Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Unmoderated

New Members
  • Posts

    3,821
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Unmoderated

  1. 33 minutes ago, kzb said:

    The allowance was set at £6,475 for 2010/11. In his Budget speech on 22 June 2010 the then Chancellor, George Osborne, confirmed that it would rise to £7,475 from April 2011, at a cost of £3.5 billion in 2011/12.

    At this time Mr Osborne stated that the allowance would continue to rise “during the rest of this Parliament.”[2]  In turn, the allowance went up by £630 for 2012/13, by £1,135 for 2013/14, and by £560 to reach £10,000 from April 2014.

    Let's correct the 2010/11 threshold of £6475 for inflation to the current year.  It comes to £9520.  But the actual tax threshold is £12,570 this year.  The tax threshold has not simply increased in line with inflation, it has increased by a lot more than that.  So you have to believe me now.

    https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06569/

    Correct, I recall that also.  There was a 10p tax rate for the first couple of thousand (?) for just a few years.  When Brown got rid of it, there was such a stink that they had to decrease the basic rate in compensation. Anyhow it didn't last long.

    Yes but that is higher rate.  For well-off people.

    The state pension is paid from the the National Insurance Fund.  HMRC collect NICs as a hypothecated tax and account for it separately to other taxes.  The NI system was invented to pay for a defined list of contribution-based benefits, and the state pension is one of them (and the biggest one of course).

    Let's just digest that for now.

    Again, you're being selective with your dates. It was also £6,475 in the prior year and it will be £12,750 in 2025/26 too. Taking just this very narrow history it gives an annnualised increase of 4.33%. The current RPI index from April 2009 to April 2023 is 4.1%.... No clue what inflation index you're using? Will have to see what inflation rates are for the next couple of years but that, to me, is pretty close. 

    Second, this is only one tax threshold and refers to the personal allowance. It's another give for retirees who on typically on a lower income than when they were in work. Other thresholds have been fronzen. Higher tax hurdles introduced (£50K with child benefit reduction and £100K PA alowance abatement - so much for it increasing in real terms lol!)

    You think someone earning £50K today with a student loan and trying to buy a house is well off? You are living in cuckoo land my friend. Utter fantasy. Even £100K barely touches the sides for someone wanting to start a family anywhere in the South East after you've finished taking off student loans, mortgage payments etc. 

    It's not paid from the NI fund. There's no such thing lol. They can count it seperately to track the revenue it brings in but it's BS, total BS, to say it pays the state pensions. Like arguing that 'road tax' is a thing and pays for the roads or tobacco duty pays for lung cancer treatment. 

    The benefits of NI are no longer controbution based. It is outdated and simply another tax. You claim it covers unemplyment insurance? Really? Why wont I receive anything despite paying in for years? Ah, it's because I'm not a total moron and have savings. 

    It was introduced the way it was so that the majority of people didn't think it was a tax lol. You seem to be arguing on the one hand it's an insurance policy, then it's a seperate fund, then it's a pay as you go system. It is purely the latter. 

    When Boomers were working they had a lower total tax take, supported fewer retirees and could retire earlier and often on a defined contribution scheme. 

    I'm not trying to blame them for any of this but to set things out as if it was just the same for them as the current generation is laughable. 

  2. 9 hours ago, hotblack42 said:

    Down another 3% relative to wages then..

    Brilliant, falling in real terms and as an income multiple. 

    4 hours ago, Loving The Crash said:
     

    Nominal House Price

     

    Real House Price

     

    Not seasonally adjusted

     

    Adjusted for RPI

    2022 Q3

    £273,135

     

    £299,006

    2022 Q4

    £265,195

     

    £279,781

    2023 Q1

    £258,115

     

    £268,047

    2023 Q2

    £261,995

     

    £264,236

    2023 Q3

    £260,181

     

    £261,292

    2023 Q4

    £259,157

     

    £259,157

           

    Source:  Nationwide

     

     

     

     

    Wonder how much longer Nationwide can spin this sh*t?  Got to feel sorry for anyone who bought in cash in Q3 2022 - they're the biggest losers of all....

    Why? What would they have wasted in rent versus what they 'lost' on the house (can't lose if you don't sell, just like you can't win from prices rising lol)

    People buying with a mortgage have been handed a win with the 13% real terms reduction in their mortgage debt. 

