Well you can kill that "Golden Goose" - the 1% that pay 33% of the tax burden - if you want. I know plenty of people doing a 4 day week instead of paying 60% in the £100k tax trap; not good for the economy or productivity. You might consider the "better offs" as wealthy, but many are anything but. Hence my reference to the HENRYs.
- News all the latest
- Theme Park explore the park
- Resort tour the resort
- Future looking forward
- History looking back
- Community and meetups
-
ℹ️ Heads up...
This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks. - Thread starter Matt.GC
- Start date
- Favourite Ride
- Ug Bugs
- Favourite Ride
- Wild Mouse - Blackpool - :(
- Favourite Ride
- Wild Mouse - Blackpool - :(
- Favourite Ride
- The Giant Squid
- Favourite Ride
- Wild Mouse - Blackpool - :(
UK Politics General Discussion
GooseOnTheLoose
TS Member
Calling for my outright murder feels a little extreme...
HENRYs?
S I measure of inductance in electromotive force is my only def.
Translation please.
And I hear this so many times...if some of the "better off" are "anything but wealthy", they can simply apply for universal credit to help them manage.
Like the people in real poverty.
Or they can limit their outgoings to their income more appropriately.
Simple really.
S I measure of inductance in electromotive force is my only def.
Translation please.
And I hear this so many times...if some of the "better off" are "anything but wealthy", they can simply apply for universal credit to help them manage.
Like the people in real poverty.
Or they can limit their outgoings to their income more appropriately.
Simple really.
Last edited:
shakey
TS Member
So how is that labour government going that people voted for ?
That was possibly the worst budget in terms of my own personal circumstances (and for many other peoples) that I have ever witnessed.
Tax on electric cars which will discourage people to buy them and basically make it impossible for anyone without home charging to even consider it.
Tax on additional pension contributions meaning millions of people will be paying a lot of extra tax when the changes kick in.
Yet another freeze on tax allowances, effectively meaning another tax rise.
And all this so they can pay people to have more children,
What a total shower of (rhymes with hit) !!
I would have the tories back in a heartbeat.
That was possibly the worst budget in terms of my own personal circumstances (and for many other peoples) that I have ever witnessed.
Tax on electric cars which will discourage people to buy them and basically make it impossible for anyone without home charging to even consider it.
Tax on additional pension contributions meaning millions of people will be paying a lot of extra tax when the changes kick in.
Yet another freeze on tax allowances, effectively meaning another tax rise.
And all this so they can pay people to have more children,
What a total shower of (rhymes with hit) !!
I would have the tories back in a heartbeat.
Last edited:
Benzin
TS Member
Worse than the Truss budget?
Most of it doesn't seemingly affect me directly. Lord knows I'd love to have £12k in a savings account, let alone £20k.
Unsure if the salary sacrifice pension one affects me as it's just the standard one they brought in few years back instead of the old opt in.
Electric cars were always going to end up being taxed eventually. If the eventual plan is to make all cars electric then there'd be a big old fuel duty deficit there.
Mrs' disability benefits is going up at least. But I'm not particularly economically minded so most of these changes to me are just words.
Most of it doesn't seemingly affect me directly. Lord knows I'd love to have £12k in a savings account, let alone £20k.
Unsure if the salary sacrifice pension one affects me as it's just the standard one they brought in few years back instead of the old opt in.
Electric cars were always going to end up being taxed eventually. If the eventual plan is to make all cars electric then there'd be a big old fuel duty deficit there.
Mrs' disability benefits is going up at least. But I'm not particularly economically minded so most of these changes to me are just words.
shakey
TS Member
Salary sacrifice changes will affect anyone that is putting in Additional Pension Contributions unless they are only putting in a very small extra amount.
I realise that they will have to start getting taxes from electric cars at some point, but it this is a very un-green decision when they are supposedly trying to get people to buy electric. And as I said, if you don't have access to home charging then you will be getting a double whammy because public charging already costs more than petrol and then you are now expected to pay another tax on top of that. It is a terrible move from the government.
And yes @rob666 I have bought an electric car as you know. It will still be cheaper than petrol for me as I can charge at home but it isn't encouraging anyone to go electric.
The continued freeze on the tax thresh holds will bring more people into tax and more into the top tax bracket. It will even bring the state pension into being taxed when that goes up again, which wont exactly go down well with pensioners.
And the lifting of the two child benefit cap is ridiculous, we should be discouraging people from having large families, not encouraging it.
But my neighbours will be happy. Four kids, and half a job between them both. But they can still afford 2 decent cars and both smoke.
I honestly think this could be worse than the truss budget for a lot of people.
I realise that they will have to start getting taxes from electric cars at some point, but it this is a very un-green decision when they are supposedly trying to get people to buy electric. And as I said, if you don't have access to home charging then you will be getting a double whammy because public charging already costs more than petrol and then you are now expected to pay another tax on top of that. It is a terrible move from the government.
And yes @rob666 I have bought an electric car as you know. It will still be cheaper than petrol for me as I can charge at home but it isn't encouraging anyone to go electric.
The continued freeze on the tax thresh holds will bring more people into tax and more into the top tax bracket. It will even bring the state pension into being taxed when that goes up again, which wont exactly go down well with pensioners.
And the lifting of the two child benefit cap is ridiculous, we should be discouraging people from having large families, not encouraging it.
But my neighbours will be happy. Four kids, and half a job between them both. But they can still afford 2 decent cars and both smoke.
I honestly think this could be worse than the truss budget for a lot of people.
BarryZola
TS Member
Too scared to make the tough but simple decision to put income taxes up. Too scared to upset a massive voter base of pensioners by removing the triple-lock. Too scared of the back-benchers. Instead of trying to get a handle on our ever-ballooning welfare budget they're making it worse and it's totally and clearly unsustainable. I suppose that'll be someone else's problem in a decades time though. A lot of these measures to bring extra money in are not going to come into action until 2027/2028/2029 but the cash giveaways will be available from April. Hardly any of it makes sense.
Just another politician doing easy stuff to try to keep themselves in a job or in power.
Just another politician doing easy stuff to try to keep themselves in a job or in power.
The Truss budget would have completely crashed the economy shakey...without a doubt.
Labour promised no income tax increases as a manifesto promise, so that was always tricky.
And the two kid rule isn't much sense for the nation while the population is shrinking...there are many good hard workers with more than two kids.
And one of my poor pensioner punters pays more in income tax than I earn in three years...and he doesn't complain in the slightest.
But I understand your concerns shakey...no yorkshireman likes money being taken from his pockets.
Labour promised no income tax increases as a manifesto promise, so that was always tricky.
And the two kid rule isn't much sense for the nation while the population is shrinking...there are many good hard workers with more than two kids.
And one of my poor pensioner punters pays more in income tax than I earn in three years...and he doesn't complain in the slightest.
But I understand your concerns shakey...no yorkshireman likes money being taken from his pockets.
Lots of smoke and mirrors with taxes by stealth. For example they are claiming they have reduced business rates for small business with lower multipliers, great. What they don't tell you is that Ratable values are going up from April, in some cases significantly so. This will wipe out any and all benefits of the lower multipliers.
Almost nothing in the budget to help small business or the hospitality sector. It's getting to the point where there no point in running a business or even working.
Almost nothing in the budget to help small business or the hospitality sector. It's getting to the point where there no point in running a business or even working.
Poisson
TS Member
The ISA idea is absolute idiocy. You can have 20k, but only 12k in cash so please gamble with your other 8k in stocks. I'm happy to have a stocks and shares ISA, but it's not the point, lots of people won't want one. I'm also not convinced discouraging pensions is a good idea. Is it only your sacrifice or is it both taken into account with company schemes?
shakey
TS Member
I believe this doesn't affect company schemes it is only on extra pension contributions. So at the moment a basic rate tax payer would save 28% on extra contributions because they are taken out before tax and national insurance. So sacrificing £500 only costs you £360. When the change comes into effect then it will cost you £400.
@rob666 if that pensioner is paying more tax than you earn then he really hasn't got anything to complain about.
The UK population is not shrinking , it is growing. See below.
Hard working families with more than two kids are not likely to be on benefits (other than child benefit which isnt capped at two anyway - but it should be), its the lazy scroungers and people that would rather keep having kids than work who get the benefits. I am sure there are cases where families genuinely need extra help and I am not saying people shouldn't have more than two but tax payers shouldn't be funding them to do so.
UK Population (a slight dip in 2024 in an otherwise constant increase)
| 2025 | 68,180,606 |
| 2024 | 67,961,439 |
| 2023 | 68,350,000 |
| 2022 | 67,791,000 |
| 2021 | 67,026,292 |
| 2020 | 67,081,234 |
| 2019 | 66,836,327 |
| 2018 | 66,460,344 |
| 2017 | 66,058,859 |
| 2016 | 65,611,593 |
| 2015 | 65,116,219 |
| 2014 | 64,602,298 |
| 2013 | 64,128,273 |
| 2012 | 63,700,215 |
| 2011 | 63,258,810 |
| 2010 | 62,766,365 |
| 2009 | 62,276,270 |
| 2008 | 61,806,995 |
| 2007 | 61,322,463 |
| 2006 | 60,846,820 |
| 2005 | 60,401,206 |
| 2004 | 59,987,905 |
| 2003 | 59,647,577 |
| 2002 | 59,370,479 |
| 2001 | 59,119,673 |
| 2000 | 58,892,514 |
| 1999 | 58,682,466 |
| 1998 | 58,487,141 |
| 1997 | 58,316,954 |
| 1996 | 58,166,950 |
| 1995 | 58,019,030 |
| 1994 | 57,865,745 |
| 1993 | 57,718,614 |
| 1992 | 57,580,402 |
| 1991 | 57,424,897 |
| 1990 | 57,247,586 |
| 1989 | 57,076,711 |
| 1988 | 56,928,327 |
| 1987 | 56,802,050 |
| 1986 | 56,681,396 |
| 1985 | 56,550,268 |
| 1984 | 56,422,072 |
| 1983 | 56,332,848 |
| 1982 | 56,313,641 |
| 1981 | 56,333,829 |
| 1980 | 56,314,216 |
| 1979 | 56,246,951 |
| 1978 | 56,196,504 |
| 1977 | 56,193,492 |
| 1976 | 56,211,968 |
| 1975 | 56,225,800 |
| 1974 | 56,229,974 |
| 1973 | 56,194,527 |
| 1972 | 56,086,065 |
| 1971 | 55,896,223 |
| 1970 | 55,663,250 |
| 1969 | 55,441,750 |
| 1968 | 55,211,700 |
| 1967 | 54,943,600 |
| 1966 | 54,648,500 |
| 1965 | 54,348,050 |
| 1964 | 54,000,000 |
| 1963 | 53,650,000 |
| 1962 | 53,250,000 |
| 1961 | 52,800,000 |
| 1960 | 52,400,000 |
| 1959 | 52,241,647 |
| 1958 | 51,960,813 |
| 1957 | 51,682,399 |
| 1956 | 51,421,613 |
| 1955 | 51,193,266 |
| 1954 | 50,969,939 |
| 1953 | 50,728,620 |
| 1952 | 50,484,813 |
| 1951 | 50,271,904 |
| 1950 | 50,055,065 |
Last edited:
Tom
TS Member
We need more people to have children, and not keep topping up numbers with immigration. But we need more people working and not subsidising voluntary non-working, of which there are hundreds of thousands of people at least.
Too many people are getting past working age and demanding benefits themselves just because they’ve “paid into the system”. The universal winter fuel payment should have been removed, as should the 2.5% element of the triple lock, a damaging populist, vote grabbing policy. Universal pension payments also need to be eradicated and moved to a means tested system.
