DarloRich
Veteran Member
i would rather we had working public services than £10 a week/month/year extra in my pocket!
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.
- Thread starter Cowley
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Howardh
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2011
- Messages
- 8,303
I do too, but being single and having no immediate family (and mother/grandmother having severe dementia) I'm in a state of worry that one day I won't have the capacity to fill that form in, probably forget about it, and HMRC taking more money out, or more likely not enough, as my affairs are a little complicated with a state pension coming on top of current pensions, and savings interest which is taxable and has to be declared, and shares dividend.
To be honest I'd rather HMRC take the 20% (or 8% dividend) for all at source and I claim it back and then I won't fall into the trap of having underpaid. Yes I have a paid tax advisor to help!
£15,000 paid by the taxpayer I now hear (Channel Four news).Meanwhile, a minister has paid out damages after falsely claiming that an academic was a Hamas supporter.
Or, to be more accurate, the taxpayer has paid out.
Michelle Donelan told to pay damages to academic over Hamas claim
Science Secretary Michelle Donelan had claimed a university professor sympathised with Hamas.www.bbc.co.uk
Donelan is under pressure to recompense/pay it herself.
brad465
Established Member
She's the biggest winner from the budget, given the latter overshadowed this story. Also, if the government care about clamping down on benefit scroungers so much, she should be first on the list.
Donelan needs to be instantly sacked from her job and removed as an MP.
Politicians abusing their power in this way and potentially ruining other peoples' lives need to be taught a very hard lesson.
Vile, disgusting individual. Sorry to be so forthright. This is absolutely beyond the pale.
Politicians abusing their power in this way and potentially ruining other peoples' lives need to be taught a very hard lesson.
Vile, disgusting individual. Sorry to be so forthright. This is absolutely beyond the pale.
Last edited:
Considering that the taxpayer has picked up the bill I can't see that it will cause her any financial problems.
Sorry, I missed that bit. Why on earth should the taxpayer be paying? We didn't commit the slander.
Why on earth should politicians be able to slander others without any consequences personally? In my view, Donelan needs to be taught a very hard financial lesson and made an example of, so that no politician tries this kind of thing on again.
I hope the Taxpayers' Alliance have something to say. Of course they probably won't...
Last edited:
Not a clue, seems ridiculous to me that the taxpayer is picking up the tab or at the very least if we do have to pickup the tab that the Minister that has incurred such a cost should resign. No sign as yet however of such a thing but apparently typical according to the relevant department:
Michelle Donelan's false Hamas claim about academic cost taxpayer £15,000
The science secretary has accepted her original comments about Professor Kate Sang were wrong.
www.bbc.co.uk
Gloster
Established Member
Even further under the radar was Lady Foster, Conservative ex-MEP, who has paid damages to a member of a team on University Challenge after she alleged that the team’s mascot was anti-Semitic and called for the doctoral student to be expelled from Oxford and arrested. The episode was filmed in March.
It is not clear if Lady Foster had to pay everything herself.
It is not clear if Lady Foster had to pay everything herself.
She's not got a position within the Government (she seems to be the equivalent of a back bench MP but in the Lords) so I can't see how a Government department (i.e. taxpayer) would be on the hook.
Gloster
Established Member
Do you think that little detail would stop them ripping off the taxpayer?
Well no but it does make it a bit harder for them to find a way to cover any bills. It's easy for Donelan because she's a minister so the Department picks up the tab. It remains, however, still quite tricky for the Government to just randomly cover the random bills of random Peers.
It's becoming increasingly clear to me that the Conservative Party are corrupt and rotten to the core.
Apparently it was an octopus.
So you can't have a cuddly octopus as your mascot without being accused of anti-Semitism by some authoritarian right-winger? What if you just like octopuses?
I've lived on this planet quite a while now, and I've never heard of octopuses being a symbol of anti-Semitism. So it's scarcely common knowledge.
This law really needs to change. The Tories constantly go on about individual responsibility, but it self-evidently does not apply to them personally.
Donelan - and Donelan only - is the person who should pick up the bill. (And IMV £15,000 is inadequate damages for the severity of the slander and the fact that it was committed by someone in high political office who ought to know better).
"Do as I say, don't do as I do". That should be the motto of the Tories.
Last edited:
Howardh
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2011
- Messages
- 8,303
The economic future probably needs a separate thread; but as someone who is about to hit state pension age I'm very worried that NI will eventually be scrapped as headlines suggest, replaced by a significant increase to income tax to make up the shortfall. That will drag pensioners into paying a lot more income tax, many like myself will have planned future expenses on income tax being around 20%, not suddenly having to find the extra when it's 30-35%. (Otherwise where does the money come from for public services?)
That is unless state pensioners are exempt from this add-on; or the threshold is significantly higher, but if not then how will many cope? A basic pension + couple of private ones + maybe some savings interest will put a pensioner into the £20-30k/yr bracket, having to find £800-£1700 more than anticipated.
