[isleaiw1]

Goku, on 10 May 2025 - 12:15 PM, said:

Not remotely interested in your personal anecdotes, I am speaking in broad strokes, not everybody will fit into the generalisations being made. Not saying it’s your fault for buying a house cheap and it appreciating in value either, absolutely mental how you’d infer that from what I wrote.

Not jealous in the slightest, just looking at facts and forming a conclusion. The country is in a death spiral for several reasons and one of those reasons is the farcical triple lock, that doesn’t mean I hate old farts like you, I’m just not going to bury my head in the sand like the majority of this foolish country and pretend it’s not an albatross around our nation’s neck. That doesn’t mean I want no support for pensioners, I want them to live their lives out with dignity… just not at the cost of us moving forward as a country, so they, as the richest cohort, should make sacrifices like everyone else has to. And yes, I know that not every pensioner is well-off - I’ll state that now as I’m sure you’ll purposely misunderstand what I’ve written. Means testing it is above my pay grade but summat needs to be done, except it won’t be done, because as I said, everyone cried when the WFP got means-tested (even though nowt bad happened) so no party will ever be able to touch the triple lock. Thus the death spiral continues.

Re. tarring everyone with the same brush, unfortunately your pitiful reading comprehension has reared its ugly head once more. Talking in broad strokes does not equal tarring everyone with the same brush. Really hope you can figure that out some time soon. As for crying about it, as I said above, you were all fucking bawling when your WFP became means tested 🤣 making out like Starmer was Hitler, yeah proper stiff upper lip stuff that 👍🏻

They cant means test the old age pension because, as I am sure you are aware, its treated not as a benefit but something that you pay into each year to get the benefit later. That's why it matters how many years you have paid NI for. If they want to means test it then they will need to scrap NI, scrap the years service test and only give out to those in need as everyone hasnt paid in for the right to take out. That would need to start soon if its going to have any impact - but of course like the public sector pensions, the short term hit would be too much and no politician will ever vote for pain today and jam tomorrow - especially one unlikely to be in power in 5 years time

[fishini]

 isleaiw1, on 10 May 2025 - 10:55 AM, said:

But intergenerational inequality is a thing. Some will be sorted through familial gifts and inheritance but this will be the first generation in a long time to be less well off than the one before. Is that acceptable - or as a socialist dont you think we should be doing something to address it...

Interesting that you make that comment when you are the one in the positive position but presumably would love to tax much more those with lots of money - which may also be deemed to be driven by jealousy?

I have worked for 51 years. We have always lived within our means. We looked after our money. We never felt the need to move up the housing ladder. We have all we need and I am jealous of no one and that includes pensions

[isleaiw1]

 fishini, on 10 May 2025 - 02:45 PM, said:

I have worked for 51 years. We have always lived within our means. We looked after our money. We never felt the need to move up the housing ladder. We have all we need and I am jealous of no one and that includes pensions

Glad you will be supporting a eduction in higher rate taxes so as to incentive those who do want to push on and progress but are currently deterred from doing so by a system which makes earning £99k preferable to £125k.

That is what you meant,right?

[fishini]

 isleaiw1, on 10 May 2025 - 03:25 PM, said:

Glad you will be supporting a eduction in higher rate taxes so as to incentive those who do want to push on and progress but are currently deterred from doing so by a system which makes earning £99k preferable to £125k.

That is what you meant,right?

Not a clue what you are on about

[isleaiw1]

 fishini, on 10 May 2025 - 03:31 PM, said:

Not a clue what you are on about

More simple then... do you believe the tax system should encourage ambition and people who want to get on and not penalise those who earn more to such an extent that they don't bother earning more...

Or should we just tax the rich?

[oldgoat]

Just tax the rich , well done you've finally got it right

[Misnomer]

 isleaiw1, on 10 May 2025 - 10:53 PM, said:

More simple then... do you believe the tax system should encourage ambition and people who want to get on and not penalise those who earn more to such an extent that they don't bother earning more...

Or should we just tax the rich?

Ambition to accumulate excessive wealth, doesn't seem like ambition, more like megalomania.

And it seems, those with such excessive wealth, do their best to avoid paying any tax whatsoever. Someone earning £130k a year is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

[isleaiw1]

 oldgoat, on 11 May 2025 - 08:30 AM, said:

Just tax the rich , well done you've finally got it right

Already pay more (income tax) in this country as a high earner than most European nations. It's the middle earners who do well. Probably accounts for the rush to leave and a lack of ambition amongst the young (and old!) - why earn more when you get very little of it?

But it's the easy solution for people who don't earn it and don't want to because they are happy with their lot. Let someone else pay.

[isleaiw1]

 Misnomer, on 11 May 2025 - 09:00 AM, said:

Ambition to accumulate excessive wealth, doesn't seem like ambition, more like megalomania.

And it seems, those with such excessive wealth, do their best to avoid paying any tax whatsoever. Someone earning £130k a year is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

Is the ambition the wealth otlr the achievement? And the wealth is the icing for the achievement.

