Stop voting for fucking Tories

[Tichtheid]

Only tax cuts for the very wealthy, no investment in science and technology from government, just a reliance on the private sector to make that investment for him. Nothing substantial on skills to support industry and build careers and wealth and opportunity across the workforce. No additional NHS spending.

Typically Tory shite, fuck the poor and let the rich find more ways to avoid paying anything.

Just be glad we're not in South Korea

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/ ... h-backlash

Christ. I struggle doing the standard 38.

The craziest bit about that was they thought that making people work longer hours would increase the birth rate.

Well, they'd certainly be shagged by the end of the week.

[Biffer]

The huge pension tax break is about the Tories trying to rebuild their base, getting people who have retired back to work is secondary at best. Their polling has been in the 19%-32% range since Sunak took over, a very wide range with drastically different general election outcomes. The trend is slightly upwards, but a poll can come out with them on 20% then another comes out shortly after with them on 28%.

Their plan seems to be "shovel goodies at the 50+ age bracket and rant about immigrants". A plan that has worked for them before. Stable polling above 30% would give them a fighting chance. If that gets them another term very few people under 50 are going to be forgiving, especially as the rejected alternative would be Starmer who has moved as far to the right as any Labour leader possibly can. Emigration would become more attractive, because the other side of the coin in the current plan is "if you're under 45 pay all the tax, have little disposable income, struggle to afford a home, and never have children".

I’m no expert on pensions and taxation but I’d guess that most of the people affected would vote Tory anyway.

Yeah, what number of people who don't vote Tory have a pension pot of over £1million?

[_Os_]

The huge pension tax break is about the Tories trying to rebuild their base, getting people who have retired back to work is secondary at best. Their polling has been in the 19%-32% range since Sunak took over, a very wide range with drastically different general election outcomes. The trend is slightly upwards, but a poll can come out with them on 20% then another comes out shortly after with them on 28%.

Their plan seems to be "shovel goodies at the 50+ age bracket and rant about immigrants". A plan that has worked for them before. Stable polling above 30% would give them a fighting chance. If that gets them another term very few people under 50 are going to be forgiving, especially as the rejected alternative would be Starmer who has moved as far to the right as any Labour leader possibly can. Emigration would become more attractive, because the other side of the coin in the current plan is "if you're under 45 pay all the tax, have little disposable income, struggle to afford a home, and never have children".

I’m no expert on pensions and taxation but I’d guess that most of the people affected would vote Tory anyway.

Yeah, what number of people who don't vote Tory have a pension pot of over £1million?

It's possible for people employed by the state to build up a large pot and not be too keen on the Tories.

But the point of shovelling more goodies to their base, isn't to get new voters, it's to get their vote out. They've been struggling to get their vote out in by-elections. If their base becomes energised by even more free shit they're getting, they're more likely to vote.

Looking more closely at their childcare plans, there's little detail, and it's phased with the bulk planned to come in around the time of the next general election. Looks like a possible wrecking policy for a new Labour administration. Also doesn't really deal with the issue (because no child care plan really can), which is one salary has to support an entire family in a home appropriate for a family for most of the first year after a child is born (a baby cannot be sent to childcare), so for 2 or 3 children that's 2 or 3 years on a single salary. The median annual salary for full time employment is £33k.

[inactionman]

I’m no expert on pensions and taxation but I’d guess that most of the people affected would vote Tory anyway.

Yeah, what number of people who don't vote Tory have a pension pot of over £1million?

It's possible for people employed by the state to build up a large pot and not be too keen on the Tories.

But the point of shovelling more goodies to their base, isn't to get new voters, it's to get their vote out. They've been struggling to get their vote out in by-elections. If their base becomes energised by even more free shit they're getting, they're more likely to vote.

Looking more closely at their childcare plans, there's little detail, and it's phased with the bulk planned to come in around the time of the next general election. Looks like a possible wrecking policy for a new Labour administration. Also doesn't really deal with the issue (because no child care plan really can), which is one salary has to support an entire family in a home appropriate for a family for most of the first year after a child is born (a baby cannot be sent to childcare), so for for 2 or 3 children that's 2 or 3 years on a single salary. The median annual salary for full time employment is £33k.

I was pretty chuffed by the childcare bit, as a good friend over in Fife has just had his second, hot on the heels of his first, and having free childcare would really help over the coming years. They're not earning huge amounts so this could really make a difference.

The problem is that his wife doesn't yet work (they've moved over from Spain, and she had to decline her first job offer when she discovered she was pregnant with number 2), and cannot easily find work whilst looking after infants - it's not clear to me if the free childcare is for working parents or for parents where one or both are actively looking for work.

[Biffer]

Yeah, what number of people who don't vote Tory have a pension pot of over £1million?

It's possible for people employed by the state to build up a large pot and not be too keen on the Tories.

But the point of shovelling more goodies to their base, isn't to get new voters, it's to get their vote out. They've been struggling to get their vote out in by-elections. If their base becomes energised by even more free shit they're getting, they're more likely to vote.