  3. 8 minutes ago, kzb said:

    If you are an accountant you should know the that income tax rate at 20% is the lowest in living memory, and also the threshold is way above what it was before the coalition government raised it hugely.  This is in real terms also, corrected for inflation.  These are facts that you can look up for yourself if you need to, but I would think you know this already.

    Other taxes must be generally higher of course, but to some extent you have a choice on whether you pay it or not.  Don't want to pay 20% VAT?  Well don't buy it then.

    The NI rate was last at 9% in about 1993.  After that, for 31 years, it has been higher than 9%.  So, for example someone born in 1960 and starting work at 21 paid 9% or under for 12 years until age 33.   For the next 31 years, to age 64, the NI rate is higher than that.  So they've spent their highest earning years paying more than 9%.  That is all I was saying, and it is completely factual.

     

    The state pension is paid out of NICs, so if you paid higher % NI you paid more for pensions.  Simple.

    As explained above, the tax threshold is much higher in real terms post 2012 (?).  So the person born in 1960 paid income tax from a much lower threshold until age 52.  Since then, they aligned the NI threshold with the income tax threshold so that was greatly increased as well.  Again this is completely factual, aside from a slight uncertainty about the year when this happened, and I'm surprised you don't know this already.

    They do on here.

    As I said, tax comes from all directions.  I was referring to deductions from income, which as an employee we can't avoid.

    You don't need to be an accountant to understand the ddifference between a tax rate and an effective tax rate. 

    Income tax rates have been far lower too. I recall a 10% rate. I'm early 40s. 

    The rising of a threshold hasn't kept up with inflation and I don't recall it being increased 'hugely' either. I recall it being increased 'a bit' If you're trying to convince me that tax thresholds have increased inline with infaltion I'll want to see your working or a link to someone elses because I simply don't believe you.

    I do believe the IFS: https://ifs.org.uk/publications/deepening-freeze-more-adults-ever-are-paying-higher-rate-tax

    State pension isn't paid out of NICs. It's paid out of the DWP budget which is funded out of central government which is, turn, funded by HMRC who collect NI and Income tax (and all taxes as far as I know).

    You seem to be picking and choosing your dates for comparison. Boomers were working from the mid 1960s but now you're attempting to index from 2012!? Get out lol. But anyway, let's see your workings. 

    Total tax take (and therefore effective tax rates) are higher than they've ever been while Boomers were in work. 

    Final point I only partially agree with. You can salary sacrifice a lot of your income. £60K/year limit on pensions, cycle to work scheme and EV schemes are also avilable. Especially sensible for anyone earning more than £100K a year. Puts people in the perverse situation of literally trying get rid of this income which is otherwise taxed at a marginal rate of 62%. It's an insane political trap set by Gidiot Brown in the dying days of his failed PM project. Shame on the Tories for not fixing this. 

    Final point - no Boomer was saddled with university debt either which is essentially a graduate tax and many Boomers got maintenance grants and were even able to sign on over the summer holidays! Those student loan repayments aren't considered here - more dark accounting by the governemnt. The burden for shouldering the cost of the ever growing and demanding olides (as a voting block, not personal obvs) is not all set out in plain sight. How any society deems it resonable to give everyone over a certain age a universsal basic income which is triple locked versus financially screwing kids starting out their lives with insane student debt and ridiculous interest rates on that debt is beyond me!

  4. 2 hours ago, zugzwang said:

     

    Except that said crisis is both genuine and ongoing!

     

     

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/feb/29/new-york-community-bank-?ref=upstract.com

    New York Community Bank shares plummet after $2.4bn earnings hit

    Chief executive of embattled bank steps down after company reports ‘material weaknesses’ in internal controls

    New York Community Bancorp (NYCB) came under fresh pressure on Wall Street after reporting “material weaknesses” in its internal controls, booking a $2.4bn hit to earnings and replacing its chief executive.

    Shares in the bank tumbled 19% in after-hours trading on Thursday, extending its extraordinary rout on the stock market.

     

    NYCB first set off alarm bells in January by revealing a surprise quarterly loss and cutting its dividend for shareholders. The subsequent sharp decline of its stock, which is down some 54% so far this year, heightened unease about the US’s regional banking sector.

