I assume you mean the 25% tax free lump sum ?Archery1969 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 9:08 amif you are over 55 and have a private pension then I strongly suggest to take it out.
Excuses, Excuses, Excuses
-
- Posts: 4478
- Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2019 8:25 am
+1sniffer66 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 9:54 amI assume you mean the 25% tax free lump sum ?Archery1969 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 9:08 amif you are over 55 and have a private pension then I strongly suggest to take it out.
Thought so. Luckily, I've taken mine alreadyArchery1969 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 10:04 am+1sniffer66 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 9:54 amI assume you mean the 25% tax free lump sum ?Archery1969 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 9:08 amif you are over 55 and have a private pension then I strongly suggest to take it out.

-
- Posts: 4478
- Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2019 8:25 am
So the Rachel Reeves answer to growing the economy is to cut government investment in infrastructure projects!
Genius!

Genius!

Start with cutting subsidies for the bars and restaurants in the Houses of Parliament for MPs. Why on earth should they be entitled to cheaper meals and drinks paid for by the taxpayer? It’s a drop in the ocean, but it’d be at least a sign they understand the public’s frustration.Archery1969 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 12:16 pmSo the Rachel Reeves answer to growing the economy is to cut government investment in infrastructure projects!
Genius!
![]()
-
- Posts: 4478
- Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2019 8:25 am
+ 1jimibt wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 12:18 pmStart with cutting subsidies for the bars and restaurants in the Houses of Parliament for MPs. Why on earth should they be entitled to cheaper meals and drinks paid for by the taxpayer? It’s a drop in the ocean, but it’d be at least a sign they understand the public’s frustration.Archery1969 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 12:16 pmSo the Rachel Reeves answer to growing the economy is to cut government investment in infrastructure projects!
Genius!
![]()
Also they should be put under IR35 tax rules. There working for the same employer 99% of the time but allowed to claim all sorts of benefits, subsidies and allowances.
-
- Posts: 4478
- Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2019 8:25 am
Junior Doctors to be offered 22% over 2 years.
My god, this is going to cost a fortune.
Why should they get 11% per year when everyone else getting 5.6% ?

My god, this is going to cost a fortune.

Why should they get 11% per year when everyone else getting 5.6% ?

Perhaps because we are 8000+ short of junir doctors? So it's too late now but incentivising people to become doctors could reap rewards 5+ year from now.Archery1969 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 12:39 pmJunior Doctors to be offered 22% over 2 years.
My god, this is going to cost a fortune.
![]()
Why should they get 11% per year when everyone else getting 5.6% ?
![]()
-
- Posts: 4478
- Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2019 8:25 am
But won’t the rest of the public sector want the same ?greenmark wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 1:19 pmPerhaps because we are 8000+ short of junir doctors? So it's too late now but incentivising people to become doctors could reap rewards 5+ year from now.Archery1969 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 12:39 pmJunior Doctors to be offered 22% over 2 years.
My god, this is going to cost a fortune.
![]()
Why should they get 11% per year when everyone else getting 5.6% ?
![]()
They would have to be thick to not realise they are not as in demand. IMO.Archery1969 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 1:21 pmBut won’t the rest of the public sector want the same ?greenmark wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 1:19 pmPerhaps because we are 8000+ short of junir doctors? So it's too late now but incentivising people to become doctors could reap rewards 5+ year from now.Archery1969 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 12:39 pmJunior Doctors to be offered 22% over 2 years.
My god, this is going to cost a fortune.
![]()
Why should they get 11% per year when everyone else getting 5.6% ?
![]()
Not happy? Go and train as a doctor. It seems we need more people to do that. Come back to me several years from now.
But it's a democracy, it will play out.
-
- Posts: 4478
- Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2019 8:25 am
The Institute for Fiscal Studies says Labour’s claims are “not very credible” as it had access to much of the data before entering government.


surprised that they didn't use that data as part of their campaign tbh as it would have been explosive...Archery1969 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 4:00 pmThe Institute for Fiscal Studies says Labour’s claims are “not very credible” as it had access to much of the data before entering government.
![]()
-
- Posts: 4478
- Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2019 8:25 am
Because, ultimately, they would have been pressed on what cuts and tax rises would be needed.jimibt wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 4:21 pmsurprised that they didn't use that data as part of their campaign tbh as it would have been explosive...Archery1969 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 4:00 pmThe Institute for Fiscal Studies says Labour’s claims are “not very credible” as it had access to much of the data before entering government.
![]()
Taking the winter fuel payment from those of 65 and not on benefits would have cost them allot of votes. People get use to stuff even if they don’t really need it etc.
- firlandsfarm
- Posts: 3314
- Joined: Sat May 03, 2014 8:20 am
So that was Labour's first step in their austerity policy, funny how they never used that word when setting out their policies for the election!
Excuses! ... you ain't seen nothing yet!




Excuses! ... you ain't seen nothing yet!



-
- Posts: 4478
- Joined: Thu Oct 24, 2019 8:25 am
I wonder what Gordon Brown thinks as it was him that brought in the £300 winter fuel payment for everyone during 1997 ?firlandsfarm wrote: ↑Mon Jul 29, 2024 4:56 pmSo that was Labour's first step in their austerity policy, funny how they never used that word when setting out their policies for the election!![]()
![]()
![]()
Excuses! ... you ain't seen nothing yet!![]()
![]()
![]()