Looking more closely at their childcare plans, there's little detail, and it's phased with the bulk planned to come in around the time of the next general election. Looks like a possible wrecking policy for a new Labour administration. Also doesn't really deal with the issue (because no child care plan really can), which is one salary has to support an entire family in a home appropriate for a family for most of the first year after a child is born (a baby cannot be sent to childcare), so for for 2 or 3 children that's 2 or 3 years on a single salary. The median annual salary for full time employment is £33k.

I was pretty chuffed by the childcare bit, as a good friend over in Fife has just had his second, hot on the heels of his first, and having free childcare would really help over the coming years. They're not earning huge amounts so this could really make a difference.

The problem is that his wife doesn't yet work (they've moved over from Spain, and she had to decline her first job offer when she discovered she was pregnant with number 2), and cannot easily find work whilst looking after infants - it's not clear to me if the free childcare is for working parents or for parents where one or both are actively looking for work.

Change is for England only - in Scotland you already get this.

[_Os_]

Yeah, what number of people who don't vote Tory have a pension pot of over £1million?

It's possible for people employed by the state to build up a large pot and not be too keen on the Tories.

But the point of shovelling more goodies to their base, isn't to get new voters, it's to get their vote out. They've been struggling to get their vote out in by-elections. If their base becomes energised by even more free shit they're getting, they're more likely to vote.

Looking more closely at their childcare plans, there's little detail, and it's phased with the bulk planned to come in around the time of the next general election. Looks like a possible wrecking policy for a new Labour administration. Also doesn't really deal with the issue (because no child care plan really can), which is one salary has to support an entire family in a home appropriate for a family for most of the first year after a child is born (a baby cannot be sent to childcare), so for for 2 or 3 children that's 2 or 3 years on a single salary. The median annual salary for full time employment is £33k.

I was pretty chuffed by the childcare bit, as a good friend over in Fife has just had his second, hot on the heels of his first, and having free childcare would really help over the coming years. They're not earning huge amounts so this could really make a difference.

The problem is that his wife doesn't yet work (they've moved over from Spain, and she had to decline her first job offer when she discovered she was pregnant with number 2), and cannot easily find work whilst looking after infants - it's not clear to me if the free childcare is for working parents or for parents where one or both are actively looking for work.

My reading of it is: England only, one parent must be in work, 30 hours per week childcare, only for 9 months old to school age. Only fully comes in September 2025
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/chan ... for-growth.

Once that is put into real world scenarios it starts looking not so good as it sounds. Because the problem is really about stagnant wage growth and increasing costs (especially in housing).

[inactionman]

It's possible for people employed by the state to build up a large pot and not be too keen on the Tories.

But the point of shovelling more goodies to their base, isn't to get new voters, it's to get their vote out. They've been struggling to get their vote out in by-elections. If their base becomes energised by even more free shit they're getting, they're more likely to vote.

Looking more closely at their childcare plans, there's little detail, and it's phased with the bulk planned to come in around the time of the next general election. Looks like a possible wrecking policy for a new Labour administration. Also doesn't really deal with the issue (because no child care plan really can), which is one salary has to support an entire family in a home appropriate for a family for most of the first year after a child is born (a baby cannot be sent to childcare), so for for 2 or 3 children that's 2 or 3 years on a single salary. The median annual salary for full time employment is £33k.

I was pretty chuffed by the childcare bit, as a good friend over in Fife has just had his second, hot on the heels of his first, and having free childcare would really help over the coming years. They're not earning huge amounts so this could really make a difference.

The problem is that his wife doesn't yet work (they've moved over from Spain, and she had to decline her first job offer when she discovered she was pregnant with number 2), and cannot easily find work whilst looking after infants - it's not clear to me if the free childcare is for working parents or for parents where one or both are actively looking for work.

Change is for England only - in Scotland you already get this.

Do they? They had to line up some childcare funds for when she was about to accept her job for the eldest, prior to falling pregnant again. Am I missing something? Scots gov website says it's 30hrs free from 3 years of age, with some 2 year olds being eligible. The new budget is setting it at 9 months, I thought, which is only 5 months away for my mate and his wife.

[Biffer]

I was pretty chuffed by the childcare bit, as a good friend over in Fife has just had his second, hot on the heels of his first, and having free childcare would really help over the coming years. They're not earning huge amounts so this could really make a difference.

The problem is that his wife doesn't yet work (they've moved over from Spain, and she had to decline her first job offer when she discovered she was pregnant with number 2), and cannot easily find work whilst looking after infants - it's not clear to me if the free childcare is for working parents or for parents where one or both are actively looking for work.

Change is for England only - in Scotland you already get this.

Do they? They had to line up some childcare funds for when she was about to accept her job for the eldest, prior to falling pregnant again. Am I missing something? Scots gov website says it's 30hrs free from 3 years of age, with some 2 year olds being eligible. The new budget is setting it at 9 months, I thought, which is only 5 months away for my mate and his wife.

Dunno, thought he said it was being brought in line with devolved nations.

[inactionman]

It's possible for people employed by the state to build up a large pot and not be too keen on the Tories.