    NYCB’s struggles have come less than a year after the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) unleashed a regional banking crisis that roiled the industry. Last May First Republic became the largest US lender to fail since 2008.

     

    https://theconversation.com/why-economists-are-warning-of-another-us-banking-crisis-224092

    Why economists are warning of another US banking crisis

    Published: February 26, 2024 5.19pm GMT

    March 2024 is making investors nervous. A major scheme to prop up the US banking system is ending, while a second may be winding down. Some economic commentators fear another banking crisis. So how worried should we be?

    The red letter day is March 11, when US central bank the Federal Reserve will end the bank term funding program (BTFP), a year after it began in response to the failures of regional banks Signature, Silvergate and Silicon Valley. These banks were brought down by customers withdrawing deposits en masse, both because many were tech or crypto businesses that needed money to cover losses, and because there were better savings rates available elsewhere.

    This damaged the banks’ profitability at a time when raised interest rates had already weakened their balance sheets by reducing the value of their holdings in government bonds. Silvergate failed first but Silicon Valley Bank’s collapse on March 10 was particularly memorable. It triggered a bank run by announcing it needed to raise capital after being forced to sell bonds at a loss.

    Come on mate, you've been banging that drum nearly as long as the Count of Nowhere was banging the HPC imminent one (I exagerate of course).

    One bank's profit warning and one economist's opinion are not a banking collapse. 

    Many banks are reporting record profits!. In the UK banking profits for 2023 were roughly couble those in 2022. 

    One bank having a crisis is not a banking crisis. 

  5. On 28/02/2024 at 17:53, kzb said:

    Off topic but

    Hunt considers National Insurance cuts at Budget

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68406450

    They've already cut NI to 10%, taking it back to the 10% rate last seen in 2003.  Taking off another 1% will take it back to 1993 level.

    As boomers we've spent our best working years paying 11-12% NI to pay for the pensions of those older than us.  I don't recall many of us complained about that.

    Now we are approaching retirement age, they are cutting it, and the complainers on here will be paying less for state pensions than we did.  Yet you wouldn't think so from all the bitterness would you.

     

    Incorrect on a couple of fronts. First off, the tax take hasn't been higher for boomers than it is for today's workers. Second the NI rate was 9% in the 1990s so most Boomers paid lower rates regardless. Boomers are also receiving a triple locked state pension younger than today's workers will recieve it.

    There are more and more people receiving an ever increasing state pension. 

    On 28/02/2024 at 20:53, nightowl said:

    Just had a look at NIC rates....I have no idea what the rate is as it's just far to complicated for what it is!  Nuts.

    It's insane. Outside of PAYE I recall there being 4 different classes and each having A and B. I'm a chartered accountant and even I can't be arsed rememebring it all. 

    On 28/02/2024 at 22:14, kzb said:

    Oh yes, but that is besides the point.  I've looked at it and there is no reduction in the employer contribution rate, but the point is they've reduced the employee rate to lowest in over 20 years, and there is talk that it will be reduced to the lowest in 31 years.

    So the boomers have spent the last 31 years paying more NI (which is mostly for paying the state pension) than younger people will, going forward.

    You touch on another point. a corporation budgets £X for a headcount. If e'ers NI stays where it is then it's all included in that budget.

    Again, incorrect on boomers paying more for the pension - as explained above. Note fiscal drag too. % can be lower but if the rate kicks in at a lower level of income how is thhat paying less overall?

    What matters is the efffective tax rate. The last post in my reply quotes the graph by Si1 demonstrating this clearly. 

    23 hours ago, kzb said:

    I thought it best to get this one in, just so they can't say they are not aware of it.  Seems to have gone strangely quiet on boomer blaming though.

    I think reasonable people don't blame the Boomers as such, it's really the poltiical system buying their votes which is enabled by younger people not voting in the same numbers.

    23 hours ago, Si1 said:

    Sophistry

    01HFVSGPN4YNFM8GBAQT4ZHKTV.jpg?fm=avif&f

     

    There you go.

  6. 16 hours ago, Tony_Teacake said:

    I have to agree he does come out with a lot of crap. There are a few other so called economists on here who also spew out crap.

    Look who's talking lol.

    Possibly the most egregious example of quantity over quality on any forum I've visited. 

    How's your imagineary banking crisis going? I'm staggered you're still here after getting such a public whipping.

    PMSL. 