Not many votes in that!!
That is unless state pensioners are exempt from this add-on; or the threshold is significantly higher, but if not then how will many cope? A basic pension + couple of private ones + maybe some savings interest will put a pensioner into the £20-30k/yr bracket, having to find £800-£1700 more than anticipated.
Not many votes in that!!
If they're doing their Government business then the Government should pick up the tab. I don't want Ministers who are afraid to act because they're concerned they might personally be liable for a mistake. But Ministers in Donelan's position who have acted foolishly and now cost the taxpayer £15,000 should resign their position. That's the correct sanction in my view.
Obviously if they're not doing Government business that would be a separate matter and they should be personally liable just like you or I.
One could equally ask how many working age people cope now with rising prices and increased levels of taxation. I'm not convinced it's sustainable to continue to give pensioners the special treatment that they've enjoyed for so long by squeezing working age people ever more. Particularly pensioners who clearly have substantial resources. Those who are getting by on just their state pension I have more sympathy for.
I think Donelan will pay up, but only after a fuss has been made, which just shows how oblivious she is inside the Westminster bubble of what normal people think.
I read it that Lady Foster paid herself, that was my interpretation of one of the reports yesterday.
But Jeremy Hunt is going to “voluntarily” pay 28% CGT so that he doesn’t ‘benefit’ from him cutting the rate to 24% yesterday. This is political sensitivity/correctness gone mad. And a silly precedent. One law for everyone, even if he benefits, live with it or don’t incur the tax.
I read it that Lady Foster paid herself, that was my interpretation of one of the reports yesterday.
But Jeremy Hunt is going to “voluntarily” pay 28% CGT so that he doesn’t ‘benefit’ from him cutting the rate to 24% yesterday. This is political sensitivity/correctness gone mad. And a silly precedent. One law for everyone, even if he benefits, live with it or don’t incur the tax.
It sounds like political foolishness too, as he appears to be implicitly admitting that lowering it to 24% wasn't "the right thing to do".
Howardh
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2011
- Messages
- 8,303
A lot of pensioners have sacrificed a lot during their working life (holidays, cars, decent homes etc) in order to have a comfortable retirement where they are not relying on state hand-outs. If people like that feel that they'd have been better off saving nothing, spending like there's no tomorrow and when in retirement simply get all the benefits we are entitled to - is that a fiscal win or loss for the government?? Especially as OAP's are expected to reach a ripe old age these days??
If you are on basic state pension alone, and paying little/no income tax, what benefits/allowances are you entitled to? Council tax help, housing benefit, heating benefit etc? A lot of those are means-tested, which those who have saved don't pay.
If you're on the current state pension, the triple lock means you're getting £900 more this year, which is about the same as the average worker is saving from the two NI cuts.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
It's a bit analogous to Johnson's claiming a much larger sum for legal support in the Partygate enquiry. Although the amount Johnson claimed was ridiculous, in principle he was justified in some level of support because the "parties" were for employees and it was being argued they were part of the business of running No10. From what I can tell, Donelan was making a political point and trying to open up another culture war - perhaps the Tory party should be picking up the bill? The research body she wrote to also had to have an enquiry to establish that the accusation was false, and the cost of doing this will ultimately fall on taxpayers too.
Howardh
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2011
- Messages
- 8,303
£10,556/yr. Can you live off that in your old age, or are you putting money aside (whether it be pensions or savings) to top it up? Although if anyone's in their twenties now, that might not be of any interest as they will be working well into their 70's at this rate
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
You seem to have a very low bar for considering someone to be vile and disgusting. Certainly what Michelle Donelan did was wrong, and it does feel that she should have had more severe consequences than has happened. People should check their facts better before making accusations on social media (particularly if you are in a prominent position), but failing to do that is (regrettably) something that a large proportion of people who regularly publish stuff on social media are guilty of, and I wouldn't say that writing something that's wrong makes a person 'vile and disgusting'.
Or do you know something else about Michelle Donelan that the rest of us don't know, that would qualify for that description? Does she kill and eat babies for dinner or something (I think that would count as 'vile and disgusting')?
£10,556/yr. Can you live off that in your old age, or are you putting money aside (whether it be pensions or savings) to top it up? Although if anyone's in their twenties now, that might not be of any interest as they will be working well into their 70's at this rate
£10K a year - subtract £3K for utilities etc. (which even with today's prices allows for generous usage) and £1K for council tax, leaves you roughly £120/week. I'd guess I spend about £40/week on food, so yeah, I would say I could live off that (provided I don't have a mortgage or rent to pay). It doesn't leave a huge amount for contingencies but it seems enough to cover essentials plus some spare. I guess different people's mileages and tastes will vary though.
Last edited:
Of course many people of a working age are now making those same sacrifices just to survive rather than to enjoy a comfortable retirement. Doesn't seem unreasonable to spread a little bit of the pain around a little bit more. Rather than continuing to protect pensioners at all costs. Plus someone who makes no provision for their retirement will have a much more uncomfortable time of it than someone who does so that would remain an unwise course of action.
