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 |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"No. They should be subject to the same taxes as everyone else. Ie. If they receive more money then they pay more tax. " Harsh | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Some pensioners are poor, but there's also lots of wealthy ones. Considering that they use the NHS & social services the most, I think it's only fair they also contribute." I think this is where means testing should be funded | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Some pensioners are poor, but there's also lots of wealthy ones. Considering that they use the NHS & social services the most, I think it's only fair they also contribute." They've contributed for at least 50 years. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When you are working and earn money, above the threshold, you pay income tax on it. This includes money you pay into state or private pension fund. When you start drawing a pension you pay tax on it again, as income. So you are taxed again on money that you have already been taxed on. It’s the British way… "You forgot about the VAT you pay on it when you spend it... And about 10 others I cba to list.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the government want to save money, they should bring the retirement age down to 60. That would free up millions of jobs, they should be filled by all the free loaders that sit around all day drinking lager, smoking joints and watching 50 inch TVs that we've paid for. If they don't want to work or purposely get sacked their benefits should be stopped. For too long this country has been molly codling these parasites, it's time they were maid to pay their way, not the people who've worked all their lives. " There aren't enough current workers to fund reducing the pension age. Simply replacing older ones with new young workers wouldn't add up. You'd have the same number paying in but a hell of a lot more taking out. There's no individual pension pot for anyone. And the 'they've paid in for x years' doesn't add up either. Plenty of people don't pay in but have a year of contributions included on paper - students and low earning self employed for example. The simple fact is that anyone who works all their life in the hope that the state pension will support them in retirement is delusional. There's no excuse at all for not joining company schemes and taking advantage of the tax breaks and employer contributions. As for should pensioners be tax exempt? Fuck no. Many have built up huge pots using tax allowances and earn significantly more than the average worker in retirement. It shouldn't matter if you're working or not - if you earn enough you should pay tax in income. The state pension is the biggest cost element of the welfare state. Why make that cost even bigger by dropping tax receipts or reducing the age it's paid out? Obi | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"When you are working and earn money, above the threshold, you pay income tax on it. This includes money you pay into state or private pension fund. When you start drawing a pension you pay tax on it again, as income. So you are taxed again on money that you have already been taxed on. It’s the British way… "Pension contributions get tax relief. Money paid in isnt taxed, hence it's used by high earners as a legal tax avoidance scheme. 🤦🤦 Obi | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"After a lifetime of working should pensioners be exempt from taxes?" Everyone has an arguement for why they should be excluded from paying taxes. Myself included. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think taxation post retirement should be means tested, but i also say the state pension shouldnt count towards taxable income. " It already is. The more you earn the more tax you pay.......... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Some pensioners are poor, but there's also lots of wealthy ones. Considering that they use the NHS & social services the most, I think it's only fair they also contribute. I think this is where means testing should be funded " It is practically impossible to means test and would likely cost millions in administration. I have investment pots all over the place including quite a bit in ISAs so not subject to tax so how would that be means tested,,then what about people with assets, who values them at what? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think this is where means testing should be funded" The problem with means testing the pension is that it encourages benefits dependency. Right now people see that the state pension isn't great and they think to themselves that if they save up a bit, perhaps get a private pension on top, then maybe they'll be quite comfortable in old age. If we introduce means testing then people will think "what's the point in saving up for retirement, the government will just take it off my pension, I might as well not bother". | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pension reform is long overdue. Means testing isn’t the answer, due to the cost and complexities involved. The triple lock has to go, everyone agrees but nobody is brave enough to do it - understandably to an extent as the pensioner demographic is a powerful one at the ballot box. " I don’t know where this goes now Far fewer people in final salary schemes, auto enrolment won’t pay out much, most self employed with no pension provision, industry stats show average personal pension fund value £31k, ageing population, more retiring renters, equity release mortgages the fastest growing sector mortgage lending. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pension reform is long overdue. Means testing isn’t the answer, due to the cost and complexities involved. The triple lock has to go, everyone agrees but nobody is brave enough to do it - understandably to an extent as the pensioner demographic is a powerful one at the ballot box. I don’t know where this goes now Far fewer people in final salary schemes, auto enrolment won’t pay out much, most self employed with no pension provision, industry stats show average personal pension fund value £31k, ageing population, more retiring renters, equity release mortgages the fastest growing sector mortgage lending. " We should be encouraging earlier retirement, not later, and provide natural replacement with school leavers, increase provision for apprenticeships and work based training. We need youngsters in reliable Full time work with guaranteed hours to keep pension schemes continuing. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Always good to remember that people don’t pay into the system for their state pension , they pay in to fund the current pensioners." If the UK had invested NI contributions (instead of spending them immediately), every worker could have had: A £300k–£500k personal pension pot A fully funded State Pension No pension age increases No sustainability crisis Instead, NI was spent year‑by‑year, never saved, never invested. Succesive governments used the money. There is no state pension pot in the UK | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pension reform is long overdue. Means testing isn’t the answer, due to the cost and complexities involved. The triple lock has to go, everyone agrees but nobody is brave enough to do it - understandably to an extent as the pensioner demographic is a powerful one at the ballot box. I don’t know where this goes now Far fewer people in final salary schemes, auto enrolment won’t pay out much, most self employed with no pension provision, industry stats show average personal pension fund value £31k, ageing population, more retiring renters, equity release mortgages the fastest growing sector mortgage lending. We should be encouraging earlier retirement, not later, and provide natural replacement with school leavers, increase provision for apprenticeships and work based training. We need youngsters in reliable Full time work with guaranteed hours to keep pension schemes continuing. " Agreed, and a future for 1,000,000 neets And questioning having a generation owing a third of a trillion pounds in student loans. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Pension reform is long overdue. Means testing isn’t the answer, due to the cost and complexities involved. The triple lock has to go, everyone agrees but nobody is brave enough to do it - understandably to an extent as the pensioner demographic is a powerful one at the ballot box." What might work is for a party to say that they'll index pensions to wages, abandon the triple lock, and guarantee that the state pension is never taxed. Many pensioners are worrying that the state pension will soon climb above the income tax threshold, and that they'll have to start filing tax returns. The proposal above gives the poorest of them the reassurance that they won't have to do that, and that their pension spending power will always match that of the general working populace. As a side benefit it will save the state the massive costs of having to process millions of tax returns that declare just a few pounds over the limit and aren't worth the hassle. (Just to clarify, I'm not proposing that the income tax threshold be raised, just that pensioners are exempt from any state pension income that goes above the threshold.) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And questioning having a generation owing a third of a trillion pounds in student loans." It's too late for that one, it should have been questioned decades ago. One of the biggest disasters for this country's economy was to encourage all young people to get meaningless qualifications, and to load themselves up with debt to do so. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" We should be encouraging earlier retirement, not later, and provide natural replacement with school leavers, increase provision for apprenticeships and work based training. We need youngsters in reliable Full time work with guaranteed hours to keep pension schemes continuing. " To encourage early retirement, there needs to be much better financial security for retirees. People aren't working because they want to keep young people out, they're working longer to fund their retirement. For too many, the "oh, crap!" moment comes in their fifties. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"One of the biggest disasters for this country's economy was to encourage all young people to get meaningless qualifications, and to load themselves up with debt to do so." Who decides what qualifications are ‘meaningless’ though? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"One of the biggest disasters for this country's economy was to encourage all young people to get meaningless qualifications, and to load themselves up with debt to do so. Who decides what qualifications are ‘meaningless’ though? " Things like a degree in Religious Studies or Performing Arts | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"One of the biggest disasters for this country's economy was to encourage all young people to get meaningless qualifications, and to load themselves up with debt to do so." "Who decides what qualifications are ‘meaningless’ though?" The market, when you attempt to use your qualification to get a job. Sadly the poor applicant has already racked up loads of debt by the time they find out they chose badly. You can't blame the students for doing what they're told is the best thing to do. You can blame the people that decided that if everyone went to university, they'd all get high paying jobs. You can also blame the universities for making up interesting sounding subjects to fool inexperienced youngsters into signing up for a course that won't prepare them at all for working life. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"One of the biggest disasters for this country's economy was to encourage all young people to get meaningless qualifications, and to load themselves up with debt to do so. Who decides what qualifications are ‘meaningless’ though? Things like a degree in Religious Studies or Performing Arts" Performing arts is a big industry. Lots go on to do stage management and technical theatre. Then go on to work in the theatre industry. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"One of the biggest disasters for this country's economy was to encourage all young people to get meaningless qualifications, and to load themselves up with debt to do so. Who decides what qualifications are ‘meaningless’ though? The market, when you attempt to use your qualification to get a job. Sadly the poor applicant has already racked up loads of debt by the time they find out they chose badly. You can't blame the students for doing what they're told is the best thing to do." The pre enrolment insights into careers are very poor imo. I say that having been through the system as a mature student. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Perhaps your retirement should be based on when you started work, not on an age? If you start work straight from school, you would probably retire earlier than someone who graduated from Uni in their 20’s" Mortgages are typically 35-40 years now, an indicator of working longer, another example being the deferred state pension | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"One of the biggest disasters for this country's economy was to encourage all young people to get meaningless qualifications, and to load themselves up with debt to do so. Who decides what qualifications are ‘meaningless’ though? The market, when you attempt to use your qualification to get a job. Sadly the poor applicant has already racked up loads of debt by the time they find out they chose badly. You can't blame the students for doing what they're told is the best thing to do. You can blame the people that decided that if everyone went to university, they'd all get high paying jobs. You can also blame the universities for making up interesting sounding subjects to fool inexperienced youngsters into signing up for a course that won't prepare them at all for working life." Working life’ is a vague term though. A doctor is more valuable than an artist or a musician to society, you’d think. Except what is life without art or music? Do I think we undervalue practical learning and apprenticeships? Undoubtedly - speaking as someone who did an apprenticeship in the late 90’s - but I wouldn’t dream of downplaying someone’s education in any chosen subject as less worthy than another. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"One of the biggest disasters for this country's economy was to encourage all young people to get meaningless qualifications, and to load themselves up with debt to do so. Who decides what qualifications are ‘meaningless’ though? Things like a degree in Religious Studies or Performing Arts Performing arts is a big industry. Lots go on to do stage management and technical theatre. Then go on to work in the theatre industry. " I recall people mocking courses in video game design as a ‘nonsense’ - yet in 2026, games like GTA 6 are making billions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Perhaps your retirement should be based on when you started work, not on an age? If you start work straight from school, you would probably retire earlier than someone who graduated from Uni in their 20’s" 40 or 45 years work should be standard for retirement. We need retirees to free up jobs for school and college leavers. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Do I think we undervalue practical learning and apprenticeships? Undoubtedly - speaking as someone who did an apprenticeship in the late 90’s - but I wouldn’t dream of downplaying someone’s education in any chosen subject as less worthy than another." You misunderstand me. I have no problems with people choosing Viking Studies, or Bagpiping, or even Underwater Basket Weaving if that's actually what they want to study. People being able to learn what they want to is a good thing. My problem is with universities selling courses such as Golf Course Management to 50 students a year, when they know full well that there simply aren't that many jobs available. Young people often don't have the experience to know what they want to do with their lives, and universities offer courses like Media Studies that sound like they might be useful in getting a job, but aren't. I'm not saying that young people make bad decisions about what to study, I'm saying that universities take advantage of students' inexperience to extract lots of money from them whilst not enhancing their lives in any measurable way. (yes, Viking Studies, Bagpiping, and Underwater Basket Weaving are all genuine courses offered by UK universities) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Basic pay £13.50 hour x 4 weeks =£ 1890 I don’t even make minimum wage ..." £13.50 per hour is 79p per hour above the Minimum Wage. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"After a lifetime of working should pensioners be exempt from taxes?" Even wealthy ones? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"After a lifetime of working should pensioners be exempt from taxes? Even wealthy ones?" No the State pension should be tax free, private top ups will be taxed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"After a lifetime of working should pensioners be exempt from taxes?" On the state pension, No any other income, Yes Members of the house of lords pay no tax or NI on the £371 daily attendance allowance they receive but pensioners get taxed  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Always good to remember that people don’t pay into the system for their state pension , they pay in to fund the current pensioners." That's true but there is a direct link between how many years you pay in to how much you get at retirement. I think it's currently 35 years of contributions to get the maximum and any less than the 35 years means a deduction | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Always good to remember that people don’t pay into the system for their state pension , they pay in to fund the current pensioners. That's true but there is a direct link between how many years you pay in to how much you get at retirement. I think it's currently 35 years of contributions to get the maximum and any less than the 35 years means a deduction " I read within the last few days £240 pw on 35 years NI and £238 if you’ve never paid any NI. No idea if correct or not. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Always good to remember that people don’t pay into the system for their state pension , they pay in to fund the current pensioners. That's true but there is a direct link between how many years you pay in to how much you get at retirement. I think it's currently 35 years of contributions to get the maximum and any less than the 35 years means a deduction I read within the last few days £240 pw on 35 years NI and £238 if you’ve never paid any NI. No idea if correct or not. " No, you need 10 years of contributions as a minimum, and between 10-35 gets you a reduced rate. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the triple lock is scrapped, what should replace it? What was before this triple lock scheme and why was it brought in in the first place " It was linked to inflation. The policy aim of the triple lock was to bring the state pension up to a more decent level as it was pretty poor before. It should be linked to either average earnings or inflation again. The triple lock is a completely unsustainable policy in the medium/longer term but no political party will dare touch it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"After a lifetime of working should pensioners be exempt from taxes? On the state pension, No any other income, Yes Members of the house of lords pay no tax or NI on the £371 daily attendance allowance they receive but pensioners get taxed "Funny that eh? If only we could figure out why... 😆 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the triple lock is scrapped, what should replace it? What was before this triple lock scheme and why was it brought in in the first place " In my opinion, replace the GREATER of wage growth, inflation and 2.5% with the AVERAGE of same. I think that's understandable, fair and acceptable to pensioners in the circumstances. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the triple lock is scrapped, what should replace it? What was before this triple lock scheme and why was it brought in in the first place In my opinion, replace the GREATER of wage growth, inflation and 2.5% with the AVERAGE of same. I think that's understandable, fair and acceptable to pensioners in the circumstances." Better: Anchor it to a point in time. Use the triple lock, but only relative to that time anchor. So it's won't use the greatest of those each year, it will use the greatest from that one point. That means it will never get out of hand. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the triple lock is scrapped, what should replace it? What was before this triple lock scheme and why was it brought in in the first place It was linked to inflation. The policy aim of the triple lock was to bring the state pension up to a more decent level as it was pretty poor before. It should be linked to either average earnings or inflation again. The triple lock is a completely unsustainable policy in the medium/longer term but no political party will dare touch it. " Thank you. Reading the BBC report it seems this year it is the wage growth figure of 3.9% that's being used. For the last few years at least wage growth and inflation have been reasonably high so if it were not a triple lock and linked to either of them then the increases would be quite similar I would assume. It's tricky for the government as it's expensive but they made a manifesto pledge not to scrap this triple lock. With an ageing population the pensioner vote can be quite powerful | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the triple lock is scrapped, what should replace it? What was before this triple lock scheme and why was it brought in in the first place It was linked to inflation. The policy aim of the triple lock was to bring the state pension up to a more decent level as it was pretty poor before. It should be linked to either average earnings or inflation again. The triple lock is a completely unsustainable policy in the medium/longer term but no political party will dare touch it. " If the triple lock is scrapped that would open the door to extending the retirement age…..the scheme will be sustainable we just need to give it time to settle down. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"After a lifetime of working should pensioners be exempt from taxes? On the state pension, No any other income, Yes Members of the house of lords pay no tax or NI on the £371 daily attendance allowance they receive but pensioners get taxed
