Give and take

[the black fox]

The triple lock pension what a joke , just checked my bank and my tax at source has virtually wiped out any pension increase . This current government is a total joke unless you come across the channel in a rubber dinghy

 

[cambsno]

The triple lock pension what a joke , just checked my bank and my tax at source has virtually wiped out any pension increase . This current government is a total joke unless you come across the channel in a rubber dinghy

Just another example of this (and to be fair previous ) government of screwing the normal, average person in favour of rich corps and millionaires, benefit claimants and channel crossers.

Work hard, build a moderately successful life and we will come after your home and pension.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

You only pay tax if you receive more than the allowance.

That being the case, your pension increase hasn't been "wiped out". Rather, your income is sufficiently large that you are paying tax on the income you receive, over and above the pension. Many of us don't, because most of our income, in effect, comes from the taxes we have already paid.

 

[woof woof]

You only pay tax if you receive more than the allowance.

That being the case, your pension increase hasn't been "wiped out". Rather, your income is sufficiently large that you are paying tax on the income you receive, over and above the pension. Many of us don't, because most of our income, in effect, comes from the taxes we have already paid.

A situation brought about by decades of poor government necessitating ever higher taxes and taxes affecting ever more people and this supports the OP's point that this current government and many of those preceding it haven't exactly done a splendid job, to put it mildly.

I've thought for decades that the UK needs a revolution and by that I don't mean blood in the streets, I mean a political revolution. The ruling class have in the opinion of many failed in office and failed to listen and they need to go. IMO.

 

[Eucris]

A situation brought about by decades of poor government necessitating ever higher taxes and taxes affecting ever more people and this supports the OP's point that this current government and many of those preceding it haven't exactly done a splendid job, to put it mildly.

I've thought for decades that the UK needs a revolution and by that I don't mean blood in the streets, I mean a political revolution. The ruling class have in the opinion of many failed in office and failed to listen and they need to go. IMO.

So when the "Independent Revolutionary Party" takes control what do you think will happen. You will still be taxed.

 

[woof woof]

So when the "Independent Revolutionary Party" takes control what do you think will happen. You will still be taxed.

I suppose your preference is for more of the same. I think we all should accept that "we" must pay tax as the country is in no state to operate without that happening but we can still expect a level of competence in government way ahead of what we've seen for a long time. A level of competence that doesn't lead to ever higher taxes and ever more people being taxed on ever more occasions. The current situation is simply not sustainable. Look at debt, borrowing and the costs. It's not sustainable and the people who brought us to this point must be replaced.

 

[Eucris]

I suppose your preference is for more of the same. I think we all should accept that "we" must pay tax as the country is in no state to operate without that happening but we can still expect a level of competence in government way ahead of what we've seen for a long time. A level of competence that doesn't lead to ever higher taxes and ever more people being taxed on ever more occasions. The current situation is simply not sustainable. Look at debt, borrowing and the costs. It's not sustainable and the people who brought us to this point must be replaced.

So what is your solution? How are you going to achieve that?

 

[woof woof]

So what is your solution? How are you going to achieve that?

Sadly it's not just up to me. It's up to us all to be more careful who we vote for.

 

[Eucris]

Sadly it's not just up to me. It's up to us all to be more careful who we vote for.

So who should we vote for then?

 

[woof woof]

So who should we vote for then?

Someone who'll offer real change. If that doesn't happen at some point we may be looking at a different kind of revolution or at least large scale unrest and seismic economic and social woes.

 

[lindsay]

