to cuts it will benefit the higher paid people more regardless of what income they have | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We should remove stealth taxes and clawbacks such as the nonsense of taking back the tax free allowance once you earn between £100-123k. This complexity isn’t helpful to anyone. To your point on “Why should people pay a higher rate of tax if they earn more?“ because progressive tax is fairer and it is right that those with more share a larger burden. Is there a cut off point tax wise? Absolutely. IMHO you should retain the larger portion of your money you earn so 45% is ok but 50% is not. Whilst we fully agree with reducing complexity, it is still fundamentally unfair to increase tax rates based on the amount earnt. We would increase the nil rate band to protect the very poorest but above that everyone should pay one flat rate encompassing tax and NI. Somewhere around 33% may be necessary. The nil rate band should be fully transferrable between married couples to make the system fairer and encourage stable family units which have as much chance of influencing youth outcomes as your suggestions. This would result in a much smaller requirement for monitoring, therefore staff at HMRC. Immediate savings there. Then reducing the criminal waste across state departments and projects would pay for much of the rest. Cancel Victorian era vanity projects such as HS2, sort out white elephant IT, get rid of / rent out the central London offices and move the small number of staff still required to cheaper areas or ensure they can work productively from home. The books would balance quite quickly." Interesting. Agree with much you propose but the flat rate for everyone means that unless you set the tax free allowance at the current 40% threshold, all those people will be paying MORE tax! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We should remove stealth taxes and clawbacks such as the nonsense of taking back the tax free allowance once you earn between £100-123k. This complexity isn’t helpful to anyone. To your point on “Why should people pay a higher rate of tax if they earn more?“ because progressive tax is fairer and it is right that those with more share a larger burden. Is there a cut off point tax wise? Absolutely. IMHO you should retain the larger portion of your money you earn so 45% is ok but 50% is not. Whilst we fully agree with reducing complexity, it is still fundamentally unfair to increase tax rates based on the amount earnt. We would increase the nil rate band to protect the very poorest but above that everyone should pay one flat rate encompassing tax and NI. Somewhere around 33% may be necessary. The nil rate band should be fully transferrable between married couples to make the system fairer and encourage stable family units which have as much chance of influencing youth outcomes as your suggestions. This would result in a much smaller requirement for monitoring, therefore staff at HMRC. Immediate savings there. Then reducing the criminal waste across state departments and projects would pay for much of the rest. Cancel Victorian era vanity projects such as HS2, sort out white elephant IT, get rid of / rent out the central London offices and move the small number of staff still required to cheaper areas or ensure they can work productively from home. The books would balance quite quickly." Amazing how after 12 years of Tory cuts there is still 'criminal waste' in government departments.. Anyone who bangs on about waste in government should be given short shrift as it shows they know absolutely nothing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We should remove stealth taxes and clawbacks such as the nonsense of taking back the tax free allowance once you earn between £100-123k. This complexity isn’t helpful to anyone. To your point on “Why should people pay a higher rate of tax if they earn more?“ because progressive tax is fairer and it is right that those with more share a larger burden. Is there a cut off point tax wise? Absolutely. IMHO you should retain the larger portion of your money you earn so 45% is ok but 50% is not. Whilst we fully agree with reducing complexity, it is still fundamentally unfair to increase tax rates based on the amount earnt. We would increase the nil rate band to protect the very poorest but above that everyone should pay one flat rate encompassing tax and NI. Somewhere around 33% may be necessary. The nil rate band should be fully transferrable between married couples to make the system fairer and encourage stable family units which have as much chance of influencing youth outcomes as your suggestions. This would result in a much smaller requirement for monitoring, therefore staff at HMRC. Immediate savings there. Then reducing the criminal waste across state departments and projects would pay for much of the rest. Cancel Victorian era vanity projects such as HS2, sort out white elephant IT, get rid of / rent out the central London offices and move the small number of staff still required to cheaper areas or ensure they can work productively from home. The books would balance quite quickly. Interesting. Agree with much you propose but the flat rate for everyone means that unless you set the tax free allowance at the current 40% threshold, all those people will be paying MORE tax!" I think you missed that the flat rate I proposed includes NI as well as tax. Although I am happy to be corrected, that would mean the nil rate threshold needs to be about £14,000 so that all basic rate tax payers are better off. The poorest gain the biggest percentage. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Anyone who bangs on about waste in government should be given short shrift as it shows they know absolutely nothing. " Every dealing I have with a government or public body, either in a personal or professional capacity indicates to me that they are hugely inefficient. Creaking along using legacy processes and IT systems. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We should remove stealth taxes and clawbacks such as the nonsense of taking back the tax free allowance once you earn between £100-123k. This complexity isn’t helpful to anyone. To your point on “Why should people pay a higher rate of tax if they earn more?“ because progressive tax is fairer and it is right that those with more share a larger burden. Is there a cut off point tax wise? Absolutely. IMHO you should retain the larger portion of your money you earn so 45% is ok but 50% is not. Whilst we fully agree with reducing complexity, it is still fundamentally unfair to increase tax rates based on the amount earnt. We would increase the nil rate band to protect the very poorest but above that everyone should pay one flat rate encompassing tax and NI. Somewhere around 33% may be necessary. The nil rate band should be fully transferrable between married couples to make the system fairer and encourage stable family units which have as much chance of influencing youth outcomes as your suggestions. This would result in a much smaller requirement for monitoring, therefore staff at HMRC. Immediate savings there. Then reducing the criminal waste across state departments and projects would pay for much of the rest. Cancel Victorian era vanity projects such as HS2, sort out white elephant IT, get rid of / rent out the central London offices and move the small number of staff still required to cheaper areas or ensure they can work productively from home. The books would balance quite quickly. Interesting. Agree with much you propose but the flat rate for everyone means that unless you set the tax free allowance at the current 40% threshold, all those people will be paying MORE tax! I think you missed that the flat rate I proposed includes NI as well as tax. Although I am happy to be corrected, that would mean the nil rate threshold needs to be about £14,000 so that all basic rate tax payers are better off. The poorest gain the biggest percentage." that's a tosh idea .... if a couple can't live off £43,000 take home a year then they seriously need to think about cuts to their budget as they very obviously have huge structural inefficiencies which need to be changed. or as i already said the dormant lazy partner can get a job in a market where there is a shortage of workers, it's that simple. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hi all. There seems to be a fair few misunderstandings of what has been happening here. The b of e stopped in with so far 5bn and a possible outlay of 65bn. Typically pensions funds (hedge) for profit and will invest in bonds( they take the loan term gain) but they'll also short them too, to make the immediate cash for their pensions. Since 2008. Interest tastes have been artificially ( inexcusably) low. This is the problem most western economies are facing and failures of central bank policies. What happened recently is the interest rates went up. And suddenly those short positions in the hedge got VERY costly. Either they needed to buy out the gilt. Or pay the interest. The pensions funds for some reason never believed interest rates would go up again and got reckless. This stems from poor central bank policy under carney. And on fact defined benefit pension schemes trying desperate to fund 2 trn worth of pensions in the uk ( a blakchole) which has been growing since the 60s It has very little to do with this particular Conservative government. Essentially in the 60s-80s we offered dumb as hell pension schemes We separated the bank of England from the treasury ( the b of e then became political under mark carney) The b of e should have raised interest rates in line with America ( or before hand) There shouldn't have been so much covid spending(500bn) for some reason the b of e and gov were asleep at the wheel not realising printing that much money would cause inflation that would need tackling. The fca should have been monitoring the over leveraged positions of these funds. " agree and disagree. There are lots of reasons why DB is struggling. And while some may have been using LDI as a risk taking exercise, many were using it as a true hedge. A pensions liabilities go up lot more with a yield fall than their assets. The big issue isn't that yields went up, but went up so quickly. It created cashflow issues that then had a feedback loop. The schemes could have absorbed posting collateral more slowly. And while the fca are often asleep at the wheel, I think this one is on TPR. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Hi all. There seems to be a fair few misunderstandings of what has been happening here. The b of e stopped in with so far 5bn and a possible outlay of 65bn. Typically pensions funds (hedge) for profit and will invest in bonds( they take the loan term gain) but they'll also short them too, to make the immediate cash for their pensions. Since 2008. Interest tastes have been artificially ( inexcusably) low. This is the problem most western economies are facing and failures of central bank policies. What happened recently is the interest rates went up. And suddenly those short positions in the hedge got VERY costly. Either they needed to buy out the gilt. Or pay the interest. The pensions funds for some reason never believed interest rates would go up again and got reckless. This stems from poor central bank policy under carney. And on fact defined benefit pension schemes trying desperate to fund 2 trn worth of pensions in the uk ( a blakchole) which has been growing since the 60s It has very little to do with this particular Conservative government. Essentially in the 60s-80s we offered dumb as hell pension schemes We separated the bank of England from the treasury ( the b of e then became political under mark carney) The b of e should have raised interest rates in line with America ( or before hand) There shouldn't have been so much covid spending(500bn) for some reason the b of e and gov were asleep at the wheel not realising printing that much money would cause inflation that would need tackling. The fca should have been monitoring the over leveraged positions of these funds. agree and disagree. There are lots of reasons why DB is struggling. And while some may have been using LDI as a risk taking exercise, many were using it as a true hedge. A pensions liabilities go up lot more with a yield fall than their assets. The big issue isn't that yields went up, but went up so quickly. It created cashflow issues that then had a feedback loop. The schemes could have absorbed posting collateral more slowly. And while the fca are often asleep at the wheel, I think this one is on TPR." I was saying they were using it as a true hedge.( maybe that didn't come across?) But they shouldn't have been. It's downright negligence to not expect inflation rise then interest rises from the printing going on. The risk ( insert stupidity) was believing the rates would stay low. Yes the yields went up quickly which meant kick outs happened and purchases needed to be made but couldn't be or afforded or that if the mark to market came up there was a lack of cash flow with institutions unwilling to buy the sell off of the asset/ liability. Sadly you get what you sign up for. These institutions were negligent. So they wanted they mirror money quicker when the going was good. And cried when the going was bad for the bank of e to intervene. As I say. The bofe upon the government spending should have begun slowly rising rates for me. Zirp and nirp are disasters. And the bofe needs to be proactive not re active rates should have increased from 2020 if we had a competent central committe. The fca are responsible for ensuring these institutions aren't over leveraged. For me. They are partly responsible here. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Kwasi I've been on university challenge Kwartang showing he shouldn't even be on Tenable " Next Tenable programe Warwick Davies -"OK Kwasi, ten things that will tank the British economy?" Kwasi - "1. Unfunded Debt, 2. Reduced government Tax income at a time of increased expenditure. 3. Reliance on Reganomics which has never worked outside the USA 4. Nationally unpopular tax cuts for the rich which indicate the chancellor and PM are far more interested in paying their sponsors than managing the economy 5. Lack of consultation with the markets, OBR and BofE I would now like to ask my team leader Liz ...." Liz - "Don't look at me! You are on your own Kwateng"  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Kwasi I've been on university challenge Kwartang showing he shouldn't even be on Tenable Next Tenable programe Warwick Davies -"OK Kwasi, ten things that will tank the British economy?" Kwasi - "1. Unfunded Debt, 2. Reduced government Tax income at a time of increased expenditure. 3. Reliance on Reganomics which has never worked outside the USA 4. Nationally unpopular tax cuts for the rich which indicate the chancellor and PM are far more interested in paying their sponsors than managing the economy 5. Lack of consultation with the markets, OBR and BofE I would now like to ask my team leader Liz ...." Liz - "Don't look at me! You are on your own Kwateng" "Utter shitshow! The student debating society are running the country because they think they are all so smart! Apparently since Truss became PM not a single vote has gone through Parliament! The mini budget would never get through Parliament and they are u-turning already facing back-bench rebellion. HOWEVER, Truss and Kamikwazi’s chums in the hedge funds have made a killing. And their Chums in Oil/Gas were rubbing hands with no windfall (though may now be wondering). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Kwasi I've been on university challenge Kwartang showing he shouldn't even be on Tenable Next Tenable programe Warwick Davies -"OK Kwasi, ten things that will tank the British economy?" Kwasi - "1. Unfunded Debt, 2. Reduced government Tax income at a time of increased expenditure. 3. Reliance on Reganomics which has never worked outside the USA 4. Nationally unpopular tax cuts for the rich which indicate the chancellor and PM are far more interested in paying their sponsors than managing the economy 5. Lack of consultation with the markets, OBR and BofE I would now like to ask my team leader Liz ...." Liz - "Don't look at me! You are on your own Kwateng"
Utter shitshow! The student debating society are running the country because they think they are all so smart!
Apparently since Truss became PM not a single vote has gone through Parliament! The mini budget would never get through Parliament and they are u-turning already facing back-bench rebellion.
HOWEVER, Truss and Kamikwazi’s chums in the hedge funds have made a killing. And their Chums in Oil/Gas were rubbing hands with no windfall (though may now be wondering)."We all heard the squelch as Truss threw KamiKawasi under the bus. "Tax cuts were the chancellor's idea". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