We are in managed decline and effectively bankrupt as a nation, and no one wants to pay taxes or take anything off those pensioners that don’t need it. There wasn’t a Klarna option on the ballot paper as far as I recall.
Too many people are getting past working age and demanding benefits themselves just because they’ve “paid into the system”. The universal winter fuel payment should have been removed, as should the 2.5% element of the triple lock, a damaging populist, vote grabbing policy. Universal pension payments also need to be eradicated and moved to a means tested system.
We are in managed decline and effectively bankrupt as a nation, and no one wants to pay taxes or take anything off those pensioners that don’t need it. There wasn’t a Klarna option on the ballot paper as far as I recall.
Very long list there shakey.
Correction.
The working population is falling, proportionate to overall numbers, because the population is getting older, due to a shortage of young people.
Go search the figures for them.
Our "human age" pyramid is wonky at the base...the ""Demographic Timebomb" Mr Wooldridge talked about in human geography fifty years ago.
Not enough young 'uns growing up to pay for the elderly pensioners.
The number of over sixties has nearly doubled in fifty years...and they are living longer, costing the nhs more.
Who are now paid more because of the crazy (but politically acceptable) triple lock.
Keep up mate.
And be grateful...no National for five months.
Correction.
The working population is falling, proportionate to overall numbers, because the population is getting older, due to a shortage of young people.
Go search the figures for them.
Our "human age" pyramid is wonky at the base...the ""Demographic Timebomb" Mr Wooldridge talked about in human geography fifty years ago.
Not enough young 'uns growing up to pay for the elderly pensioners.
The number of over sixties has nearly doubled in fifty years...and they are living longer, costing the nhs more.
Who are now paid more because of the crazy (but politically acceptable) triple lock.
Keep up mate.
And be grateful...no National for five months.
Last edited:
What on earth are you doing up at this time diogo???
Not gone to bed yet?
And in truth...there is no actual housing shortage...just an imbalance of bedrooms.
We just have everybody in the wrong houses.
The bigger (and posher) the house, the greater the chance of more empty bedrooms.
The smaller the house, the bigger the chance of overcrowding.
Ninety million bedrooms in this country...twenty two million spare rooms according to our shakey's population figures...and that is one each...no couples!
The richer homeowners just don't want to share them out fairly.
We could start with Buck House...all those empty bedrooms...and so many homeless in London.
Charlie and Wills could sort out the whole homeless problem all by themselves with their properties and land...
And to finish with workers to pensioners...again.
When the old age pension started post war, there were roughly five workers for every pensioner.
Now there are only three workers per pensioner.
That is why we need an increase in taxation overall, unless we bring in the "Dead at Sixty" economic solution recommended by the cosmopolitan afol swashbuckler.
Not gone to bed yet?
And in truth...there is no actual housing shortage...just an imbalance of bedrooms.
We just have everybody in the wrong houses.
The bigger (and posher) the house, the greater the chance of more empty bedrooms.
The smaller the house, the bigger the chance of overcrowding.
Ninety million bedrooms in this country...twenty two million spare rooms according to our shakey's population figures...and that is one each...no couples!
The richer homeowners just don't want to share them out fairly.
We could start with Buck House...all those empty bedrooms...and so many homeless in London.
Charlie and Wills could sort out the whole homeless problem all by themselves with their properties and land...
And to finish with workers to pensioners...again.
When the old age pension started post war, there were roughly five workers for every pensioner.
Now there are only three workers per pensioner.
That is why we need an increase in taxation overall, unless we bring in the "Dead at Sixty" economic solution recommended by the cosmopolitan afol swashbuckler.
Last edited:
BarryZola
TS Member
We do currently need more young workers to pay tax to look after pensioners. However, if we did get enough numbers of them then when these young tax payers get to pension age we'll probably need an even larger base of new young tax payers to pay and look after them. This isn't really sustainable either. We need another solution really. It'll probably involve warehousing old people in some way so we'll need to take the vote away from them too to stop all governments making policy to suit them. Or, we can just keep up the charade. Sounds awful, I know.