If, as a political leadership, you inherit a national debt, you have to service it (pay the interest) and seek to repay it out of income, ameliorated by the effects of inflation. When China went more capitalist, privatising the state-owned businesses, they packaged up all the historic debt, allocated it to moribund companies, and sold the debt as equity. That allowed a fresh start. Clever folk, the Chinese.
We already have government bonds and all each government does is either add more, or repay old debt with new debt when interest rates become more favourable. So you could create a sovereign wealth fund, use it to raise equity by selling new bonds, repay the old govt debt via dividends from the wealth fund, and keep building that ponzi scheme for a while. then bust it and let the hedgies and investment banks take the hit. Maybe.
No political party/leader will solve all the problems we whinge about if they have to get re-elected every 5 years. You need a benevolent dictatorship with a longer fixed term of reign. Not something anyone would likely choose to vote for.
What does "real change" look like anyway? We still need an NHS, schools, universities, infrastructure, etc etc. All of which costs a lot of money which HMG needs to come up with through either taxes or investment returns. It's not too hard to design a new system if you have a clean slate. However there will never be a clean slate - as Reform have found in the councils they won control of in the last local elections. Great ideas and soundbites don't actually count for much if stuff still has to be paid for.
I can't see any possible party having an answer despite what may be desirable.

 

[gman]

If, as a political leadership, you inherit a national debt, you have to service it (pay the interest) and seek to repay it out of income, ameliorated by the effects of inflation. When China went more capitalist, privatising the state-owned businesses, they packaged up all the historic debt, allocated it to moribund companies, and sold the debt as equity. That allowed a fresh start. Clever folk, the Chinese.
We already have government bonds and all each government does is either add more, or repay old debt with new debt when interest rates become more favourable. So you could create a sovereign wealth fund, use it to raise equity by selling new bonds, repay the old govt debt via dividends from the wealth fund, and keep building that ponzi scheme for a while. then bust it and let the hedgies and investment banks take the hit. Maybe.
No political party/leader will solve all the problems we whinge about if they have to get re-elected every 5 years. You need a benevolent dictatorship with a longer fixed term of reign. Not something anyone would likely choose to vote for.
What does "real change" look like anyway? We still need an NHS, schools, universities, infrastructure, etc etc. All of which costs a lot of money which HMG needs to come up with through either taxes or investment returns. It's not too hard to design a new system if you have a clean slate. However there will never be a clean slate - as Reform have found in the councils they won control of in the last local elections. Great ideas and soundbites don't actually count for much if stuff still has to be paid for.
I can't see any possible party having an answer despite what may be desirable.

Lest we forget expenditure.

 

[the black fox]

Hmmm it’s basically the tax threshold hasn’t moved in years and while that’s nice for wage earners where average wage is possibly £500 + a week x 2 it’s not much fun on a state pension plus a small ( getting smaller ) private pension . Our bills are the same whether you work or are a oap ,possibly more if your home all day using gas ,electricity etc ,

 

[cambsno]

Hmmm it’s basically the tax threshold hasn’t moved in years and while that’s nice for wage earners where average wage is possibly £500 + a week x 2 it’s not much fun on a state pension plus a small ( getting smaller ) private pension . Our bills are the same whether you work or are a oap ,possibly more if your home all day using gas ,electricity etc ,

Yes, but a younger working person will have a sizeable mortgage and kids to expense typically. As well as saving for pension etc...

 

[cambsno]

If, as a political leadership, you inherit a national debt, you have to service it (pay the interest) and seek to repay it out of income, ameliorated by the effects of inflation. When China went more capitalist, privatising the state-owned businesses, they packaged up all the historic debt, allocated it to moribund companies, and sold the debt as equity. That allowed a fresh start. Clever folk, the Chinese.
We already have government bonds and all each government does is either add more, or repay old debt with new debt when interest rates become more favourable. So you could create a sovereign wealth fund, use it to raise equity by selling new bonds, repay the old govt debt via dividends from the wealth fund, and keep building that ponzi scheme for a while. then bust it and let the hedgies and investment banks take the hit. Maybe.
No political party/leader will solve all the problems we whinge about if they have to get re-elected every 5 years. You need a benevolent dictatorship with a longer fixed term of reign. Not something anyone would likely choose to vote for.
What does "real change" look like anyway? We still need an NHS, schools, universities, infrastructure, etc etc. All of which costs a lot of money which HMG needs to come up with through either taxes or investment returns. It's not too hard to design a new system if you have a clean slate. However there will never be a clean slate - as Reform have found in the councils they won control of in the last local elections. Great ideas and soundbites don't actually count for much if stuff still has to be paid for.
I can't see any possible party having an answer despite what may be desirable.

