Tory scum increase pension age - again!!

ffacoffipawb

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

Lower the 50% income tax rate threshold to £80k a year for starters, then introduce much higher council tax rates for those with huge and/or very expensive houses. At present the 50% rate only affects the top 1% of earners, and of those an even smaller number actually earn very substantially above that threshold.

Haven't got a clue have you. Let's hope you don't live much longer than the idiot you have used as your ID.

RichandJ

For info, the OP's username refers to a French revolutionary even the other French revolutionaries thought too revolting so they had him guillotined. Gracchus Babeuf's name itself referred to the Gracchi brothers, tribunes of the people in Rome of c120 BC, more rabble rousers put to death. Just so you know where they're coming from.

Ah, beaten to it by ffacoffipawb.

Jennifer_Jane

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

Exercise your few brain cells. Because I have a private pension that I am targeting to give me around £20-22k a year, so that figure is the income I'm seeking, and the state pension (which, including, S2P would be closer to £7,500 than £5,000) would be part of this total.

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

It is when you are already 65! :mad: This means that if I quit my job at 65 I'll have to drawdown £50-60k or so from my private pension just to keep me going until I am 67.

Still not getting it: you can currently receive your state pension at 65 (and you indicated you are now aged 65. How old are you?).

But apart from that, I'm not getting why the Tory scum are responsible for your having to drawdown £50-£60k over two years from your private pension to make up for (even) £7500 of state pension including additional bits per annum. You would be drawing down the £20-£25k per annum (ie £40-£50k) anyway, regardless of who was in power, for your pension. So to make up the State Pension 'loss' is, simply, the state pension 'loss'.

What have I not understood here?

ffacoffipawb

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

Still not getting it: you can currently receive your state pension at 65 (and you indicated you are now aged 65. How old are you?).

But apart from that, I'm not getting why the Tory scum are responsible for your having to drawdown £50-£60k over two years from your private pension to make up for (even) £7500 of state pension including additional bits per annum. You would be drawing down the £20-£25k per annum (ie £40-£50k) anyway, regardless of who was in power, for your pension. So to make up the State Pension 'loss' is, simply, the state pension 'loss'.

What have I not understood here?

You have misunderstood the fact that 65 isn't his age, it's his IQ.

atush

Leading ecomomsits say even at the current suggested threadholds the 50% tax rate won't bring in any extra cash. After you deduct the costs of changing the sytems to collect it and the flight of capitol and lack of new job creation.

80K is a whole lotta cash up north, but not so much if you live and work in London.

custardy

vax2002 wrote: »

As we see the living longer debate does not actually ring true when we look at the ages of those around us dying, like all statistics they are complete and utter fabrications, but here is one.
only 48% of manual workers live to 67 and 34% to 70.
So we have been had by a bunch of lying thieving crooks.
Your pension money was wiped out when Gordon Brown waived African debt,,TWICE OVER.

I'm doomed :beer:

RichandJ

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

Still not getting it: you can currently receive your state pension at 65 (and you indicated you are now aged 65. How old are you?).

But apart from that, I'm not getting why the Tory scum are responsible for your having to drawdown £50-£60k over two years from your private pension to make up for (even) £7500 of state pension including additional bits per annum. You would be drawing down the £20-£25k per annum (ie £40-£50k) anyway, regardless of who was in power, for your pension. So to make up the State Pension 'loss' is, simply, the state pension 'loss'.

What have I not understood here?

That it's just a political rant by an extreme left winger and really belongs with the other nutters in the Discussion board of Moneysavers Arms.

Or we've all been well and truly trolled by someone bored on a Sunday afternoon.

Gracchus_Babeuf

atush wrote: »

You're just disgusting. She was an alive and lively person living in assisted living on our/her dime not the state. She was not a 'vegetable'or was she senile. She had a right to life saving care and was denied due to her age only. They tried that one on first (senility), and when I pointed out they were pumping her full of morphine for the pain no wonder she didn't know what day it was. When the medication was lowered they couldn't use the senile defense as she was perfectly lucid.

Sentimental twaddle. At 95 you've had a good innings - end of story. The NHS has to make difficult decisions, and yes, if it means the very oldest get served last then so be it.

atush wrote: »

So go on, get into a traffic accident or something when you are over 80 and compis mentis and they can use the "oh they might die of anethesia" excuse on you too. That should be used with elective surgery only, not surgery needed to survive as untreated hernias always lead to infection. As would a ruptered spleen.

People over 80 shouldn't be driving anyway, in my opinion. They are a danger on the roads as their reflexes are not good enough. The police have had to deal with plenty of situations in which elderly drivers have caused avoidable serious injuries and deaths.

atush wrote: »

60 years olds with heart disease and cancer caused by overeating and drinking like a fish. They should be put at the end of the line.

A completely moronic statement based on bitterness and ignorance, not logic. Many people that age have had perfectly healthy lives yet still have serious diseases. And you cannot make subjective moral judgements as acceptable criteria for treating the ill - the only logical criteria is age. Once you start using subjective moral criteria then you are on the slippery slope towards social engineering - the Nazis wanted exactly that.

ffacoffipawb

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

Once you start using subjective moral criteria then you are on the slippery slope towards social engineering - the Nazis wanted exactly that.

Can we start with you then?

Gracchus_Babeuf

atush wrote: »

Leading ecomomsits say even at the current suggested threadholds the 50% tax rate won't bring in any extra cash. After you deduct the costs of changing the sytems to collect it and the flight of capitol and lack of new job creation.

80K is a whole lotta cash up north, but not so much if you live and work in London.

Not much in London? You mean the City? The rest of London earns nowhere near this kind of money. I earn £60k a year in a managerial job just outside the M25 and I am 44 years old.