Funny that eh? If only we could figure out why... 😆"It's an attendance allowance not an income the allowance is there to cover expenses such as travel accommodation if needed and meals.. Fuck knows why it's so hi  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Burnham pledges to end the triple lock in April 2030, linking it to prices or 2.5% thereafter. " Should be at least the higher of either from 2030 to that point in time. He's just turned it into an election issue and will force the conservatives to defend a potentially unaffordable policy... Or he can walk it back if needed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Burnham pledges to end the triple lock in April 2030, linking it to prices or 2.5% thereafter." Will people see that as a sensible measure to cut costs, or will they see it as Burnham pushing the issue out till after the next election? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Burnham pledges to end the triple lock in April 2030, linking it to prices or 2.5% thereafter. Will people see that as a sensible measure to cut costs, or will they see it as Burnham pushing the issue out till after the next election?" He says in his speech that Labour pledged to keep the triple lock through this government and will do so, basically. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not sure how much tax is extracted from pensioners but think most have worked hard to get a pension. The level of which they pay tax should be raised. " Not all pensioners are created equally. Do you think Farage earned his MEP pension? The level at which everyone pays tax could be raised simply by adjusting how much corporations pay. Many are merrily making sizeable profits whilst their workers have their wages subsidised by Universal Credit. Obi | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" The level at which everyone pays tax could be raised simply by adjusting how much corporations pay. Many are merrily making sizeable profits whilst their workers have their wages subsidised by Universal Credit. " 👍 exactly this. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not sure how much tax is extracted from pensioners but think most have worked hard to get a pension. The level of which they pay tax should be raised. Not all pensioners are created equally. Do you think Farage earned his MEP pension? The level at which everyone pays tax could be raised simply by adjusting how much corporations pay. Many are merrily making sizeable profits whilst their workers have their wages subsidised by Universal Credit. Obi" Agreed. No one who works full time should need to also claim universal credit to top up their wages. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not sure how much tax is extracted from pensioners but think most have worked hard to get a pension. The level of which they pay tax should be raised. Not all pensioners are created equally. Do you think Farage earned his MEP pension? The level at which everyone pays tax could be raised simply by adjusting how much corporations pay. Many are merrily making sizeable profits whilst their workers have their wages subsidised by Universal Credit. Obi Agreed. No one who works full time should need to also claim universal credit to top up their wages." totally agree it's not a job one benefit that shouldn't exist. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If the government want to save money, they should bring the retirement age down to 60. That would free up millions of jobs, they should be filled by all the free loaders that sit around all day drinking lager, smoking joints and watching 50 inch TVs that we've paid for. If they don't want to work or purposely get sacked their benefits should be stopped. For too long this country has been molly codling these parasites, it's time they were maid to pay their way, not the people who've worked all their lives. " Absolutely this. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"So where is the incentive to save, better your life and not be a burden? It cannot be a tax dodge loop and reap rewards when retiring early because you hid the money tax free. But why work so hard you stress, be entitled to nothing if you earn reasonable wage, then struggle as your savings get taxed again. Only to look at people you know be on benefits, get discounts on everything, claim enhanced benefits for health reasons and then get a pension tax free....all paid for by the person who worked. Only angry at this as a friend has a child on £10000s benefits for ADHD and this agoraphobic teen has just bought a new Merc at the age of 16 for when they pass their test. Means testing needs to be sharper. Any how. Back to work. " Is this new Merc in the room with us now? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Not sure how much tax is extracted from pensioners but think most have worked hard to get a pension. The level of which they pay tax should be raised. " I pay tax at the lower rate on my private pension, on average £200 pm. My mate has been on benefits most of his life, same age as me, gets state pension, his contributions were paid for as part of his benefits, with his add ons and housing benefit etc taken into account, he is just over £500 pm better off than I am. And because he is still claiming some benefits he doesn't pay tax. Never right is it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We pay tax on our savings, what’s the biggie that they should pay tax on their non-State pensions?" I don't think anyone is saying that pensioners on a good income shouldn't pay tax. The argument is that they shouldn't pay tax if they are just getting the basic state pension. If the state pension goes above the income tax threshold by £500 we'll be in the position that we're giving pensioners a benefit, and then taking some of it back again, which seems foolish. More important is the amount of effort that will be involved in processing tax returns from millions of pensioners who are all paying just £100. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"We pay tax on our savings, what’s the biggie that they should pay tax on their non-State pensions? I don't think anyone is saying that pensioners on a good income shouldn't pay tax. The argument is that they shouldn't pay tax if they are just getting the basic state pension. If the state pension goes above the income tax threshold by £500 we'll be in the position that we're giving pensioners a benefit, and then taking some of it back again, which seems foolish. More important is the amount of effort that will be involved in processing tax returns from millions of pensioners who are all paying just £100." If pensioners don't want to pay tax on their state pension then they can always vote to raise the tax threshold on all those affected instead of just them. Or vote to abolish the triple lock so we're not in the absurd situation of state pension growth outpacing earnings.. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Burnham tells an aging nation that pensions are too expensive at their current rate of increase. This is true and well overdue. But I have doubts parts of the electorate are interested in truth. Polling in the aftermath of this announcement will be interesting. " Exactly this. Retiring early in relation to an increased life expectancy, claiming state pension for 20 years or more in some cases. Using the NHS also. Whilst voting for lower taxes & still expecting it all to add up. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think taxation post retirement should be means tested, but i also say the state pension shouldnt count towards taxable income. " For the info of our dear young workers, the state pension is not taxed per se, but it cancels out the personal allowance. Consequently folks like me pay Tax on every pound above the personal allowance. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think taxation post retirement should be means tested, but i also say the state pension shouldnt count towards taxable income." "For the info of our dear young workers, the state pension is not taxed per se, but it cancels out the personal allowance. Consequently folks like me pay Tax on every pound above the personal allowance." Technically the basic state pension is taxed, it's just that it's taxed at a rate of 0% until the personal allowance is reached. Currently the basic state pension doesn't quite meet the personal allowance. But it's very likely that the next raise in state pension will take it above the personal allowance, at which point the extra bit will be taxed at 20%. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starmer went after the old people. Burnham is the continuity candidate." How is continuing to offer pensioners a rise every near ‘going after them’ though? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starmer went after the old people. Burnham is the continuity candidate." "How is continuing to offer pensioners a rise every near ‘going after them’ though?" You're using leading phrasing. You could also describe Burnham's actions as 'deliberately limiting the rise that pensioners get so that it no longer follows national income levels'. Why have you chosen to use such an emotive and misleading phrasing? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starmer went after the old people. Burnham is the continuity candidate. How is continuing to offer pensioners a rise every near ‘going after them’ though? You're using leading phrasing. You could also describe Burnham's actions as 'deliberately limiting the rise that pensioners get so that it no longer follows national income levels'. Why have you chosen to use such an emotive and misleading phrasing?" Is going ‘after the old people’ emotice or misleading phrasing, would you say? I personally think mine is more accurate. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starmer went after the old people. Burnham is the continuity candidate." "How is continuing to offer pensioners a rise every near ‘going after them’ though?" "You're using leading phrasing. You could also describe Burnham's actions as 'deliberately limiting the rise that pensioners get so that it no longer follows national income levels'. Why have you chosen to use such an emotive and misleading phrasing?" "Is going ‘after the old people’ emotice or misleading phrasing, would you say? I personally think mine is more accurate." The phrase "went after" is mildly emotive, it's not like he has a grievance against pensioners and set out to stick it to them. But it is accurate, in that he has done something that disadvantages pensioners. If you really think that your phrasing is more accurate, you need a viewpoint adjustment. If Burnham had done nothing you could fairly describe it as "continuing to offer pensioners a rise every year". What he has done is to reduce that pay rise. Your phrase seems to suggest that pensioners should be grateful to him for not cancelling all of their future rises. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starmer went after the old people. Burnham is the continuity candidate. How is continuing to offer pensioners a rise every near ‘going after them’ though? " He is, in fact, offering them the highest state pension ever provided in the UK. (An argument often used, unironically, about NHS funding, by people who support more right of centre parties) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starmer went after the old people. Burnham is the continuity candidate. How is continuing to offer pensioners a rise every near ‘going after them’ though? You're using leading phrasing. You could also describe Burnham's actions as 'deliberately limiting the rise that pensioners get so that it no longer follows national income levels'. Why have you chosen to use such an emotive and misleading phrasing? Is going ‘after the old people’ emotice or misleading phrasing, would you say? I personally think mine is more accurate. The phrase "went after" is mildly emotive, it's not like he has a grievance against pensioners and set out to stick it to them. But it is accurate, in that he has done something that disadvantages pensioners. If you really think that your phrasing is more accurate, you need a viewpoint adjustment. If Burnham had done nothing you could fairly describe it as "continuing to offer pensioners a rise every year". What he has done is to reduce that pay rise. Your phrase seems to suggest that pensioners should be grateful to him for not cancelling all of their future rises." What it ‘seems to suggest’ is entirely your interpretation though. And removing the triple lock doesn’t “disadvantage pensioners’. Indeed their pensions will continue to grow and probably often outpace earnings. If a public sector worker had a pay rise triple locked and the govt decided to do equivalent to them, I don’t suspect you’d be accusing the govt of disadvantaging them. But perhaps that my interpretation of your words. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"He is, in fact, offering them the highest state pension ever provided in the UK." Well that's untrue because SERPS provided much higher pensions, but I see your point, irrelevant though it was. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you really think that your phrasing is more accurate, you need a viewpoint adjustment. If Burnham had done nothing you could fairly describe it as "continuing to offer pensioners a rise every year". What he has done is to reduce that pay rise. Your phrase seems to suggest that pensioners should be grateful to him for not cancelling all of their future rises." "What it ‘seems to suggest’ is entirely your interpretation though. And removing the triple lock doesn’t “disadvantage pensioners’. Indeed their pensions will continue to grow and probably often outpace earnings." Removing the triple lock clearly does disadvantage pensioners, because Burnham says that he can fund a care service with the money saved. If money is being saved, then it's not being paid out to pensioners, who therefore must be disadvantaged. Just to make my position clear, I think the triple lock should be broken as it's costing too much money. If I'd been in charge I would have done a similar thing. My argument isn't with what Burnham is proposing, it's with your characterisation of it as somehow helping pensioners. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If you really think that your phrasing is more accurate, you need a viewpoint adjustment. If Burnham had done nothing you could fairly describe it as "continuing to offer pensioners a rise every year". What he has done is to reduce that pay rise. Your phrase seems to suggest that pensioners should be grateful to him for not cancelling all of their future rises. What it ‘seems to suggest’ is entirely your interpretation though. And removing the triple lock doesn’t “disadvantage pensioners’. Indeed their pensions will continue to grow and probably often outpace earnings. Removing the triple lock clearly does disadvantage pensioners, because Burnham says that he can fund a care service with the money saved. If money is being saved, then it's not being paid out to pensioners, who therefore must be disadvantaged. Just to make my position clear, I think the triple lock should be broken as it's costing too much money. If I'd been in charge I would have done a similar thing. My argument isn't with what Burnham is proposing, it's with your characterisation of it as somehow helping pensioners." I never said it was ‘somehow helping pensioners’ - any pension, by dint of being a benefit, is by its very nature ‘helping pensioners’ My argument is that this isn’t ’going After’ pensioners. If you believe it is, that’s your response and you’re entitled to it. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Starmer went after the old people. Burnham is the continuity candidate. How is continuing to offer pensioners a rise every near ‘going after them’ though? He is, in fact, offering them the highest state pension ever provided in the UK. The UK pension is lower than most other G7 countries (An argument often used, unironically, about NHS funding, by people who support more right of centre parties)" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Kids, invest for your retirement if you can. You will never regret it " They might do if the state pension gets means tested at some point. They'll be annoyed that they could have spent that money on having fun when they were young, and not had their state pension taken away just because they were sensible and saved for their retirement. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I never said it was ‘somehow helping pensioners’ - any pension, by dint of being a benefit, is by its very nature ‘helping pensioners’ My argument is that this isn’t ’going After’ pensioners. If you believe it is, that’s your response and you’re entitled to it." So by your definition Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss, Sunak, and Starmer all 'helped' pensioners by not taking away their pension rises. Burnham by contrast is continuing to help pensioners, but is doing less helping than his predecessors. You consider that this can't be described as disadvantaging pensioners because he hasn't taken away all of their proposed rises. Have I got that right? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I never said it was ‘somehow helping pensioners’ - any pension, by dint of being a benefit, is by its very nature ‘helping pensioners’ My argument is that this isn’t ’going After’ pensioners. If you believe it is, that’s your response and you’re entitled to it. So by your definition Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss, Sunak, and Starmer all 'helped' pensioners by not taking away their pension rises. Burnham by contrast is continuing to help pensioners, but is doing less helping than his predecessors. You consider that this can't be described as disadvantaging pensioners because he hasn't taken away all of their proposed rises. Have I got that right?" I’m not sure what part of it you’re having trouble with tbf, so happy to leave it there. I’ve made my point quite clearly. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And this notion of Burnham, or indeed any other PM over the past 20 years or so “going after the pensioners” is complete nonsense. " * New Labour chancellor Gordon Brown’s 1997 abolition of refundable dividend tax credits for pension funds raised about £5 billion a year. * Tax on savings interest: from April 2027, savings-income tax rates rise from 20%/40%/45% to 22%/42%/47%. So a 10% rise for basic rate savers * Dividend tax: from April 2026, the ordinary dividend rate rises to 10.75% and the upper rate to 35.75%. This affects pensioners receiving taxable dividend income outside ISAs/pensions. * Winter Fuel Payment tax charge: pensioners with total annual income above £35,000 effectively have the entire Winter Fuel Payment clawed back through the tax system. That’s £200 or £300 depending on circumstances. * Frozen Personal Allowance: the standard tax-free allowance remains £12,570 in 2026/27. As pension and other income rises while the threshold stays fixed, more pensioners can be brought into Income Tax or pay more — the usual “fiscal drag” effect. * Pensions brought into Inheritance Tax: from April 2027, unused pension funds are due to be brought into the estate for Inheritance Tax purposes. This particularly affects pensioners who had intended to pass unused pension wealth to beneficiaries. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Kids, invest for your retirement if you can. You will never regret it They might do if the state pension gets means tested at some point. They'll be annoyed that they could have spent that money on having fun when they were young, and not had their state pension taken away just because they were sensible and saved for their retirement." Ah what if. I can't predict the future but I say hope for the best and prepare for the worst. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And this notion of Burnham, or indeed any other PM over the past 20 years or so “going after the pensioners” is complete nonsense. * New Labour chancellor Gordon Brown’s 1997 abolition of refundable dividend tax credits for pension funds raised about £5 billion a year. * Tax on savings interest: from April 2027, savings-income tax rates rise from 20%/40%/45% to 22%/42%/47%. So a 10% rise for basic rate savers * Dividend tax: from April 2026, the ordinary dividend rate rises to 10.75% and the upper rate to 35.75%. This affects pensioners receiving taxable dividend income outside ISAs/pensions. * Winter Fuel Payment tax charge: pensioners with total annual income above £35,000 effectively have the entire Winter Fuel Payment clawed back through the tax system. That’s £200 or £300 depending on circumstances. * Frozen Personal Allowance: the standard tax-free allowance remains £12,570 in 2026/27. As pension and other income rises while the threshold stays fixed, more pensioners can be brought into Income Tax or pay more — the usual “fiscal drag” effect. * Pensions brought into Inheritance Tax: from April 2027, unused pension funds are due to be brought into the estate for Inheritance Tax purposes. This particularly affects pensioners who had intended to pass unused pension wealth to beneficiaries. " As a country we are spending far more than we are willing to pay for and our borrowing is too high. We cannot continue to spend more money