But the point of shovelling more goodies to their base, isn't to get new voters, it's to get their vote out. They've been struggling to get their vote out in by-elections. If their base becomes energised by even more free shit they're getting, they're more likely to vote.

Looking more closely at their childcare plans, there's little detail, and it's phased with the bulk planned to come in around the time of the next general election. Looks like a possible wrecking policy for a new Labour administration. Also doesn't really deal with the issue (because no child care plan really can), which is one salary has to support an entire family in a home appropriate for a family for most of the first year after a child is born (a baby cannot be sent to childcare), so for for 2 or 3 children that's 2 or 3 years on a single salary. The median annual salary for full time employment is £33k.

I was pretty chuffed by the childcare bit, as a good friend over in Fife has just had his second, hot on the heels of his first, and having free childcare would really help over the coming years. They're not earning huge amounts so this could really make a difference.

The problem is that his wife doesn't yet work (they've moved over from Spain, and she had to decline her first job offer when she discovered she was pregnant with number 2), and cannot easily find work whilst looking after infants - it's not clear to me if the free childcare is for working parents or for parents where one or both are actively looking for work.

My reading of it is: England only, one parent must be in work, 30 hours per week childcare, only for 9 months old to school age. Only fully comes in September 2025
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/chan ... for-growth.

Once that is put into real world scenarios it starts looking not so good as it sounds. Because the problem is really about stagnant wage growth and increasing costs (especially in housing).

The little'un will be not far off three by then anyway. Ah well, not so useful in my/my mate's own personal circumstance

[_Os_]

I was pretty chuffed by the childcare bit, as a good friend over in Fife has just had his second, hot on the heels of his first, and having free childcare would really help over the coming years. They're not earning huge amounts so this could really make a difference.

The problem is that his wife doesn't yet work (they've moved over from Spain, and she had to decline her first job offer when she discovered she was pregnant with number 2), and cannot easily find work whilst looking after infants - it's not clear to me if the free childcare is for working parents or for parents where one or both are actively looking for work.

Change is for England only - in Scotland you already get this.

Do they? They had to line up some childcare funds for when she was about to accept her job for the eldest, prior to falling pregnant again. Am I missing something? Scots gov website says it's 30hrs free from 3 years of age, with some 2 year olds being eligible. The new budget is setting it at 9 months, I thought, which is only 5 months away for my mate and his wife.

9 months to school age comes in from September 2024, but is 15 hours a week, 30 hours a week comes in from 2025. Which is where my suspicions about wrecking policies come in, if the Tories pile up spending commitments that are popular Labour will be left with no choice but to cut them down.

The big thing on this subject is no matter what the policy is, a single salary has to support the family for 1 year per child. And when both parents are working and the children are in school, there's still 13 weeks of school holidays to cover, which depends on how much holiday each parent gets (Rees-Mogg's grand plan is to scrap things like paid holiday ... which would mean families potentially taking a £5k-ish childcare hit per child). The real issue is the generally declining economic conditions that have made it harder to live.

[Joost]

9 months to school age comes in from September 2024, but is 15 hours a week, 30 hours a week comes in from 2025. Which is where my suspicions about wrecking policies come in, if the Tories pile up spending commitments that are popular Labour will be left with no choice but to cut them down.

The big thing on this subject is no matter what the policy is, a single salary has to support the family for 1 year per child. And when both parents are working and the children are in school, there's still 13 weeks of school holidays to cover, which depends on how much holiday each parent gets (Rees-Mogg's grand plan is to scrap things like paid holiday ... which would mean families potentially taking a £5k-ish childcare hit per child). The real issue is the generally declining economic conditions that have made it harder to live.

Interesting theory re spiking labour, though imagine it has more to do with giving nurseries time to build up capacity/train up additional staff etc to meet the extra demand. Thankfully most companies pay some form or enhanced maternity pay for a period and women on mat leave will still accrue holiday, which is paid out at full pay, so often it’s not a full year on a single salary in real terms.

As someone with 2 pre-scoool kids at nursery, I’m a big fan of this expansion!

[_Os_]

9 months to school age comes in from September 2024, but is 15 hours a week, 30 hours a week comes in from 2025. Which is where my suspicions about wrecking policies come in, if the Tories pile up spending commitments that are popular Labour will be left with no choice but to cut them down.

The big thing on this subject is no matter what the policy is, a single salary has to support the family for 1 year per child. And when both parents are working and the children are in school, there's still 13 weeks of school holidays to cover, which depends on how much holiday each parent gets (Rees-Mogg's grand plan is to scrap things like paid holiday ... which would mean families potentially taking a £5k-ish childcare hit per child). The real issue is the generally declining economic conditions that have made it harder to live.

Interesting theory re spiking labour, though imagine it has more to do with giving nurseries time to build up capacity/train up additional staff etc to meet the extra demand. Thankfully most companies pay some form or enhanced maternity pay for a period and women on mat leave will still accrue holiday, which is paid out at full pay, so often it’s not a full year on a single salary in real terms.