  7. 1 hour ago, Tony_Teacake said:

    I agree there is a good chance inflation could get a lot worse. I also believe inflation is much higher than what we are seeing reported. Whichever road governments and central banks take a crash on a colossal scale is inevitable regardless of what crap the MSM keeps on telling us.

     

    https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/russias-gasoline-export-ban-2024-02-27/#:~:text=MOSCOW%2C Feb 27 (Reuters),planned maintenance work on refineries.

    Bumper grain harvests mean prices are plummeting lol. 

    The biggest short bet in 20 years on corn, wheat and soy futures suggests market slump could continue. 

    There is not a good chance inflation could get worse. It's looking increasingly likely that it'll keep falling, especially food inflation.

    Headline inflation in the USA now at 2.4%.

    You can believe what you like but the methodology for calculating CPI in the UK is clearly set out by the ONS. Perhaps you've got your own measure of it you'd share with the Forum?

    The only thing I could see for prices rising is an escalation of the Ukraine-Russia war. 

  8. 1 hour ago, clarkey said:

    Especially wealthy ones with massive paid off houses . The paid their stamp dontcha know

    Excactly who that is aimed at! I admit far from all retriees are in this position, but some are taking a final salary pension AND a triple locked state pension. These people have never had a higher income in their lives and yet it's working people with mortgages and children who should pay to get inflation under control and foot the bill for the lockdowns?

    It's utterly insane. 

  9. 2 hours ago, whitemice said:

    Being born into financial security gives them a different outlook on risk. We spend like poor people, while they spend like rich people, regardless of our wealth.

    Have discussed people in this scenario at length with friends (all finance backgrounds but from fairly normal, lower middle class families). 

    People from a welathy background can afford to take much bigger risks that we can so they also put themselves in a situation where they can reap much bigger rewards. 

  10. 56 minutes ago, Far Canal said:

    There will be no massive Labour spending programme. You will see £10Bill there and £5Bill there but that's about it. Followed by N.I. going up and other stealth taxes.

    Same as what you've been getting from the One Nation Tories.

    Need to insulate pensioners in all of this don't we. Can't have them paying anytihng like their fair share. 

    I hope you're wrong but sadly I don't think you are.

  11. 1 hour ago, NoHPCinTheUK said:

    Labour will scrap the personal allowance band and raise taxes for all the rest. They will have to finance their massive public spending programme and the markets aren’t going to pay for it, unless they are forced into it. Yes, put as much as you can in your pension. Pension schemes that will have to have 25% of their assets invested into below-inflation coupon paying GILTs. How does it sound? 

    Sounds like BS lol.

  12. 1 hour ago, NoHPCinTheUK said:

    This. PAYEs are the equivalent of those troops who were the first to jump out of the trenches in an assault during WWI. 
     

    I sometimes feel the people now in charge could be compared to the psychopaths who designed the great offensives on the western front.

    Cynically I've had the view that high house prices are designed to keep people working as hard as possible to be able to borrow enough to buy a place. The side effect of this is a huge amount of tax revenue. 

    It's all very short sighted. The brightest are either leaving the UK or waiting until much later to have fewer children. 

    Apples don't fall far from teh tree imho (old fashioned I know) so we have those from lower social-economic backgrounds outbreeding those (and staying in country) from higher social-economic backgrounds and it's all because the poltiicans fear the oldies who vote themselves largesse from the young. 

    If the young could be bothered to vote things would change and pretty damn quickly.

    My advice is to put as much into your pension while you can. I susepct Labour will tinker with allowances or even the whole system and prevent further salary sacrifice contributions. The other reason is that there wont be enough people earning enough money to give millenails anything like the boomers/gen x have as their retirement entitlements. 

  13. Seems like we get closer and closer to that scene in The Matrix with humans in stasis in pods. 

    WTAF is happening to people's quality of life? I don't want to wish my life away but I am so glad I'm not twenty years younger when i see stuff like this. 

    Graduating with £50K of debt to get a job and end up living in one of these places. 

    No wonder people aren't bothering. I'm not sure I would tbh.

  14. 14 minutes ago, Orb said:

    I'm 45 and feel that life in a motorhome and working 5 days a month then drinking/partying at the weekends with my friends is a much more fulfilling life and better alternative to working full time and buying a house. Especially as I have no kids or wife etc. I'm strongly considering eeking the rest of my life out living in a motorhome. Why not? I'll be free from the grey drudgery. 