For a start we could be smarter on our expenditure. We do have to cut the welfare state, too many people on benefits of some kind and that is not sustainable. Child benefit is fine but not for families with umpteen kids! We can attempt to strip some of the red tape and rules within NHS and other bodies. They often mean well, but mean something often costs more as they have to fill out forms in triplicate etc...

There should be no way our taxes go up and our services get worse which is the thing here. Things like cutting back on non qualified immigration, tax breaks for super rich/companies need to be looked at

 

[Mr Bump]

The triple lock pension what a joke , just checked my bank and my tax at source has virtually wiped out any pension increase . This current government is a total joke unless you come across the channel in a rubber dinghy

you only pay tax on the difference above your allowance?
Allways been that way, why the sudden rant?

 

[the black fox]

you only pay tax on the difference above your allowance?
Allways been that way, why the sudden rant?

Checked my bank this morning first payment after April increases and the state pension increase has been wiped out by tax on my private pension .. total joke by thieving reeves and co

 

[JohnC6]

Checked my bank this morning first payment after April increases and the state pension increase has been wiped out by tax on my private pension .. total joke by thieving reeves and co

Jeff ..the 'like' was what you said about the cancellation of the pension rise by the tax increase on a private pension not re blaming Rachel Reeves. .

I suppose you could say she could have increased the personal threshold allowance which has been frozen since 2021 actioned by the then Chancellor, Rishi Sunak at £12570. By putting it as you have it suggests it's Rachel Reeves' doing. Due to the parlous state of 'the books' when Labour took power she's been forced to keep the allowance frozen. I expect you know it's called 'fiscal drag'.

 

[footman]

For a start we could be smarter on our expenditure. We do have to cut the welfare state, too many people on benefits of some kind and that is not sustainable. Child benefit is fine but not for families with umpteen kids! We can attempt to strip some of the red tape and rules within NHS and other bodies. They often mean well, but mean something often costs more as they have to fill out forms in triplicate etc...

There should be no way our taxes go up and our services get worse which is the thing here. Things like cutting back on non qualified immigration, tax breaks for super rich/companies need to be looked at

I’m interested to know what you mean by “rules and red tape” in the NHS.

 

[Pound Coin]

For a start we could be smarter on our expenditure. We do have to cut the welfare state, too many people on benefits of some kind and that is not sustainable. Child benefit is fine but not for families with umpteen kids! We can attempt to strip some of the red tape and rules within NHS and other bodies. They often mean well, but mean something often costs more as they have to fill out forms in triplicate etc...

There should be no way our taxes go up and our services get worse which is the thing here. Things like cutting back on non qualified immigration, tax breaks for super rich/companies need to be looked at

Interested to know how many extra people are on benefits.

 

[Mr Bump]

Checked my bank this morning first payment after April increases and the state pension increase has been wiped out by tax on my private pension .. total joke by thieving reeves and co

get real, its just paying tax, just because you are getting income from pension obey the rules and stop whining.

 

[Pound Coin]

Someone who'll offer real change. If that doesn't happen at some point we may be looking at a different kind of revolution or at least large scale unrest and seismic economic and social woes.

Interested to know what “real change” is.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

...total joke by thieving reeves and co

I don't think Ms Reeves and Co. are stealing anything.

They are performing the duties of their office and so far have done it well, in my opinion.

 

[footman]

Interested to know what “real change” is.

So often "real change" just means "any change", the problem begins when people have to articulate exactly what that means.

 

[cambsno]

I’m interested to know what you mean by “rules and red tape” in the NHS.

We sell to NHS and once the clinical team have approved it, things can get stuck for months due to inefficiency and people just seemingly blocking things for the sake of it. 95%+ of the time it does go in, so there is no issue with what we sell and the clinical need, but surgeons could be treating people a lot quicker without some of the delaying processes.

 

[cambsno]

Interested to know how many extra people are on benefits.

Too many!

In 2024 4.8m people were claiming PIP or DLA, an increase from the previous year of 450k - which is roughly 10%.

