Discussion
fblm said:
So you actually thought about your contribution? How did that go exactly? I know I want to make it look like I am a jealous little twerp who has made no provision for my own pension so I'll post that I don't give a sh1t if pensioners with large pensions get slammed with a new tax. Well job done. Great contribution.
You want to make it look like you are a jealous little twerp who has made no contribution to your own pension? Feel free. (love the use of "twerp" btw - haven't heard that for years)..or are just missing some punctuation in your fury?
Nice assumption about my pension - good effort
edh said:
go-on then - educate me...
I see my good friend Richard has reproduced some figures published by HMG this morning - they must be misleading then, but I will acknowledge that they do have form for trying to "hoodwink" people with numbers
So you don't understand that he's only looking at the tax relief and not the tax income from pensions?I see my good friend Richard has reproduced some figures published by HMG this morning - they must be misleading then, but I will acknowledge that they do have form for trying to "hoodwink" people with numbers
You don't understand that this is just deferral of tax not an exemption from tax?
edh said:
btw Do you really only answer questions with insults or other questions?
I tend to respond in kind - you might like to review your earlier sarcastic posts...Edited by sidicks on Friday 26th September 17:41
sidicks said:
edh said:
go-on then - educate me...
I see my good friend Richard has reproduced some figures published by HMG this morning - they must be misleading then, but I will acknowledge that they do have form for trying to "hoodwink" people with numbers
So you don't understand that he's only looking at the tax relief and not the tax income from pensions?I see my good friend Richard has reproduced some figures published by HMG this morning - they must be misleading then, but I will acknowledge that they do have form for trying to "hoodwink" people with numbers
You don't understand that this is just deferral of tax not an exemption from tax?
edh said:
btw Do you really only answer questions with insults or other questions?
I tend to respond in kind - you might like to review your earlier sarcastic posts...Edited by sidicks on Friday 26th September 17:41
but it's not just deferral, unless you can show that the same amount of tax is recovered as has been "deferred". Lump sums tax free, personal allowance etc..
edh said:
I don't resort to personal attacks as an initial gambit, and I try and answer questions
but it's not just deferral, unless you can show that the same amount of tax is recovered as has been "deferred". Lump sums tax free, personal allowance etc..
So you admit the £50bn figure is pure fantasy...?,but it's not just deferral, unless you can show that the same amount of tax is recovered as has been "deferred". Lump sums tax free, personal allowance etc..
crankedup said:
sidicks said:
edh said:
he's a "retard" is he? or just doesn't agree with you? - seems you just want to insult anyone who's not in your club
Why don't we get tax relief on all forms of savings? or none?
He demonstrably does not know what he is talking about in a number of areas - this being a prime example.Why don't we get tax relief on all forms of savings? or none?
He deliberately produces misleading figures to hoodwink those that dont know any better - you appear to be his ideal disciple...
Do you really not understand the difference between pensions and other forms of savings??
Greg66 said:
"assuming" - quite. I don't think Labour has said just how it plans to implement this idea.
Even if the assumption is correct, a house that drops from £2.5m to £2.3m still would generate a tax bill in respect of an unrealised capital loss, which remains in the realms of Alice-in-Wonderland madness.
For that matter, how frequently will Labour be revaluing houses? Oh, no one knows, because they haven't thought about that either.
You make a good point - and with your previous post too. Taxing something that doesn't actually exist.Even if the assumption is correct, a house that drops from £2.5m to £2.3m still would generate a tax bill in respect of an unrealised capital loss, which remains in the realms of Alice-in-Wonderland madness.
For that matter, how frequently will Labour be revaluing houses? Oh, no one knows, because they haven't thought about that either.
AstonZagato would need to sell his house. So would I. Or take my kids out of school.
Having worked incredibly hard to buy a decent family home (and pay mahoosive amounts of tax along the way), it seems profoundly wrong to be forced out because of the envious and vindictive policies of these cretins.
sidicks said:
edh said:
I don't resort to personal attacks as an initial gambit, and I try and answer questions
but it's not just deferral, unless you can show that the same amount of tax is recovered as has been "deferred". Lump sums tax free, personal allowance etc..
So you admit the £50bn figure is pure fantasy...?,but it's not just deferral, unless you can show that the same amount of tax is recovered as has been "deferred". Lump sums tax free, personal allowance etc..
edh said:
They are two separate numbers. Current pension savings and pension payment on saved ngs made previously.
I don't think its straightforward just to net the two off.
Agreed - but it's entirely misleading to focus on the tax relief in isolation as our 'friend' Richard vociferously tries to do, ignoring the future tax which will be paid (on the contributions plus growth).I don't think its straightforward just to net the two off.
Reading through this thread, one thing that has become very apparent is that there really are people out there who support envy taxes.
I honestly thought that punishing people for being successful was only a vote winner in the retarded, moronic little minds of the 'woe is me' ex-miners still droning on about Thatcher, and the feckless work-shy who see any increase in tax on others as a potential 'pay' rise for them.
It seems that wealth jealousy actually knows no bounds and is alive and kicking on PH.
Shocking.
I honestly thought that punishing people for being successful was only a vote winner in the retarded, moronic little minds of the 'woe is me' ex-miners still droning on about Thatcher, and the feckless work-shy who see any increase in tax on others as a potential 'pay' rise for them.
