Manx Radio

[Gladys]

1 minute ago, the stinking enigma said:

No pension should be above the living wage. Its obscene.

Do you really mean no pension, or just public service pensions?  What about private sector occupational pensions or even personal pension schemes?

Years ago, anyone going into the civil service, in the UK as well as here, were encouraged by the favourable pension scheme despite knowing that it would never pay as much in wages as an equivalent job in the private sector.  The same with banking, as I recall.   That was the trade off.  

Now, we have a civil service that offers similar remuneration as the private sector AND has a very favourable pension scheme.  The differential got skewed. 

[Gladys]

3 minutes ago, HeliX said:

I'm not attempting to argue that the hard work and risks taken by business-starters shouldn't be fairly rewarded, but under the current system it is so far in the other direction that it's quite outrageous. Not to mention that once the business has gotten to a certain size, the risk flips completely. How many C-level execs have received huge payouts from businesses that go under (after also receiving exorbitant wages the entire time they were there) while all the line-member workers are left with no money and no jobs? Horrible.

I am not disagreeing at all.

[pongo]

7 minutes ago, Gladys said:

Problem is, just like taxation, the more government intervenes and tries to manipulate a situation, the more those with access to advice will find ways round it.  It is the constant plugging of those "loopholes" that has resulted in a hugely complex tax system in the UK. 

Revolving door government and administration is a big issue in the UK.

And too much emphasis on the letter rather than the intent of the law - which is how loopholes exist at all.

[the stinking enigma]

On 6/22/2020 at 1:19 PM, Gladys said:

Do you really mean no pension, or just public service pensions?  What about private sector occupational pensions or even personal pension schemes?

Years ago, anyone going into the civil service, in the UK as well as here, were encouraged by the favourable pension scheme despite knowing that it would never pay as much in wages as an equivalent job in the private sector.  The same with banking, as I recall.   That was the trade off.  

Now, we have a civil service that offers similar remuneration as the private sector AND has a very favourable pension scheme.  The differential got skewed. 

Private pensions I have no problem with. Those on big money public sector wise should make good use of them to top up their public service pension. To expect people that are earning at or below living wage to pay the pensions of others that have earned good money and are  now in receipt as a pension of more money than the average person that is paying that pension is a bit obscene in my view. 

Edited January 18, 2021 by the stinking enigma

[ellanvannin2010]

39 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

I think higher rate UK income tax in the 70's was over 70%, there's no doubt that that kind of thing is blatantly unfair but the idea of a higher rate for higher earners isn't. It's just got to be reasonable. Really wealthy people paying just 3% or whatever it turns out to be because of the tax cap here or whatever seems unfair too.

It was 83% and 98% for investment income in 1974 for earnings over £20000.

I wonder if there is any legal reason why public service pensions could not be subject to a surtax above a certain level?.

I imagine the ministers would not get unbiased advice about that though

 

 

Edited June 22, 2020 by ellanvannin2010

[Donald Trumps]

36 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

Tickle down economics doesn't work, because it all trickles up anyway.

That's the thing about conservative governments, their raison d'être is preserving the wealth of the rich & ideally increasing it

[Neil Down]

40 minutes ago, the stinking enigma said:

No pension should be above the living wage. Its obscene.

Correct, the very people who say us oiks should survive on £9570 per year are the very ones on £80k plus the golden handshake payment

[Andy Onchan]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

Do you really mean no pension, or just public service pensions?  What about private sector occupational pensions or even personal pension schemes?

Years ago, anyone going into the civil service, in the UK as well as here, were encouraged by the favourable pension scheme despite knowing that it would never pay as much in wages as an equivalent job in the private sector.  The same with banking, as I recall.   That was the trade off.  

Now, we have a civil service that offers similar remuneration as the private sector AND has a very favourable pension scheme.  The differential got skewed. 

And you can blame that, at least in part, on Blair.

Edited June 22, 2020 by Andy Onchan

[Neil Down]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

I agree, Neil, but taxation is used as an economic and political tool, indirect taxes being one of the tools in the armoury.  My views above are simplistic, I understand, but there is great scope for simply applied taxation, certainly in the UK.  However, that will never happen as it is the main tool of party politics and enforcing an ideology. 

A tool that fails to work for any person not VAT registered. Simply put, it galling to have to pay tax on your earnings only to pay extra tax on nearly everything you buy

[Manximus Aururaneus]

24 minutes ago, Neil Down said:

Correct, the very people who say us oiks should survive on £9570 per year are the very ones on £80k plus the golden handshake payment

 

21 minutes ago, Neil Down said:

A tool that fails to work for any person not VAT registered. Simply put, it galling to have to pay tax on your earnings only to pay extra tax on nearly everything you buy

Sorry Neil I don't get this. How does someone pay income tax on earnings of £9,570 p.a. given that the personal allowance is £14,250?

Edited June 22, 2020 by Manximus Aururaneus

[Max Power]

4 hours ago, parchedpeas said:

Look at the other videos she posts.

Here she is telling us that two women who were pelted with coins and harrassed by a group of boys because of their sexuality (the courts words, not mine) were not eing targetted because of their sexuality - basically she's just calling them attention seekers
 

There are loads more videos there - including lots supporting Tommy Robinson. So basically another entitled right-wing shill. The type that probably callers herself "Christian".

I make no comment on the Stu Peters thing, because I like him. But this is not your best example in his defence, Gladys.

edit: Just for fun, I've attached her Twitter where she defends Milo Yiannopoulos, Katie Hopkins and Alex Jones. So on that basis I'll add this: if you are agreeing with this woman, you are siding with views shared by people like that. If that's where you want to be - fine - but know what you are doing and know who you are.

Some of what Tommy Robinson says is quite true and makes sense. You can't just dismiss opinions and comments just because you don't like some of the things said, that's like throwing away an orange because you don't like eating the peel. 

[Gladys]

2 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Some of what Tommy Robinson says is quite true and makes sense. You can't just dismiss opinions and comments just because you don't like some of the things said, that's like throwing away an orange because you don't like eating the peel. 

Beautifully put. 

[finlo]

1 hour ago, Manximus Aururaneus said:

 

Sorry Neil I don't get this. How does someone pay income tax on earnings of £9,570 p.a. given that the personal allowance is £14,250?

No mention of tax? The £9,570 figure is the state pension at a guess.

[Manximus Aururaneus]

1 hour ago, Neil Down said:

A tool that fails to work for any person not VAT registered. Simply put, it galling to have to pay tax on your earnings only to pay extra tax on nearly everything you buy

 

2 minutes ago, finlo said:

No mention of tax? The £9,570 figure is the state pension at a guess.

Not criticising, just don't understand the posts.

[VinnieK]

35 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Some of what Tommy Robinson says is quite true and makes sense. You can't just dismiss opinions and comments just because you don't like some of the things said, that's like throwing away an orange because you don't like eating the peel. 

It's not really like that though. It's only natural to exercise caution and suspicion regarding the opinion of someone who has a record of making false allegations, drawing dodgy conclusions, and engaging in fraud.

A better analogy would be throwing away a box of oranges because you've had three or four from it already and found they all tasted like rotting feet.