As someone with 2 pre-scoool kids at nursery, I’m a big fan of this expansion!

True about the lack of capacity, that's going to come up against the general worker shortage, I'm not sure time is the issue there. True about maternity pay also, but the statutory amount is meagre after the first month or so (£160 a week), a bit debatable that most employers offer any significant enhancement but at a minimum a large minority do. I was more posting about the average family where the main bread winner is close to the median salary (£33k), obviously if there's two parents and they both have good jobs things are easier for them.

It's basically an expansion of the welfare state, Labour are never going to undo it. But the Tories could make life difficult for Labour if they pile up some popular policies like this that turn out to be expensive. A bit suspicious they wait 13 years to do this (when they've expanded childcare provision before), and phase it in through and after the next general election.

[Insane_Homer]

FTSE takes a worst dive the day of budget announcement ... But Credit Suisse is the primary cause

[Biffer]

The other part of the pension tax break that annoys me is trying to sell it as a way of getting over 50s back to work. I realise that there’s a specific problem around senior doctors, and finding a way to address that is important, but to pretend the same issue is why an additional 300,000 people have left the workforce in the least couple of years for that reason is fucking stupid. And the restart scheme is going to be used as a way to force older people into cheaper , low paid jobs that they’re not suited for. It’s nothing to do with using their skills or experience. Fucking Tory bullshit.

[robmatic]

The huge pension tax break is about the Tories trying to rebuild their base, getting people who have retired back to work is secondary at best. Their polling has been in the 19%-32% range since Sunak took over, a very wide range with drastically different general election outcomes. The trend is slightly upwards, but a poll can come out with them on 20% then another comes out shortly after with them on 28%.

Their plan seems to be "shovel goodies at the 50+ age bracket and rant about immigrants". A plan that has worked for them before. Stable polling above 30% would give them a fighting chance. If that gets them another term very few people under 50 are going to be forgiving, especially as the rejected alternative would be Starmer who has moved as far to the right as any Labour leader possibly can. Emigration would become more attractive, because the other side of the coin in the current plan is "if you're under 45 pay all the tax, have little disposable income, struggle to afford a home, and never have children".

I’m no expert on pensions and taxation but I’d guess that most of the people affected would vote Tory anyway.

A lot of the people affected will be the decent earners in public sector schemes.

I doubt that the pension tax breaks are aimed at directly benefiting Tory voters in electorally significant numbers. It's been a decade since I worked in the pensions industry but back in my day there just weren't that many people, as a percentage of the overall population, who were putting anywhere near the annual or lifetime allowances into their private sector pension. £40k is a hefty chunk of income for most people and you are doing objectively very well to build up a pension pot of £1.5 million. However, this will be a very nice perk for the elite.

[Paddington Bear]

FTSE takes a worst dive the day of budget announcement ... But Credit Suisse is the primary cause

Given the drop seemed worst around banks and there’s a major global bank on the brink, yeah I’d say that’s a fair assessment

[Sandstorm]

FTSE takes a worst dive the day of budget announcement ... But Credit Suisse is the primary cause

Given the drop seemed worst around banks and there’s a major global bank on the brink, yeah I’d say that’s a fair assessment

It’s Homer. Blame the ref, not the player.

[Blackmac]

It's possible for people employed by the state to build up a large pot and not be too keen on the Tories.

But the point of shovelling more goodies to their base, isn't to get new voters, it's to get their vote out. They've been struggling to get their vote out in by-elections. If their base becomes energised by even more free shit they're getting, they're more likely to vote.

Looking more closely at their childcare plans, there's little detail, and it's phased with the bulk planned to come in around the time of the next general election. Looks like a possible wrecking policy for a new Labour administration. Also doesn't really deal with the issue (because no child care plan really can), which is one salary has to support an entire family in a home appropriate for a family for most of the first year after a child is born (a baby cannot be sent to childcare), so for for 2 or 3 children that's 2 or 3 years on a single salary. The median annual salary for full time employment is £33k.

I was pretty chuffed by the childcare bit, as a good friend over in Fife has just had his second, hot on the heels of his first, and having free childcare would really help over the coming years. They're not earning huge amounts so this could really make a difference.

The problem is that his wife doesn't yet work (they've moved over from Spain, and she had to decline her first job offer when she discovered she was pregnant with number 2), and cannot easily find work whilst looking after infants - it's not clear to me if the free childcare is for working parents or for parents where one or both are actively looking for work.

Change is for England only - in Scotland you already get this.

No they don't. My daughter is definitely paying for my 2 year old grand daughter. It's only from 3 at the moment.

[dpedin]

The huge pension tax break is about the Tories trying to rebuild their base, getting people who have retired back to work is secondary at best. Their polling has been in the 19%-32% range since Sunak took over, a very wide range with drastically different general election outcomes. The trend is slightly upwards, but a poll can come out with them on 20% then another comes out shortly after with them on 28%.

