DarloRich
Veteran Member
i would rather we had working public services than £10 a week/month/year extra in my pocket!
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.I complete an online self-assessment every year on 6 April, and it seems to work reasonably well. It probably takes me an hour to collect all the data and enter it.
£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
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.£15,000 paid by the taxpayer I now hear (Channel Four news).
Donelan is under pressure to recompense/pay it herself.
Considering that the taxpayer has picked up the bill I can't see that it will cause her any financial problems.I hope the damages are enough to cause her serious financial problems. Politicians abusing their power in this way and potentially ruining other peoples' lives need to be taught a very hard lesson.
Considering that the taxpayer has picked up the bill I can't see that it will cause her any financial problems.
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:Sorry, I missed that bit - why should the taxpayer be paying?
It cost taxpayers £15,000 to cover damages paid to an academic Science Secretary Michelle Donelan falsely accused of supporting Hamas, her department has said.
The sum was paid "without admitting any liability", the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) added.
On Tuesday, Ms Donelan retracted comments she made last year about Professor Kate Sang.
Ms Donelan said there was "no evidence" Prof Sang was a supporter of Hamas.
Labour and the Liberal Democrats have both demanded that Ms Donelan pay the bill for the damages and legal costs herself, while the University and College Union (UCU) - which represents many academics - described her position as "untenable".
A spokesperson for DSIT said there was "established precedent" of ministers being provided with legal support for matters relating to their "conduct and responsibilities as a minister".
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.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.
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.Do you think that little detail would stop them ripping off the taxpayer?
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.
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.
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.This law really needs to change. The Tories constantly go on about individual responsibility, but it self-evidently does not apply to them personally.
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.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.
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".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.
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.
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.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.
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.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.
£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 rateIf 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.
Vile, disgusting individual. Sorry to be so forthright. This is absolutely beyond the pale.
£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
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.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??
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.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.
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.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.
£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
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).
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/mar/07/income-tax-likely-to-go-up-if-national-insurance-scapped-hunt-suggestsIncome tax may eventually have to be raised to pay for abolishing national insurance, Jeremy Hunt has suggested the day after delivering the government’s spring budget.
The chancellor spent about £10bn to cut NI by 2p in the budget, and has indicated that the government’s eventual ambition is to scrap the tax entirely.
Asked how he would pay for this, Hunt told Sky News: “We’re not saying that this is going to happen anytime soon, and indeed that’s not the only way that you can end that unfairness of taxing work: you can merge income tax and national insurance.”
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.At least if they get rid of National Insurance it will stop people from claiming the a pension isn't a benefit as they've 'paid their stamp'
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.
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')?
If anyone listens to George, it’s good for my £10 bet!The centre has thought about a May election but I think it would be absolutely nuts. They are 26 points behind in the opinion polls. You do not call a general election when you’re 26 points behind and you still have nine months left of your mandate to run.
If I was Sunak, I wouldn’t be ruling out an election in January 2025. You want to give yourself maximum room for manoeuvre.