It seems that wealth jealousy actually knows no bounds and is alive and kicking on PH.
Shocking.
PorkInsider said:
Reading through this thread, one thing that has become very apparent is that there really are people out there who support envy taxes.
I honestly thought that punishing people for being successful was only a vote winner in the retarded, moronic little minds of the 'woe is me' ex-miners still droning on about Thatcher, and the feckless work-shy who see any increase in tax on others as a potential 'pay' rise for them.
It seems that wealth jealousy actually knows no bounds and is alive and kicking on PH.
Shocking.
Quite true. Labour has always been able to tap that chip on the shoulder, that sometimes hidden resentment, usually clothed in a veneer of righteousness.I honestly thought that punishing people for being successful was only a vote winner in the retarded, moronic little minds of the 'woe is me' ex-miners still droning on about Thatcher, and the feckless work-shy who see any increase in tax on others as a potential 'pay' rise for them.
It seems that wealth jealousy actually knows no bounds and is alive and kicking on PH.
Shocking.
Much better to spunk any spare cash away down the pub, or on cars, holidays and entertainment equipment that you can't really afford, rather than thinking ahead to your retirement.
After all, the guy next to you who earns the same but puts some away in his pension instead will always be there to to pay your way.
If you run out of money too fast, you can always claim bankruptcy to write off your dept and keep all the stuff as well.
After all, it's a victimless crime.
After all, the guy next to you who earns the same but puts some away in his pension instead will always be there to to pay your way.
If you run out of money too fast, you can always claim bankruptcy to write off your dept and keep all the stuff as well.
After all, it's a victimless crime.
Hol said:
Much better to spunk any spare cash away down the pub, or on cars, holidays and entertainment equipment that you can't really afford, rather than thinking ahead to your retirement.
After all, the guy next to you who earns the same but puts some away in his pension instead will always be there to to pay your way.
If you run out of money too fast, you can always claim bankruptcy to write off your dept and keep all the stuff as well.
After all, it's a victimless crime.
Depressing, isn't it...After all, the guy next to you who earns the same but puts some away in his pension instead will always be there to to pay your way.
If you run out of money too fast, you can always claim bankruptcy to write off your dept and keep all the stuff as well.
After all, it's a victimless crime.
This joke popped up in the Sean Connery thread. I though it might amuse here:
I was weeding my garden the other day when my right-on neigbours - mother, father and daughter - walked past.
"Tell him what you are going to be when you grow up," said the mother to her daughter.
She little girl looked at me and said proudly, "I am going to be prime minister for the Labour Party."
"That's great," I said. "Tell me, what will you do when you are prime minister?"
She thought for a second or two and then said, "I will give homes to the homeless people and give food to he hungry people." He parents smiled and nodded in approval.
"That is wonderful," I said. "But you know what? You don't need to wait until your are prime minister to do that."
"What do you mean?" she said, puzzled.
"Well, if you help me in the garden, do some weeding and mow the lawn, then wash my car and sweep the drive, I will pay you £40 because it will take you most of the day. Then you can take your £40 to the town centre and find a homeless person. You can buy him a meal and pay for a night in a hostel. You will have solved his hunger and his homelessness, at least for one day, and you can do that right now."
She looked at me uncertainly. "I would have to work all day?" she asked in a small voice.
"Yes," I smiled. "You work and give him the money and then he will have food and shelter."
She looked at me for a moment, thinking hard. Then she said, "Why doesn't HE do the work himself?"
"Welcome to the Conservative Party!" I said.
I was weeding my garden the other day when my right-on neigbours - mother, father and daughter - walked past.
"Tell him what you are going to be when you grow up," said the mother to her daughter.
She little girl looked at me and said proudly, "I am going to be prime minister for the Labour Party."
"That's great," I said. "Tell me, what will you do when you are prime minister?"
She thought for a second or two and then said, "I will give homes to the homeless people and give food to he hungry people." He parents smiled and nodded in approval.
"That is wonderful," I said. "But you know what? You don't need to wait until your are prime minister to do that."
"What do you mean?" she said, puzzled.
"Well, if you help me in the garden, do some weeding and mow the lawn, then wash my car and sweep the drive, I will pay you £40 because it will take you most of the day. Then you can take your £40 to the town centre and find a homeless person. You can buy him a meal and pay for a night in a hostel. You will have solved his hunger and his homelessness, at least for one day, and you can do that right now."
She looked at me uncertainly. "I would have to work all day?" she asked in a small voice.
"Yes," I smiled. "You work and give him the money and then he will have food and shelter."
She looked at me for a moment, thinking hard. Then she said, "Why doesn't HE do the work himself?"
"Welcome to the Conservative Party!" I said.
sidicks said:
edh said:
No, not unless hmg made it up
That's just the tax relief in this year, ignoring the tax income on pensions in the year.As I already explained to you..
(And that tax relief is not lost, as the pensions are taxed on receipt. Hence the quoted number is highly misleading!
It is very clearly more lucrative for the Govt to take 20% of pension money at the pint of investment than wait to take 20% of that money plus 20% of the capital uplift of that money.
Investing 20% of everyone's pension savings and recieving it in the future plus all the growth and heavy risk diversification and without having born any of the underlying investment risk is wrong.
It is far smarter to take the much smaller amount of money now than the much larger sum later.
You Capitalist 'Tard.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff