16% increase in council tax touted

[spyguy]

15 minutes ago, wish I could afford one said:

If my local Tesco's was anything to go by this afternoon their either going to die early or it's going to cripple us keeping them 'alive'.  I could hardly move for obesity, red faces/noses and mobility scooters.

When I was grwoing, Id listen to friends of my Nans sit and whinge about 2 things:

1) I cant wait for them to pull my teeth out so I have dentures and dont have to clean them any more.

2) I cant wait till I can get the Dr to get me a wheelchair so I dont need to walk anywhere. Somebody can push me. (This was way before the Motability scam).

My Nan, who worked til she was 82, was not like them. These were women in their late 50s/early 60s. Born ~1920s Id guess.

The ones who swung a wheelchair - there was nothing really wrong with them bar chilblains, were dead with a few years. You stop walking and you get fluid build up. You get fluid build up and you fck you heart + lungs up.

 

[spyguy]

4 hours ago, Si1 said:

The boomer generaton.

 

In their youth they were supported bankrolled and promoted by their parents generation. 

In their adult years they had the same paid for by a growing national debt to be paid by their children. 

And in their dotage they'll pass the bill onto their grandchildren.

 

 

Sadly, we are only at the start of boomers. The fckers peak in ~10 years time.

 

[spyguy]

1 hour ago, spyguy said:

They do - careers allowance.

The people  who chase this down tend to be fcking useless.

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/blind-man-benefits-axed-after-9380033

Look at that ash tray.

How the fck he manages to light that ashtray full of fags without burning himself Ill never know.

 

[SarahBell]

 

 

[Mikhail Liebenstein]

2 hours ago, wish I could afford one said:

Actually, it looks like our pension situation is similar.  I'm age 44 so have a couple of years on you and currently have a pension pot of £490k.  So the LTA is a potential problem for me with compound growth plus some government tinkering (I think I'll be just ok based on past performance provided the government don't tinker too heavily in future).  What I always find strange is that if HMRC want to limit peoples pensions then limit what can go in (which is of course what they do) but not what the pot becomes worth as this just punishes investing performance which I find bizarre.  We are a global world, why punish your own citizens if they invest well compared to others.

What am I going to do at this point?  I'm going to retire abroad.  I've worked hard to ensure the following synchronise:

• Enough cash to buy a family home outside tax friendly wrappers
• Enough outside pension wrappers to tide me over between age 44 and age 55 plus a bit to account for government tinkering that might restrict private pension access
• Get the pension pot to as close to the LTA at private pension age as possible

By retiring I then get to play country cost arbitrage.  Back on topic - Spain or Cyprus certainly aren't going to be charging me £2k or more in Council Tax for a 3 bed villa with pool.

Fair enough.  If you are planning to retire earlier then I take your point. Actually that is quite similar to my University chum as he has no kids and plans to retire early.  I've got young kids, so no chance of that. Though my wife is 4 years younger than me, so perhaps I can get her to slave away.  The other thing, which I never count on or wait on any form of anticipation for is that both my wife and I would probably be in line for reasonable inheritances. My side not so much., but certainly a few hundred K and some European property, and my wife's side probably more in the low millions. Though to be honest, we'd probably give most of it to the kids by then as we don't really need it and quite probably they'd need it if house prices keep moving north.

Edited December 30, 2016 by Mikhail Liebenstein

[GreenDevil]

8 hours ago, mathschoc said:

Slash the foreign aid budget

make large companies such as Vodafone, Lloyds and Shell pay their corporation tax

Raise taxes on BTL

Raise taxes on top 5% earners

Hardly rocket science. If house prices were priced at their true worth (bricks and mortar)/ rents were correct, I would not mind such a hike in council tax which would help those in need of support. But write now I am just about getting my family by on the monthly wage so Surrey Council can F*** off.

Agreed, tax the top earners.

Another scumbag Tory policy to make the poor pay a much greater share of taxes while the 1% make billions from their money printing asset bubbles.

It simply ain't fair.

[wish I could afford one]

12 minutes ago, GreenDevil said:

Agreed, tax the top earners.

Another scumbag Tory policy to make the poor pay a much greater share of taxes while the 1% make billions from their money printing asset bubbles.

It simply ain't fair.

To be in the top 5% of tax paying earners you're earning £70,400.  On that you're going to be paying £22,101 in tax and NI.  You don't think their paying their fair share?

[GreenDevil]

4 minutes ago, wish I could afford one said:

To be in the top 5% of tax paying earners you're earning £70,400.  On that you're going to be paying £22,101 in tax and NI.  You don't think their paying their fair share?

No.

[wish I could afford one]

1 minute ago, GreenDevil said:

No.

So what should they be paying if paying nearly the average UK salary just in tax and NI is not enough?

[Mikhail Liebenstein]

4 minutes ago, GreenDevil said:

No.

What about £70k tax on £170k income?