You also seem to forget that income tax is a percentage of income above a threshold. If, through good planning and no small amount of luck, you arranged to have say £25k income in retirement you'd still be far better off, even if you're paying income tax at say 30%, than if your retirement income ended up being £11.5k (the full new state pension from April 2024) and paying no tax (to the tune of £10k after tax). I'm not convinced there's a massive disincentive to just not make any savings, assuming you can afford them, unless you have a very poor understanding of the tax system.
As I say I can see why pensioners or those approaching would think it unfair but I'm not sure it's sustainable to continue to provide massive protections to pensioners whilst expecting working age people to cover more and more of the costs.
And lots of them aren't means tested either such as the Winter Fuel Payment, bus pass, free prescriptions, etc. But in any event a single pension who was only entitled to the new state pension (currently £203.85 per week but rising to £221.20 per week from April) and had no other income would likely receive full Housing Benefit (potentially capped to their Local Housing Allowance if they were in private rent, in social housing it would be whatever their rent is) and they'd receive a 100% Council Tax Reduction.
Of course someone of working age in the same position would receive a maximum of £85.09 per week (assuming they're aged 25 or over otherwise it would be £67.41 per week) via Universal Credit (rising to £90.80 per week or £71.93 per week depending on age from April). That person would also get help with their rent but if they're aged under-35 they would get only a shared room rate of Local Housing Allowance (in social housing they'd get the full amount less any Bedroom Tax if they had a spare bedroom, this doesn't apply to Pensioners). For Council Tax, depending on their local authority, they might get a 100% Reduction but more likely they'd only get somewhere between 75% and 90% as most Councils require everyone to pay something.
All of that is to say that pensioners have, rightly, over many years benefited from a great deal of protection by Government but I do not think that it is sustainable in the long run to continue to expect them to enjoy the privileged position that they have done and asking those who are lucky enough to have a higher income to make some contribution via a higher level of income tax should NI be abolished would not be wholly unreasonable.
Agreed, the issue with Johnson was that he was getting high quality legal representation paid for by the tax payer after more than a decade of vicious cuts to legal aid meaning that for people who have far fewer resources that Johnson they'd be completely on their own facing far more serious accusations. Including people who are wholly innocent having to ruin themselves financially to defend against incorrect criminal charges. But for someone as well off as Johnson? No problem, as much money as it takes to defend him. Balderdash.
£10,556/yr. Can you live off that in your old age, or are you putting money aside (whether it be pensions or savings) to top it up? Although if anyone's in their twenties now, that might not be of any interest as they will be working well into their 70's at this rate
As @DynamicSpirit has worked out, it's perfectly liveable on as long as you don't have a mortgage. Those are the pensioners who are likely to get themselves into financial strife as the welfare benefits system effectively leaves mortgage holders to their own devices. Someone who has a mortgage that is likely to last past their state pension age would be well advised to plan accordingly! But if you're renting then even on just the State Pension there's enough other support around to make it perfectly possible to live on.
More stealth under the surface:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/07/income-tax-likely-to-go-up-if-national-insurance-scapped-hunt-suggests
There is a complication with that in that those of us on the Basic State Pension were invited to make a lump sum payment to bring the pension up towards that of the New State Pension. This was not to make up for underpayments in previous years, I had paid NI for about 40 years. That part of the state pension cannot be considered a benefit as it was a payment specifically towards increasing the payer's pension, in the same way that they could have paid into a private pension. There may be similar situations - even those who bought NI for missing years could argue that that was to improve their pension, particularly if they were out of the country at the time.
This is why I think it's best to get rid of it. That money paid in is seen as you providing money for your own retirement but it's just spent like every other government revenue. Especially as people are getting back much more than they put in. (I think I read it takes 3 current workers to pay the pension of 1 retired person?)
A government minister accusing someone of being a Hamas supporter when they're not, is vile and disgusting in my book. Abuse of power of the worst kind. She could have ruined her targets' lives.You seem to have a very low bar for considering someone to be vile and disgusting. Certainly what Michelle Donelan did was wrong, and it does feel that she should have had more severe consequences than has happened. People should check their facts better before making accusations on social media (particularly if you are in a prominent position), but failing to do that is (regrettably) something that a large proportion of people who regularly publish stuff on social media are guilty of, and I wouldn't say that writing something that's wrong makes a person 'vile and disgusting'.
Or do you know something else about Michelle Donelan that the rest of us don't know, that would qualify for that description? Does she kill and eat babies for dinner or something (I think that would count as 'vile and disgusting')?
Just another reason why we need an election ASAP to replace this reactionary right-wing Government.
Last edited:
George Osborne (https://www.theguardian.com/politic...i-sunak-kemi-badenoch-labour-uk-politics-live):
If anyone listens to George, it’s good for my £10 bet!
- Status