than we can raise in taxes. And as Daniel Finkelstein wrote in yesterday’s Times “we are reaching the limit of what we can reasonably raise from people in tax, without making trying to earn a good living something that only a fool would try to do”. So despite your selective figures I do still think that “going after the pensioners” is complete nonsense and further , sentimental rubbish ( tied in with the mistaken view promoted by some online and the media that all pensioners are poor, which again is complete nonsense ). And as harsh as it is true, pensioners are on the wrong side of the growth and productive economy ledger. They largely consume and use up state resource. Nothing wrong with that as the vast majority have more than earned it. But if cuts need to be made and to reduce taxes on working age people one of the the first places to look is the non productive side of an economy and try and boost the sections where there is potential and actual growth in productivity. We have had about 20 years of various different governments utterly failing to deliver on sustainable growth. Part of the reason for that is that they all deferred to one degree or another to the pensioner lobby, the grey vote if you will. Will Burnham’s be any different. Sadly I don’t think so. But let’s see. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Burnham pledges to end the triple lock in April 2030, linking it to prices or 2.5% thereafter. " See… not that simple! This is where there is going to have to be a bit of explanation Yes it would be the end of the absolute triple lock as we know it… Yes it will be linked to either CPI inflation or 2.5%… however it will still have a loose link to average earnings and this is where it will get complicated to explain To try and keep it simple… at worst it will be CPI or 2.5 but it will be no better than average earnings, when means pensioners will not be getting extra increases over what an average working person would! This is where is going to be a different between well off and better off And the difference, at the moment, is proposed to go to social care | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" To try and keep it simple… at worst it will be CPI or 2.5 but it will be no better than average earnings, when means pensioners will not be getting extra increases over what an average working person would! " The original intent was to increase the value of a pension in both absolute and relative terms. The rate of increase was never going to be permanent, but left for a future government to contain, eventually. It would still make sense to keep the triple lock, but anchored to a point in time, not year-on-year (which is what made it inherently unsustainable). | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And this notion of Burnham, or indeed any other PM over the past 20 years or so “going after the pensioners” is complete nonsense. * New Labour chancellor Gordon Brown’s 1997 abolition of refundable dividend tax credits for pension funds raised about £5 billion a year. * Tax on savings interest: from April 2027, savings-income tax rates rise from 20%/40%/45% to 22%/42%/47%. So a 10% rise for basic rate savers * Dividend tax: from April 2026, the ordinary dividend rate rises to 10.75% and the upper rate to 35.75%. This affects pensioners receiving taxable dividend income outside ISAs/pensions. * Winter Fuel Payment tax charge: pensioners with total annual income above £35,000 effectively have the entire Winter Fuel Payment clawed back through the tax system. That’s £200 or £300 depending on circumstances. * Frozen Personal Allowance: the standard tax-free allowance remains £12,570 in 2026/27. As pension and other income rises while the threshold stays fixed, more pensioners can be brought into Income Tax or pay more — the usual “fiscal drag” effect. * Pensions brought into Inheritance Tax: from April 2027, unused pension funds are due to be brought into the estate for Inheritance Tax purposes. This particularly affects pensioners who had intended to pass unused pension wealth to beneficiaries. As a country we are spending far more than we are willing to pay for and our borrowing is too high. We cannot continue to spend more money than we can raise in taxes. And as Daniel Finkelstein wrote in yesterday’s Times “we are reaching the limit of what we can reasonably raise from people in tax, without making trying to earn a good living something that only a fool would try to do”. So despite your selective figures I do still think that “going after the pensioners” is complete nonsense and further , sentimental rubbish ( tied in with the mistaken view promoted by some online and the media that all pensioners are poor, which again is complete nonsense ). And as harsh as it is true, pensioners are on the wrong side of the growth and productive economy ledger. They largely consume and use up state resource. Nothing wrong with that as the vast majority have more than earned it. But if cuts need to be made and to reduce taxes on working age people one of the the first places to look is the non productive side of an economy and try and boost the sections where there is potential and actual growth in productivity. We have had about 20 years of various different governments utterly failing to deliver on sustainable growth. Part of the reason for that is that they all deferred to one degree or another to the pensioner lobby, the grey vote if you will. Will Burnham’s be any different. Sadly I don’t think so. But let’s see. " That makes sense, but let’s apply the principle consistently across the non-productive side of the economy. Start with working age benefits. Protect people who genuinely cannot work but raise the thresholds of what work can be done and will be expected to be done. Now for those who can work and choose not to, reduce and ultimately remove benefits. No slack for those who are not contributing. We need to start there because they are the ultimate non-contributors, we need a 5 year lead time of changes to this group. Then apply the same principle to pensions. Once someone has built a full State Pension contribution record normally 35 years, which can be achieved in their early 50s, incentivise them to remain economically active. If they continue working, offer tax reductions on their salaries, up to pension age and beyond. If a person has contributed in the top 1-10%, give them tax free earnings from 55 to retirement and no state pension. The elephant in the room is those who have not met the 35 years of contributions, again, low contributors and should have minimum state pensions, just enough because they have managed thus far on just enough. Now lets start with aid, remove all aid that brings no returns. I like this pay and reward approach a lot. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"...And as harsh as it is true, pensioners are on the wrong side of the growth and productive economy ledger. They largely consume and use up state resource. Nothing wrong with that as the vast majority have more than earned it. But if cuts need to be made and to reduce taxes on working age people one of the the first places to look is the non productive side of an economy and try and boost the sections where there is potential and actual growth in productivity." In its current incarnation in the UK, pensions are (or should be) part of the incentive for productivity (or a productive nation). Jeopardising them is simply harming the social contact with productive people, who might prefer to build up a pension entitlement elsewhere. People don't mind paying into today's pot if they believe they will get to take out of tomorrow's pot. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think the problem with describing pensioners as being on the “non-productive side of the economy” is that it treats pensions purely as current consumption and ignores the role that the promise of a pension plays during a person’s working life. The State Pension is part of the social contract underpinning a productive economy. People accept paying National Insurance and taxes throughout their working lives, in part because they believe that when their own working lives end there will be a reasonably secure income in retirement. It is not literally a personal savings pot, today’s workers largely finance today’s pensioners. But that arrangement remains politically and economically sustainable only for as long as successive generations believe that the same bargain will broadly be honoured for them. And that bargain has already changed substantially. SPA is moving from 66 to 67 between 2026 and 2028, and under current legislation eventually to 68. At the same time, the private sector pension landscape has shifted away from defined benefit pensions, where the eventual income is broadly promised in advance, towards defined contribution pensions, where the individual bears much more of the investment and longevity risk. Automatic enrolment has been very successful at getting people into pensions with around 82% of employees being members of a workplace pension in 2024 but participation is not the same thing as pension adequacy. The IFS identifies low contribution rates as one of the principal risks to future retirement incomes. That is why I would be extremely cautious about assuming that today’s pensioners tell us very much about tomorrow’s pensioners. Today’s retired population includes substantial numbers of people with defined benefit pensions and housing wealth. The generations following them will increasingly retire with defined contribution pots, and some will reach retirement having accumulated very little private pension provision at all. Pension industry statistics report the average fund value of a private personal pension at £31,000, that may purchase a £1,500 annuity. The IFS has specifically warned that some groups are at risk of accumulating little or no private pension wealth over their working lives. Housing potentially makes the problem still more serious. The retirement model built during the second half of the twentieth century implicitly assumed that many people would enter retirement owning their homes outright. A relatively modest pension is much more viable when housing costs have largely disappeared. It is a very different proposition for somebody reaching retirement still paying rent or servicing a mortgage. The State Pension therefore cannot sensibly be considered in isolation from what is happening to housing costs and private pension provision. The full new State Pension in 2026–27 is £241.30 a week — about £12,548 a year. That is an important foundation, but it is hardly an extravagant retirement income if someone has to meet substantial rent, council tax, energy and other living costs from it. There is also a danger in thinking that reducing pension provision automatically transfers resources towards a more “productive” part of the economy. If people in their thirty’s, forty‘s and fifty’s conclude that the State Pension will be repeatedly delayed or reduced before they receive it, rational behaviour may be to save more privately, consume less while working, work longer where they can, or acquire assets that provide security outside the state system. Those responses have economic consequences of their own. More fundamentally, continually altering the bargain risks weakening confidence in a system that depends upon intergenerational consent. That does not mean pension spending can be exempt from scrutiny. An ageing population creates genuine fiscal pressures, and there is a legitimate argument about how the burden should be divided between taxation, pension ages, State Pension generosity and private saving. Nor should pensioners automatically be treated as poor, today’s average pensioner is considerably better off than pensioners were historically, and many possess substantial housing and pension wealth. I read that 60%+ of uk housing wealth is controlled by the over 65 age group. But that is an argument for distinguishing between wealthy pensioners and pensioners dependent principally on the State Pension, rather than treating retirement itself as the “non-productive” part of the economy from which resources can simply be removed. The medium to long term danger is that we end up dismantling one retirement settlement before constructing its replacement: later State Pension ages, fewer guaranteed occupational pensions, inadequate defined contribution saving and more people reaching retirement without an outright owned home. At that point the question will not simply be whether we are spending too much on pensioners. It will be what standard of retirement today’s productive working population is actually being asked to work towards, and whether they still believe the bargain is worth participating in." A very thoughtful and considered contribution which has left me with much to think about. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I am a fairly recently a pensioner and the answer is no. Every person has a basic code and the pension amount falls within that amount,so only earnings from company or other private pensions will be taxed" But the tax threshold of £12,570 is frozen until 2031 it's possible that as the state pension increases many will see it taxed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"They are about to be taxed a bit more (along with other savers) 2% extra income tax (10% increase for BRT) on investment and savings income from April 2027 95% of 65–74 age group have cash savings of £20,000–£29,999 and 97% of those aged over 75 have cash savings in the range £30,000–£49,999. (ONS figs) Separately I think taxing the state pension is mean, it’s not a lot, and has been further deferred for over 50 million people, and a reward for paying into the system " I'm 68 and have around £6000 in savings. I retired early to become my wife's full time carer. I was earning too much to get any assistance, but not earning enough to carry on working and pay for a carer, at the time I was on £14.00 ph. The cheapest care was £16.00 ph. I retired took part of my pension to adapt the house to make it safe and useable for her , because of that I couldn't claim any benefits and was forced to live off my savings until they had dropped below £6000. It's now a much larger allowance you can have. I ended up without any savings and a few thousand in debt on my credit card before I was able to claim benefits. I couldn't even afford to pay for her funeral. That was 6 years ago, trying to build up savings on a state and private pension for which I pay £200 tax every month, is a nightmare. But I'm still better off than a lot of people. I think the state pension shouldn't be counted as income. Only when you go over the threshold on your private pension should you be taxed. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