    I love the idea of it and I've spent time in campervans. They're a lot of fun! I think I would get bored living in one full time though. My idea is, instead, to max out my savings and pension and give myself a hard end of work date. At that point I sell up everything and relocate somewhere by the sea (Cornwall or maybe Devon). Clear the moretgage and burn down my savings pile until I'm able to take private pension. 

    Same as you re kids and wife. I have a serious GF though who is seven years younger and I'm turning 42 this year. She might keep working either in what she does now or pehaps something else (she's quite arty so ideal for Cornwal in that sense).

    Then we can head out in the campervan while the weather is good and rent the house out as a holiday let. Not taking up another property with a perm air bnb and making a little money on the side. Hopefully between that and ISAs it'll be a tax free existence from that point on. 

  15. 22 hours ago, 70PC said:

    Builder sells for £40k over the market price. 1% mortgage for two years, then bam. 

    By which time we're all two years older

    22 hours ago, Orb said:

    It's despairing really, that buyers won't see behind it all. What this should say to buyers is "we're desperate to sell houses because demand has dried up", and for buyers to just sit and wait for price drops. But no, they'll get sucked in to these teaser rate mortgages, then face the horror of vastly increased monthly payments two years down the line. 

    As above, but during 2013 I had a couple of uni friends (married to each other) who bought a flat in Reading. I told them it was all BS with HTB etc and they agreed but they also pointed out (rightly in hindsight) that it'll jack prices. By not participating I missed out on an equity accrual and instead lived at home/rented for the four years until I did buy.

    21 hours ago, jiltedjen said:

    If a can is kicked for a humans functional life, does that means problems are effectively solved instead of being a can kick? (At least for that generation) 

    2008 was a crash, and bailout etc. was serious but was 16 years ago now, and still no full blown crash. Just a series of can kicks. 

    That’s a hell of a can kick. Lives have been lived in that time. 

    I could of bought a much cheaper house 16 years ago if they had actually let the zombies die, but employment would of been horrific, crime much higher etc.

    instead they can kicked, and it’s been kicked so long, that for many housing has gone from number 1 issues to a none issue.

    we can never know I guess as we can’t see what would of happened had the can not been kicked.

    this is another can kick, another kick to add to hundreds more. 

    Exactly. The number of posts I've seen on here bascially saying they're out of ammo is too big to count. Each time anyone corrects by coming up with additional ideas there's a level of vitriol levied at them. We're not even at MIRAS or government owned mortage products yet. 

    I do dispare for the generation behhind mine. It was hard for us but it will be all but impossible for them. Many in my cohort just aren't bothering any more. Capable people who could be running businesses and generating employment would sooner just party and live in a van or some hovel spending the absolute minimum and doing a load of stuff cash in hand. They see themselves outside of the system and tbf the system has done a great job of seemingly excluding them. 

  16. 13 hours ago, Bear Necessities said:

    As you say, Life is for living and you really don't know how long you have.
    People can stuff their pensions all they like (and I'm not saying they shouldn't if they can) but it's a fat lot of good if they die a handful of years in (or don't even make it that far to begin with).

    I've thought about this a lot. 

    First off, you can't retire young if you haven;t filled your pension. At least you can't have a decent standard of living without good investments behind you. 

    If I worked hard, sacrificed a load of incoe today for income tomorrow etc and I am in fine health at 70 having enjoyed 20 years of retirement I'd be very grateful to younger me. 

    If I dropped dead at 51 I'd be dead so I could care. It's also nice knowing that the money would go to my neices nad nephews (8 of them) which would be enough to get them all a decent deposit (if not a modest flat/terrace somewhere cheaper).

    Life is for living !

  17. 1 hour ago, regprentice said:

    Still better to have 2bn today than 2bn and interest in 5 years. That money will be tax revenues collected this year and should be distributed to services this year.

    The ancillary benefits you describe relating to additional jobs and income generated by house buying would be even greater still  if the prop of HTB were removed and, presumably, house prices fall (as they are now doing). 

    There Is a diffrence between the two. The Pension provides you an income during your life. The value of the home isnt realised until you die. Tying up significant value in homes and property for a generation at a time keeps that money out of the "useful" economy. 