Their plan seems to be "shovel goodies at the 50+ age bracket and rant about immigrants". A plan that has worked for them before. Stable polling above 30% would give them a fighting chance. If that gets them another term very few people under 50 are going to be forgiving, especially as the rejected alternative would be Starmer who has moved as far to the right as any Labour leader possibly can. Emigration would become more attractive, because the other side of the coin in the current plan is "if you're under 45 pay all the tax, have little disposable income, struggle to afford a home, and never have children".

I’m no expert on pensions and taxation but I’d guess that most of the people affected would vote Tory anyway.

A lot of the people affected will be the decent earners in public sector schemes.

I doubt that the pension tax breaks are aimed at directly benefiting Tory voters in electorally significant numbers. It's been a decade since I worked in the pensions industry but back in my day there just weren't that many people, as a percentage of the overall population, who were putting anywhere near the annual or lifetime allowances into their private sector pension. £40k is a hefty chunk of income for most people and you are doing objectively very well to build up a pension pot of £1.5 million. However, this will be a very nice perk for the elite.

Seen suggestion from others who are more expert than me that the unlimited pension pot size is all about allowing folk to use pension pots as a vehicle to avoid inheritance tax which might explain why removing any limit to the lifetime allowance was made? I would be interested to see if this is true and figures around this including any loss of tax revenue due to drop in inheritance tax take forecasts.

For medics it was about not being able to avoid tax as they are on final salary pension and they work with NHS all their lives so by mid 50s being on top of the salary scale c£120k, after 25-30 years membership of the scheme and with higher inflation then another year of working plus a higher % pay increase due to inflation would mean almost every medic over 50 would be hit with a tax bill of £1,000s. Hunt had to react in this budget prior to any pay award or else the NHS would have seen 1,000s of senior medics either going part time or leaving NHS. The £40k annual allowance and £1+m lifetime allowance were introduced by Tories and they have reduced both to these levels over the years and refused to link them to inflation. They have created this mess and thankfully have now realised what this meant to the NHS and, more importantly to them, that Sunak would never meet one of his 5 commitments to reduce waiting lists. However the BMA and the NHS were taken aback about the scrapping of the lifetime allowance - this wasn't required to significantly reduce the risk to the NHS, a £1.8 - £2m ceiling would have been more that sufficient.

The problem with the public sector/medics pensions was the lack of flexibility available to avoid tax on pensions other than come out of scheme and lose the benefit of the employer contribution - c20% - and benefit of salary sacrifice contribution or reduce hours to get below thresholds and future tax liabilities. Many increased their private work to compensate, probably something the Tories were happy about. Private sector have a number of other options for rewarding high earners and so avoid any pension tax liabilities ie larger salaries, bonuses, share options, cars and expenses, tax avoidance schemes, offshore accounts, etc. There is always the argument about the medic pensions are too generous but they are part of the overall remuneration package and they do mean that many medics remain in NHS because of it. They also make a large contribution to their own pension - about 14% - which is obviously before tax and NI.

[Insane_Homer]

FTSE takes a worst dive the day of budget announcement ... But Credit Suisse is the primary cause

Given the drop seemed worst around banks and there’s a major global bank on the brink, yeah I’d say that’s a fair assessment

Credit Suisse 54 Billion bailout announced but FTSE only recovered 1/4 of what was lost yesterday

[Line6 HXFX]

Glad the whole "its not up to employers, lets live in a dream" is being given another go.
Getting fed up with reality tbh..
They are scrapping medical assessments and just asking disabled and sick people "what work they can do", if they say litterally anything or show any glimmer of optimism..then the government will pretend that not only that they can, but that the employers will actually be there and actually employ them to do it.

I have two slipped herniated discs and my back is trashed, nerve damage everywhere they looked, chronic pain...somedays I feel so fucking irritated by the pain I could commit mass murder.

They asked me what work I could do, I joked "well I could float around in zero gravity".

They kicked me straight off the easy "apply for jobs as and when, look we understand you poor bastard, you are in lotsa pain (which they said they 100% believe and don't contest at all) and put me on the apply for jobs for 35 hours a week or we will sanction you "track".

The Sanctions regime will apply to the sick, they are all light and fluffy and put a nice gloss on it..but they will sanction the sick if they are not doing enough to find work..

Lets think about that. They sanction "fit able to work 100% of the time" people for not doing enough (there have been millions of sanctions), so what chance has a disabled or sick person have?

I for my part now feel like I am going to get sanctioned all the time. Some weeks I can barely get out of bed. I have to be flat as sitting and standing really really fucking hurts. and flares it all up..and where I have to go into a flat on my back position again.
I try to remain optimistic, to carry on, I have good days (that I or an employer would never be able to predict)but that optimism was weaponised, used against me and will be for everyone else who is sick or disabled.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/j ... 08&ei=15

[tabascoboy]

Sound like value for money?

Budget back to work plan 'to cost £70,000 per job'

Budget plans to encourage people back to work will have limited impact and cost £70,000 a job, a think tank says.

The changes are expected to bring 110,000 back to work, which the Institute for Fiscal Studies said was "just a fraction" of the those who'd left work over the past two years.

The government will spend billions to boost labour supply via tax breaks on pensions and expanded free childcare.

It said the plans would help to grow the economy and raise living standards.

Paul Johnson, director of the IFS, said the government's forecaster had calculated the overall plan to boost workforce numbers will cost around £7bn a year and increase employment by around 110,000.

"That's a cost of nearly £70,000 per job," he says.

While the chancellor "might have some success" it was likely to be modest given the large number of people "lost from the workforce in the last couple of years", he added.

[C69]

If I get a vote regading the NHS pay offer I will be teling them to stuff it up their arse.

[Blackmac]

If I get a vote regading the NHS pay offer I will be teling them to stuff it up their arse.

It doesn't seem great, and the one off payment is just short term gain. Nurses in Scotland are getting 14% over 2 years and a one off of roughly £600.

[Blackmac]

I’m no expert on pensions and taxation but I’d guess that most of the people affected would vote Tory anyway.

A lot of the people affected will be the decent earners in public sector schemes.

I doubt that the pension tax breaks are aimed at directly benefiting Tory voters in electorally significant numbers. It's been a decade since I worked in the pensions industry but back in my day there just weren't that many people, as a percentage of the overall population, who were putting anywhere near the annual or lifetime allowances into their private sector pension. £40k is a hefty chunk of income for most people and you are doing objectively very well to build up a pension pot of £1.5 million. However, this will be a very nice perk for the elite.

Seen suggestion from others who are more expert than me that the unlimited pension pot size is all about allowing folk to use pension pots as a vehicle to avoid inheritance tax which might explain why removing any limit to the lifetime allowance was made? I would be interested to see if this is true and figures around this including any loss of tax revenue due to drop in inheritance tax take forecasts.

For medics it was about not being able to avoid tax as they are on final salary pension and they work with NHS all their lives so by mid 50s being on top of the salary scale c£120k, after 25-30 years membership of the scheme and with higher inflation then another year of working plus a higher % pay increase due to inflation would mean almost every medic over 50 would be hit with a tax bill of £1,000s. Hunt had to react in this budget prior to any pay award or else the NHS would have seen 1,000s of senior medics either going part time or leaving NHS. The £40k annual allowance and £1+m lifetime allowance were introduced by Tories and they have reduced both to these levels over the years and refused to link them to inflation. They have created this mess and thankfully have now realised what this meant to the NHS and, more importantly to them, that Sunak would never meet one of his 5 commitments to reduce waiting lists. However the BMA and the NHS were taken aback about the scrapping of the lifetime allowance - this wasn't required to significantly reduce the risk to the NHS, a £1.8 - £2m ceiling would have been more that sufficient.

The problem with the public sector/medics pensions was the lack of flexibility available to avoid tax on pensions other than come out of scheme and lose the benefit of the employer contribution - c20% - and benefit of salary sacrifice contribution or reduce hours to get below thresholds and future tax liabilities. Many increased their private work to compensate, probably something the Tories were happy about. Private sector have a number of other options for rewarding high earners and so avoid any pension tax liabilities ie larger salaries, bonuses, share options, cars and expenses, tax avoidance schemes, offshore accounts, etc. There is always the argument about the medic pensions are too generous but they are part of the overall remuneration package and they do mean that many medics remain in NHS because of it. They also make a large contribution to their own pension - about 14% - which is obviously before tax and NI.

It's already decimated the senior policing ranks, even not so senior getting screwed. My mate has just retired as a Chief Inspector and has been hit to the tune of 3 to 4k for each of the last three years. The Federation are paying these bills on the understanding that the officers repay the debt with a small interest over the first 10 years of their retirement and there is a rumour that an Assistant Chief Constable recently retired with a £150k bill. The recently introduced 25/50 scheme has seen the majority facing this situation go.

[petej]

Can anyone remember a technology that re-used spent fuel rods and kept re-using them until they were down to dozens of years half life? When I was reading about it a good few years ago it was estimated that we already had enough fuel in supposedly spent rods to keep the planet going for hundreds of years.

The tech was shut down by the Clinton administration iirc.

I can't find the story now, I just wondered if that rang any bells, it was in research stage when it was shut down, as far as I remember it wasn't in the same category as "just a few more years and we'll have a working fusion alternative"

Breeder reactors? Often using molten salt or liquid metal for cooling and thorium as fuel

[dpedin]

A lot of the people affected will be the decent earners in public sector schemes.

I doubt that the pension tax breaks are aimed at directly benefiting Tory voters in electorally significant numbers. It's been a decade since I worked in the pensions industry but back in my day there just weren't that many people, as a percentage of the overall population, who were putting anywhere near the annual or lifetime allowances into their private sector pension. £40k is a hefty chunk of income for most people and you are doing objectively very well to build up a pension pot of £1.5 million. However, this will be a very nice perk for the elite.

Seen suggestion from others who are more expert than me that the unlimited pension pot size is all about allowing folk to use pension pots as a vehicle to avoid inheritance tax which might explain why removing any limit to the lifetime allowance was made? I would be interested to see if this is true and figures around this including any loss of tax revenue due to drop in inheritance tax take forecasts.

For medics it was about not being able to avoid tax as they are on final salary pension and they work with NHS all their lives so by mid 50s being on top of the salary scale c£120k, after 25-30 years membership of the scheme and with higher inflation then another year of working plus a higher % pay increase due to inflation would mean almost every medic over 50 would be hit with a tax bill of £1,000s. Hunt had to react in this budget prior to any pay award or else the NHS would have seen 1,000s of senior medics either going part time or leaving NHS. The £40k annual allowance and £1+m lifetime allowance were introduced by Tories and they have reduced both to these levels over the years and refused to link them to inflation. They have created this mess and thankfully have now realised what this meant to the NHS and, more importantly to them, that Sunak would never meet one of his 5 commitments to reduce waiting lists. However the BMA and the NHS were taken aback about the scrapping of the lifetime allowance - this wasn't required to significantly reduce the risk to the NHS, a £1.8 - £2m ceiling would have been more that sufficient.

The problem with the public sector/medics pensions was the lack of flexibility available to avoid tax on pensions other than come out of scheme and lose the benefit of the employer contribution - c20% - and benefit of salary sacrifice contribution or reduce hours to get below thresholds and future tax liabilities. Many increased their private work to compensate, probably something the Tories were happy about. Private sector have a number of other options for rewarding high earners and so avoid any pension tax liabilities ie larger salaries, bonuses, share options, cars and expenses, tax avoidance schemes, offshore accounts, etc. There is always the argument about the medic pensions are too generous but they are part of the overall remuneration package and they do mean that many medics remain in NHS because of it. They also make a large contribution to their own pension - about 14% - which is obviously before tax and NI.

It's already decimated the senior policing ranks, even not so senior getting screwed. My mate has just retired as a Chief Inspector and has been hit to the tune of 3 to 4k for each of the last three years. The Federation are paying these bills on the understanding that the officers repay the debt with a small interest over the first 10 years of their retirement and there is a rumour that an Assistant Chief Constable recently retired with a £150k bill. The recently introduced 25/50 scheme has seen the majority facing this situation go.

It's almost as if this tax was designed to target senior high earning civil servants! The problem for NHS was trying to get senior medics to take on leadership roles with NHS - if someone was asked to be a Clinical Director with say a £10k increase for doing the job then suddenly they were hit with a huge tax bill because they suddenly exceeded the annual and lifetime allowance. I have a mate who was asked to become a Clinical Director of a large specialty with huge additional responsibilities and was immediately hit with a £15k tax bill. Most medics have turned down additional sessions in order to tackle waiting lists because of the tax issue, crazy!

[weegie01]

Seen suggestion from others who are more expert than me that the unlimited pension pot size is all about allowing folk to use pension pots as a vehicle to avoid inheritance tax which might explain why removing any limit to the lifetime allowance was made? I would be interested to see if this is true and figures around this including any loss of tax revenue due to drop in inheritance tax take forecasts.

I have not trawled all the media, but I am surprised how little this is being mentioned. For us personally the pension changes are a big benefit, and my wife's firm have been inundated with calls from high net worth clients to find out how much they can shelter.

This is a significant benefit for a small number of people, but as it does not affect most of the population, few people will actually understand or care about the changes, whereas other more obvious changes such as tax cuts would cause uproar.[/cynic]

Edit.
Per other posts, the change can be wrapped up as a benefit for doctors and other civil servants, which is true but they will be a relatively small proportion of thiose who benefit.

[Deveron Boy]

Seen suggestion from others who are more expert than me that the unlimited pension pot size is all about allowing folk to use pension pots as a vehicle to avoid inheritance tax which might explain why removing any limit to the lifetime allowance was made? I would be interested to see if this is true and figures around this including any loss of tax revenue due to drop in inheritance tax take forecasts.

I have not trawled all the media, but I am surprised how little this is being mentioned. For us personally the pension changes are a big benefit, and my wife's firm have been inundated with calls from high net worth clients to find out how much they can shelter.

This is a significant benefit for a small number of people, but as it does not affect most of the population, few people will actually understand or care about the changes, whereas other more obvious changes such as tax cuts would cause uproar.[/cynic]

Edit.
Per other posts, the change can be wrapped up as a benefit for doctors and other civil servants, which is true but they will be a relatively small proportion of thiose who benefit.

With you completely on this, personally i am fortunate enough to be a beneficiary under this proposal but it goes to the heart of the Tory policy of taxing income rather than wealth/assets which is a key driver of the significant inequality and inter-generational unfairness that is splitting this country apart

[Biffer]

Seen suggestion from others who are more expert than me that the unlimited pension pot size is all about allowing folk to use pension pots as a vehicle to avoid inheritance tax which might explain why removing any limit to the lifetime allowance was made? I would be interested to see if this is true and figures around this including any loss of tax revenue due to drop in inheritance tax take forecasts.

I have not trawled all the media, but I am surprised how little this is being mentioned. For us personally the pension changes are a big benefit, and my wife's firm have been inundated with calls from high net worth clients to find out how much they can shelter.