[Mikhail Liebenstein]

25 minutes ago, GreenDevil said:

Agreed, tax the top earners.

Another scumbag Tory policy to make the poor pay a much greater share of taxes while the 1% make billions from their money printing asset bubbles.

It simply ain't fair.

It not the 1% you are concerned with, I think Billions applies to the top 0.01%.

 

[wish I could afford one]

Just now, Mikhail Liebenstein said:

It not the 1% you are concerned with, I think Billions applies to the top 0.01%.

Agreed, to be a 'PAYE 1%'er' you're earning £159,000.   On that you're paying £64,163 in tax and NI.

[wish I could afford one]

3 minutes ago, Mikhail Liebenstein said:

It not the 1% you are concerned with, I think Billions applies to the top 0.01%.

Agreed.  To put my situation in perspective over the last few years I've lived well on 12% of my earnings including rent payments.  In comparison 37% of my earnings have then been lost to income tax, NI and dividend/interest taxes.  It's a no brainer to opt out asap. 

[Mikhail Liebenstein]

5 minutes ago, wish I could afford one said:

Agreed, to be a 'PAYE 1%'er' you're earning £159,000.   On that you're paying £64,163 in tax and NI.

Tell me about it.  I am definitely paying my share.  I am probably paying the highest average rate of almost any group in society. Though I have a great deal of sympathy of those earning £120k, as that is really shite - what with the personal allowance being gradually withdrawn from £100k+ giving them a 70% marginal rate. 

It's the people earning £800k+ more than me we need to watch. I' not even worried about City traders who might take £600k in a good year, they'll also mostly pay their fair share.

 

 

Edited December 30, 2016 by Mikhail Liebenstein

[Frugal Git]

For anyone with a house bought before 2001, a 70k income is probably just lovely. For them, paying that 20k of tax and NI seems high, but hey - you've benefited from policies towards your asset.

For anyone who didnt have the option to buy that house, and are finding themselves getting to the point of good earnings, that same 70k gross income in the SE of England compared to the price of a reasonable home is, frankly, crap. In cambridge that's pissing in the wind. Top 5% earner? Why, here's a 1 bed shared ownership flat you might be able to afford if you sign over your life.

Paying out 20k+ of that in tax and NI to governments who actively work against the worker is yet another insult.

[Mikhail Liebenstein]

8 minutes ago, Frugal Git said:

For anyone with a house bought before 2001, a 70k income is probably just lovely. For them, paying that 20k of tax and NI seems high, but hey - you've benefited from policies towards your asset.

For anyone who didnt have the option to buy that house, and are finding themselves getting to the point of good earnings, that same 70k gross income in the SE of England compared to the price of a reasonable home is, frankly, crap. In cambridge that's pissing in the wind. Top 5% earner? Why, here's a 1 bed shared ownership flat you might be able to afford if you sign over your life.

Paying out 20k+ of that in tax and NI to governments who actively work against the worker is yet another insult.

Totally agree.

Personally I'd slash public sector pension payments to reflect what was actually paid in.

And i'd cut back on pensions and allowances for boomers, unless they have genuinely paid in a decent amount of tax.  We need to have a retrospective contributions based system.

I'd also cut back on health care for the boomers that hadn't paid in.

Then I'd slash income tax for workers.

 

 

Edited December 30, 2016 by Mikhail Liebenstein

[wish I could afford one]

16 minutes ago, Frugal Git said:

...

Paying out 20k+ of that in tax and NI to governments who actively work against the worker is yet another insult.

Agreed.  Here's just one example.  The success of the Help to Buy Scheme, now that it's ending, defined:

• It's helped 100,000 people/couples bid up house prices preventing other 'hard working' PAYE'ers getting on the ladder at a lower market price point
• At the same time the government expect to use £12,000,000,000 of taxpayers hard graft to compensate the banks for the expected defaults that will come from those people/couples over the coming years.  Clearly a scheme that was designed to do nothing more than transfer wealth directly from the taxpayer to the banks from day 1.

So my taxes are being directly used to fund the banks AND keep me priced out of a basic human need.  F*ck that for a joke, I'm out!

[assetrichcashpoor]

19 minutes ago, Mikhail Liebenstein said:

Totally agree.

Personally I'd slash public sector pension payments to reflect what was actually paid in.

And i'd cut back on pensions and allowances for boomers, unless they have genuinely paid in a decent amount of tax.  We need to have a retrospective contributions based system.

I'd also cut back on health care for the boomers that hadn't paid in.

Then I'd slash income tax for workers.

 

 

I'd stick them all on career average pensions. There would be some dissent but ultimately it's a lot fairer as it does reflect what they put in throughout their career.

My place used to be a joke with final salary pensions. For a time they were worked out on how much you earned in your final year including overtime. In the 90s they used to do regular Sunday overtime at double time and including travelling time. It was reserved for people who were in their final year and needed to build up their pension, if for some reason one of them couldn't make it then it would be offered round to other people. That was scrapped when the pension system changed and became more focussed, overtime wasn't pensionable and your final salary was on your basic salary not including allowances and overtime. There were still a few strokes pulled for certain people. At least one person I knew was promoted just over 1 year before their retirement date to a totally random job they were unsuitable for.

 

 

 

[wish I could afford one]

4 minutes ago, assetrichcashpoor said:

I'd stick them all on career average pensions. There would be some dissent but ultimately it's a lot fairer as it does reflect what they put in throughout their career. ...

It still doesn't reflect what's been paid in...

[Kurt Barlow]

40 minutes ago, assetrichcashpoor said:

I'd stick them all on career average pensions. There would be some dissent but ultimately it's a lot fairer as it does reflect what they put in throughout their career.

My place used to be a joke with final salary pensions. For a time they were worked out on how much you earned in your final year including overtime. In the 90s they used to do regular Sunday overtime at double time and including travelling time. It was reserved for people who were in their final year and needed to build up their pension, if for some reason one of them couldn't make it then it would be offered round to other people. That was scrapped when the pension system changed and became more focussed, overtime wasn't pensionable and your final salary was on your basic salary not including allowances and overtime. There were still a few strokes pulled for certain people. At least one person I knew was promoted just over 1 year before their retirement date to a totally random job they were unsuitable for.

 

 

 

Local government has been on career average pensions since about 2007/8 combined with an increase of employees contributions.

[Frugal Git]

17 minutes ago, wish I could afford one said:

It still doesn't reflect what's been paid in...

Indeed it doesn't.  The only fair pension system is based on contributions. Anything else that promises over and above and someone else is paying for it, whether it's through taxation of current workers or through private sector deficits filled by todays company profits. No pay rise for you son - we, erm, made some dodgy promises to your dad.

So, to the future potential kicker....we have that perfect, fair, system at the moment with salary sacrifice and SIPPS and building up your own pot, and the government want to tinker with it under the guise of 'people not understanding pensions' - and hinting to others that we are doing something wrong by not 'paying our share' when we make contributions out of gross. 

Erm no. You've actively stuffed me and millions of other young people with policies that I had no control over. 'Change your vote then' the masses cry. Wake up. They're all at the trough.

So, what I do still have control over - unorthodox it may be is to make sure that I'll not be coming to you for any handouts. You can tax me on surplus when and if I've made sure that I'm not going to be a drain on the state or anyone else. That's my way of living responsibly.  

 

[nothernsoul]

Council tax is a pseudo property tax that deliberately benefits the rich. Raising it to pay for social care places an unfair burden on the lowest paid in the poorest towns. Somebody renting a property in the lowest band in blackpool or liverpool is already paying more than somebody who owns a multi million pound house in westminster.

[dropbear]

2 hours ago, GreenDevil said:

No.

Mate, even top 1% earnings don't get you anywhere in London. It is wealth that should be taxed, not earnings.

Why should a successful 25 year old who lives in a share-house in Peckham be paying twice the income tax of his millionaire landlord who happened to be born at the right time for HPI?

[crashmonitor]

9 hours ago, Mikhail Liebenstein said:

Totally agree.

Personally I'd slash public sector pension payments to reflect what was actually paid in.

And i'd cut back on pensions and allowances for boomers, unless they have genuinely paid in a decent amount of tax.  We need to have a retrospective contributions based system.

I'd also cut back on health care for the boomers that hadn't paid in.

Then I'd slash income tax for workers.

 

 

Only slight difficulty there is you are still providing generous welfare to those that hardly ever worked and then saying somebody that has worked but only earned modestly gets nothing.

Me and my partner have aggregate Ni contributions of eighty years, we both left school at 15, we don't use GP services or claim tax credits but the earnings have been modest. It may not be enough to cover retirement welfare. We could manage to be fair from personal savings til death because we are modest spenders.

We have a friend who appears to have been on welfare all her life because she got fat. Recently got offered a 200k ha flat.

Not much incentive to work at all if only the feckless and rich get pensions for those in between.

[One-percent]

3 minutes ago, crashmonitor said:

Only slight difficulty there is you are still providing generous welfare to those that hardly ever worked and then saying somebody that has worked but only earned modestly gets nothing.

Me and my partner have aggregate Ni contributions of eighty years, we both left school at 15, we don't use GP services or claim tax credits but the earnings have been modest. It may not be enough to cover retirement welfare. We could manage to be fair from personal savings til death because we are modest spenders.

We have a friend who appears to have been on welfare all her life because she got fat. Recently got offered a 200k ha flat.

Not much incentive to work at all if only the feckless and rich get pensions for those in between.

Good post crashy and sums up life for the majority of those in work.  meanwhile, those who have never worked, or worked very little just seem to get a free ride....