    Disagree on first point. Really depends on rate of return of said investments. The point with lending 2bn to HTB is that it generates some incremenetal tax revenues versus not doing it. Corproation tax for one at those volume builders etc. 

    I agree with you that prices need to fall. Not sure why that is relevent to this discussion?

    Thanks for clearing up the difference. But the point is you were using teh word 'haircut'. It is not a haricut, it's a reallocation of assets pure and simple. 

    Still not hearing anything that suggests exosting pension pots will be subjected to any form of taxation outside of the existing regime. My view, and I say it again, is that a lifetime ISA approach looks more and more likely as various governments pander to the every growing net takers from the system and need someone to pay for it. That would be the catalyst for me to look at emigrating. I suspect I wouldn't be alone. 

  18. 1 hour ago, regprentice said:

    There was no fallout at all when lifetime ISAs were restricted to people under 40. 

    Western countries have applied haircuts to high level savings and to pensions.

    However our govt would probably be more creative - There was a proposal touted a few weeks ago to allow people to use their pension to fund a house deposit. link

    Help to buy is now finished and the govt paid out almost £24Bn under HTB over 10 years  link. On average thats £2bn a year of direct funding to peoples home loans. 

    Heres an idea....Govt wants an extra £2Bn a year. They'd like to take a haircut directly from peoples pensions but its not politically palatable. Instead they stop HTB and start a scheme to allow young people to use their pension pots as a deposit.  That replaces the £2Bn of HTB funding, pensions are now £2bn poorer, people "feel" helped and the govt has £2bn extra in cash they wouldnt have if theyd continued with HTB. 

    They have, indirectly, taken a haircut on peoples pensions of £2Bn a year.

    What happens when all these young people have inadequate pensions is another, future, governments problem. Most of todays politicians wont even be alive by the time that happens. 

    In all your examples there are additional gives or concessions. 

    Lifetime ISAs are for house purchases or 'later in life'. The later in life part is the bit I've already picked up on in my earlier posts. I can see pensions going this way in future. The flexibility of allowing money out for house purchases isn't anything new but I don't agree with it. It will damage provision later in life for pensions. 

    People in the US and Switzerland can (I beleive) take some money out to pay for a house.

    £2bn a year is small fry for governemtn. The thing you're confusing (no offence) is the difference between expenditiure and investment. The HTB loads show up as assets on the books since they're amounts to be repaid. Even better, they will generate income when the interest rises from zero. It is still borrowing by the government of course, and that attracts a charge but the expense is a fraction of the total loaned. It also overlooks that people buying houses generates a lot of revnue for the tax man in one way or the other. 

    It's also not a haircut on a pension. Looking at total assets owned it matters not whether I have £100K in my pension or £100K in a house. 

    They might reform pensions in the future and I am concerned that Labour will do it pretty quickly. In that scenario I've got savings waiting to use up my allowances for prior years to maximise what I can get. 

    That pot would be protected from future changes. They can't convert my existing pension into a lifetime ISA. 

  19. 4 minutes ago, onlooker said:

    i don't agree. An incoming government with a need for lots of money is capable of doing anything. I think abolishing ISA tax wrappers is more likely than significant pension changes. Many investments held for a long time are showing very large gains, which a greedy government would want to take a big slice of. Capital Gains Tax in many ways is a retrospective tax because gains are not indexed for inflation, so past gains could be captured by HMRC in the future..

    In one sense, they write the law so they can change it. Retroactively applying a change to a pensino tax charge would be almost impossible. How do you imagine they'd track the taxes that should have been paid? Salary sacrifice woudln't make that clear to them at all. They'd have to literally go to all the employees and ask them for their gross salaries for each of those years. 

    A flat tax? Possible mecchanically but certainly not politically. Legally it's extremely hard to apply retroative taxes too. Not sure it's ever been done tbh. 

    CGT isn't one of the big three so little interest there. 

    The worst they could do is to introduce a pension ISA which gives tax relief on the way out (like a normal ISA) instead of on the way in. That's cashflow positive for the government and screws later generations and governments so it's highly likely this would get floated (it's already been talked about from time to time). This wouldn't be great for me at all. Removal of the PA tapering nonsense would be the only thing keeping me in the UK (and I suspect many others).

    Don't banish the flock of golden egg layers with dumb tax charges.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information