No, £99k versus £130k is a real issue in many industries as people are refusing the promotions or going part time to avoid the cliff edge tax and benefits change.

[Wooden Spoon]

 isleaiw1, on 10 May 2025 - 02:42 PM, said:

They cant means test the old age pension because, as I am sure you are aware, its treated not as a benefit but something that you pay into each year to get the benefit later. That's why it matters how many years you have paid NI for. If they want to means test it then they will need to scrap NI, scrap the years service test and only give out to those in need as everyone hasnt paid in for the right to take out. That would need to start soon if its going to have any impact - but of course like the public sector pensions, the short term hit would be too much and no politician will ever vote for pain today and jam tomorrow - especially one unlikely to be in power in 5 years time

They’re close to 1 in 5 wooeking age people claiming benefits of one sort of another.


I’d suggest that’s where reform needs to start before attacking those whose pain N.I. For fifty years. Full employment should be the aim of the government

[isleaiw1]

 Wooden Spoon, on 11 May 2025 - 09:24 AM, said:

They’re close to 1 in 5 wooeking age people claiming benefits of one sort of another.


I’d suggest that’s where reform needs to start before attacking those whose pain N.I. For fifty years. Full employment should be the aim of the government

Absolutely agree on that one. That will need addressing ageism - everyone i know who has lost their job after 55 says its effectively forced retirement unless you are prepared to take a bit part job...

And of course the health issues which cause the UK to have a much higher proportion of people signed off sick than elsewhere in Europe.

And perhaps address the nursery costs issues that stop people going back to work after kids...

This post has been edited by isleaiw1: Yesterday, 11:17 AM

[Blue5]

 Wooden Spoon, on 11 May 2025 - 09:24 AM, said:

They’re close to 1 in 5 wooeking age people claiming benefits of one sort of another.


I’d suggest that’s where reform needs to start before attacking those whose pain N.I. For fifty years. Full employment should be the aim of the government

Another growing issue which also needs addressing -
https://www.bbc.co.u...es/c5ymvnrn0deo

No government appears to have the appetite to tackle the issues surrounding benefits and unemployment, perhaps because they fear the fallout if they did.

This post has been edited by Blue5: Yesterday, 12:20 PM

[Johnnyspireite7]

Blue5, on 11 May 2025 - 12:18 PM, said:

Another growing issue which also needs addressing -
https://www.bbc.co.u...es/c5ymvnrn0deo

No government appears to have the appetite to tackle the issues surrounding benefits and unemployment, perhaps because they fear the fallout if they did.

It's not just government(s) that need to address this. my nephew got himself a job and the employer didn't pay him for the work he'd done diligently for three months despite multiple promises it'd be sorted. at that point he told his boss to stuff it.

[Mr Mercury]

The video clip all over X, Starmer Macron, Merz, a small spoon like object snook away and what could, or couldn’t be, a bag/wrap of something or other hastily and sneakily moved off of the table by a sheepish looking Macron. Surely not?
It’d be a nice scandal, but probably nothing.

This post has been edited by Mr Mercury: Yesterday, 05:48 PM

[Goku]

 Mr Mercury, on 11 May 2025 - 05:44 PM, said:

The video clip all over X, Starmer Macron, Merz, a small spoon like object snook away and what could, or couldn’t be, a bag/wrap of something or other hastily and sneakily moved off of the table by a sheepish looking Macron. Surely not?
It’d be a nice scandal, but probably nothing.

Gear Starmer

Free Gear Kier

[Spire-ite]

Have I got this right? Liebours way of dealing with immigration, is not stopping the illegals, but stopping the legal migrants who come here to work?
Please tell me I've read this wrong!

[Mr Mercury]

Spire-ite, on 12 May 2025 - 12:18 AM, said:

Have I got this right? Liebours way of dealing with immigration, is not stopping the illegals, but stopping the legal migrants who come here to work?
Please tell me I've read this wrong!

Not a single thing about stoping the boat invasion?

This post has been edited by Mr Mercury: Today, 06:53 AM

[calvin plummers socks]

Incredibly impressive stuff just now from SKS.
That’s how to PM!

[dim view]

Mr Mercury, on 12 May 2025 - 06:53 AM, said:

Not a single thing about stoping the boat invasion?

I repeat....
What's needed is direct action by Kent County Council, controlled by Reform. They should make Starmer sxxt himself.

[Misnomer]

 dim view, on 12 May 2025 - 08:42 AM, said:

I repeat....
What's needed is direct action by Kent County Council, controlled by Reform. They should make Starmer sxxt himself.

Nothing is going to happen, zero. Starmer can talk as much soundbite shít as he likes but, as he was a key figure in setting up the Blair laws, he's fully aware of what it's going to take to stop the illegal immigration crisis, and he's not prepared to do any of it.

We are stuck with this situation until 2029, unless Labour have a revolt. Which they might, because if they don't, everyone of them will be made redundant come the next election.