DWP benefits statistics: February 2025

www.gov.uk

It's gone from around 3m 10 years ago to 4.8m now... that is not sustainable! The number of under-25s claiming sickness benefits has jumped by 52% since the start of 2020.

New Report reveals young people nearly fives time more likely to be put out of work

New Keep Britain Working Review report reveals an increase of 1.2 million young people with work limiting health conditions

www.gov.uk

There are 8.7 million people in the UK with a work-limiting health condition, up by 2.5 million (41 per cent) over the last decade, including 1.2 million 16 to 34-year-olds and 900,000 50 to 64-year-olds.

Why are these numbers rising so quickly? Were we just ignoring them in the past? Or are we pandering to someone feeling a bit anxious today? Why are we seemingly over-diagnosing.

Work has changed so much to help people who may not be 100% - not just disability discrimination laws but also in the way the workplace has changed since I started back in the mid 90s. Back then it was shirt, tie trousers for the office job. Turn up at 9, leave at 530. Employment rights a lot weaker than now. But now we have flexible working, last few companies I have been at its make sure the core hours of 11-3 are done but flexible working around that, so no-one is having a go if you turn up at 930. You can work remotely if you want, there is far more support and help for people. Yet more and more younger people are "not fit to work". This is only going to feel a lot worse when todays 40 and 50 years olds retire and we are in the hands of those currently 10-35.

Of course there will always be people who need government help. But the numbers being as high as they are AND increasing at such a rate should be one of the most alarming things.

 

[tarric]

It will always be the same, the bottom 10% of the country will never earn enough to pay tax and the top 1% will be provided with a get out clause so they either pay very little or nothing that means the other 89% end up paying for everything. Yes the welfare budget is to large but over 1/3 of that is made up in in work benefits to to supplement low wages paid by companies. All the tax breaks given to the very rich and large companies also cost the country hundreds of billion of £'s. All this just to allow some to become even wealthier while the country goes down the drain regardless of which politician is in charge, and the really clever part by these people is that they have convinced the vast majority of the population that it's not them that's the problem, but the poor the migrants anybody but them.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

...and the really clever part by these people is that they have convinced the vast majority of the population that it's not them that's the problem, but the poor the migrants anybody but them.

I agree.

Most democracies teeter on the edge of falling into one form of fascism or another. I think that the main cause of this problem is the truly immoral relationship between the wealthy and the (allegedly) religious. This was shown most clearly during the Spanish Civil War but it goes on everywhere. By religion, I mean the unquestioning belief in any hierarchical system, be it something like Communism or something more "traditional", such as Buddhism.

Until children are taught to distinguish between reality and fantasy, this problem will remain. How we manage that depends on who we choose to teach them, what we choose to teach them and how we choose to teach them.

 

[gman]

It will always be the same, the bottom 10% of the country will never earn enough to pay tax and the top 1% will be provided with a get out clause so they either pay very little or nothing that means the other 89% end up paying for everything. Yes the welfare budget is to large but over 1/3 of that is made up in in work benefits to to supplement low wages paid by companies. All the tax breaks given to the very rich and large companies also cost the country hundreds of billion of £'s. All this just to allow some to become even wealthier while the country goes down the drain regardless of which politician is in charge, and the really clever part by these people is that they have convinced the vast majority of the population that it's not them that's the problem, but the poor the migrants anybody but them.

It often feels like...

A bunch of rich people
Convincing poor people
To vote for rich people
By telling the poor people
That other rich people
Are the reason they are poor


As for migrants, I think it is the illegal migrants often being blamed for costing so much money, not migrants.

 

[tarric]

As for migrants, I think it is the illegal migrants often being blamed for costing so much money, not migrants.

Many in this country can't differentiate.

And people like him don't help.

View: https://youtu.be/Fcc2048HwTI

 

[gman]

Many in this country can't differentiate.

And people like him don't help.

View: https://youtu.be/Fcc2048HwTI

It's always been just rheotric coming from them. I've said it before on here that they overlook the many hurdles and obstacles that would prevent any party from deciding to immediately block and deport masses of immigrants (illegal or not).

Apart from the ECHR, there's the 1951 Refugee Convention, our own legal system and appeals processes, the backlash that would occur from the EU including most likely trade disruption, the backlash that would occur from minority groups etc.

It is going to be a long, slow and delicate process to properly deal with illegal migration and also critically important for it to not spill across to legal migrants, of who from the many I know are equally, if not more, upset at the unfairness and other consequences of our illegal migration mess.

 

[cambsno]

It often feels like...

A bunch of rich people
Convincing poor people
To vote for rich people
By telling the poor people
That other rich people
Are the reason they are poor


As for migrants, I think it is the illegal migrants often being blamed for costing so much money, not migrants.

This!

Only a teeny tiny minority would want no immigration. We know it can benefit and is needed. The issue is that we should be accepting people that have something to offer like nursing, it, or other skills, who want to work and contribute. Not families of 15 with no English, no skills and whose cousins marry each other. That is just a drain on our resources

 

[Nod]

This!

Only a teeny tiny minority would want no immigration. We know it can benefit and is needed. The issue is that we should be accepting people that have something to offer like nursing, it, or other skills, who want to work and contribute. Not families of 15 with no English, no skills and whose cousins marry each other. That is just a drain on our resources

Most of us are of immigrant stock anyway - even if we have to go back a century or so to find it.

 

[cambsno]

Most of us are of immigrant stock anyway - even if we have to go back a century or so to find it.

And... most people are not bothered about immigrants (including us) if they are of benefit to the country and contribute. Even more so, those of immigrant stock would not have had ancestors who came here 100 years ago and were handed stuff on a plate!

 

[f/1.2]

Many in this country can't differentiate.

And people like him don't help.

View: https://youtu.be/Fcc2048HwTI

He is right.

 

[BillN_33]

Just put our rental flat up for sale - the only one that we have which was providing extra income in our retirement - (80 this year!) - we will see what these new rental rules introduced by this Labour Government do for the supply of rental properties and indeed rents - I think available properties will be reduced and rents will increase and it will be another Labour policy that they have not thought through.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Most of us are of immigrant stock anyway - even if we have to go back a century or so to find it.

This is true.

The British are, like most other national populations, a bunch of mongrels and we're all the better for it.

 

[cambsno]

Just put our rental flat up for sale - the only one that we have which was providing extra income in our retirement - (80 this year!) - we will see what these new rental rules introduced by this Labour Government do for the supply of rental properties and indeed rents - I think available properties will be reduced and rents will increase and it will be another Labour policy that they have not thought through.

Agree - good intentions but will have the reverse effect. Issues are land prices, supply/demand, lack of council houses.

 

[f/1.2]

Just put our rental flat up for sale - the only one that we have which was providing extra income in our retirement - (80 this year!) - we will see what these new rental rules introduced by this Labour Government do for the supply of rental properties and indeed rents - I think available properties will be reduced and rents will increase and it will be another Labour policy that they have not thought through.

They will probably buy it and turn it into an H.M.O.

 

[gman]

Just put our rental flat up for sale - the only one that we have which was providing extra income in our retirement - (80 this year!) - we will see what these new rental rules introduced by this Labour Government do for the supply of rental properties and indeed rents - I think available properties will be reduced and rents will increase and it will be another Labour policy that they have not thought through.

I suspect that properties will either be bought by a homeowner, thus reducing rental stock (as you say), or will be snapped up by big corp. where rents could (and probably will) be increased substantially (as you also say). They will also have a very powerful voice for lobbying the Government, unlike small private landlords.

I've come across so many posts feeding into my Facebook about families being given eviction notices from their landlords and they can't find anywhere else at all, never mind something affordable. It must be truly awful for so many people.

Some points from the new Act, if rent can only be increased once a year, then will interest rates only change once per year? If a tenant is allowed 3+ months of non-payment before legal proceedings can commence, is there any legislation allowing the landlord to not pay the mortgage for the same length of time? Many people I know who are "landlords" only have one extra property, usually inherited from the death of a family member. Almost all of them are having problems with their tenants not paying and it takes forever to go through the courts.