This is a significant benefit for a small number of people, but as it does not affect most of the population, few people will actually understand or care about the changes, whereas other more obvious changes such as tax cuts would cause uproar.[/cynic]

Edit.
Per other posts, the change can be wrapped up as a benefit for doctors and other civil servants, which is true but they will be a relatively small proportion of thiose who benefit.

With you completely on this, personally i am fortunate enough to be a beneficiary under this proposal but it goes to the heart of the Tory policy of taxing income rather than wealth/assets which is a key driver of the significant inequality and inter-generational unfairness that is splitting this country apart

Absolutely. We tax transactions except for a few cases and we don't tax assets except for a few cases. They're approached from completely opposite positions and it's to the benefit of the wealthy with the intention of maintaining wealth in the same hands. It's not just the UK, it's the general approach across most of the west. If you have assets you should have to get them to work for society as a whole in some way for them to be exempt from tax, rather than sit on them as a rent taker.

[tabascoboy]

A worrying trend in the UK: A drop in freedom rankings

In its 2023 World Report, Human Rights Watch (HRW), an INGO which investigates human rights abuses across the globe, stated that the UK government “repeatedly sought to damage and undermine human rights protections”.

Yasmine Ahmed, the UK director for Human Rights Watch, stated that “In 2022, we saw the most significant assault on human rights protections in the UK in decades” as HRW’s report claims that the UK’s aforementioned policies are a “grave human rights concern”. Due to this, the UK has received notable changes in civic space rankings, and levels of freedom and corruption.

Moreover, from 2022 to 2023, Britain’s Corruption score has decreased by five points, dropping its place in the global rankings from 11th to 18th place, which is the UK’s worst performance in the history of Transparency International’s Global Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI). However, this is not a recent trend as over the past five years the UK has stood out as being a country in which the most significant drops in CPI have been observed.

The government's interference with protests and negative attitudes towards civil society have serious and troubling implications for its liberal democracy standards and human rights norms. There are growing discussions that the country could “soon make the list of countries that abuse rather than protect human rights with its outright assault on the rights of its own citizens and aggressive roll-back of protections such as on the right to assemble and protest. ''

Source with more: https://monitor.civicus.org/explore/civ ... hind-bars/

[Hal Jordan]

You mean all the laws stopping people the Government don't like from even discussing a protest, strangling accountability at every turn, using client journalists and generally acting like twats has made the place worse?

Claude Rains.

[tabascoboy]

You mean all the laws stopping people the Government don't like from even discussing a protest, strangling accountability at every turn, using client journalists and generally acting like twats has made the place worse?

Claude Rains.

How long before all schoolchildren from a few years old are required to learn "patriotic values"...when it comes to comparisons with other regimes maybe we're not looking quite far enough east.

[fishfoodie]

You mean all the laws stopping people the Government don't like from even discussing a protest, strangling accountability at every turn, using client journalists and generally acting like twats has made the place worse?

Claude Rains.

How long before all schoolchildren from a few years old are required to learn "patriotic values"...when it comes to comparisons with other regimes maybe we're not looking quite far enough east.

Already happening old son !

Just look at the likes of Gove & others interfering in the Curriculum, to air brush out inconvenient parts of history, or how they react to the National Trust explaining how many of Britain's magnificent building were built with money from the slave trade. They are still pretending the theft of the Elgin marbles is defensible

[tabascoboy]

You mean all the laws stopping people the Government don't like from even discussing a protest, strangling accountability at every turn, using client journalists and generally acting like twats has made the place worse?

Claude Rains.

How long before all schoolchildren from a few years old are required to learn "patriotic values"...when it comes to comparisons with other regimes maybe we're not looking quite far enough east.

Already happening old son !

Just look at the likes of Gove & others interfering in the Curriculum, to air brush out inconvenient parts of history, or how they react to the National Trust explaining how many of Britain's magnificent building were built with money from the slave trade. They are still pretending the theft of the Elgin marbles is defensible

You best watch out before we decide upon a vanity invasion, I mean "special operation" to recover a part of lost empire...

[Hal Jordan]

We're almost, but not quite, at US levels of Armed Forces Fetishism.

[fishfoodie]

We're almost, but not quite, at US levels of Armed Forces Fetishism.

Shame it's all furcoat, but no knickers !

You've two aircraft carriers, but no aircraft of your own; & bugger all escort vessels to protect them.

Your army is sucking hind tit, after the Navy & RAF, & you won't be doing any invading until you rebuild it after decades of neglect.

[JM2K6]

Yeah OK big man, cool your jets (if you had any)

[GogLais]

We're almost, but not quite, at US levels of Armed Forces Fetishism.

I beg to differ but we might move in different circles.

[Paddington Bear]

We're almost, but not quite, at US levels of Armed Forces Fetishism.

I beg to differ but we might move in different circles.

Yeah agree, we are absolutely nowhere near the US. There was a point towards the end of the Afghan intervention it could have gone that way, but it didn't.