We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
George Osborne MUST now U-Turn 'Granny Tax'!
Comments
-
Yes, when being strictly correct, and say following the BBC's editorial guidance. The BBC's journalists, though... well.... take a look.gadgetmind wrote: »The word "insolvent" is far more common!
Though they do quite often also use insolvency for both individuals and companies as well. Not strictly correct but that's life. 0 -
Yes, when being strictly correct
Strictly correct = correct and the opposite is incorrect.
I'm not one for splitting hairs (no, seriously, stop laughing!) but sloppy terminology begets ambiguity and misunderstanding, so what's so wrong with trying to get it right?
As for the BBC, well I think they they should hang their heads in shame, but being arty types, they probably regard sloppy language and fuzzy thinking as being part and parcel of the whole creative thing.
[edit]
Thanks for the link to the BBC editorial guidance. It's rather meagre, but even so is clearly being ignored. How many strikes to they get before they are out?I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0 -
Not rubbish; you can lose something that you had anticipated and had also budgeted for, but is taken away at short notice.0
-
everinthered wrote: »Not rubbish; you can lose something that you had anticipated and had also budgeted for, but is taken away at short notice.
Except you are not losing at. Within a short period, the normal allowance will have caught up.I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0 -
Except you are not losing at. Within a short period, the normal allowance will have caught up.
And in how 'short' a period do you believe that the 'normal allowance' of £9205 will catch up with the age allowance of £10,500 ?
If your salary scale indicated that next year your salary would be £xyz, and then you were informed that due to 'salary simplification', your salary will be £xyz (but less £z), would you not be a tad miffed and would you not consider that you had lost the £z part of your salary?0 -
Various allowances get frozen all the time.
The Capital Gains Tax allowance has now been frozen for two years (with a third predicted) but I that doesn't seem to have triggered the same degree of ill-informed ranting that briefly freezing the age related allowance did.I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0 -
gadgetmind wrote: »Various allowances get frozen all the time.
The Capital Gains Tax allowance has now been frozen for two years (with a third predicted) but I that doesn't seem to have triggered the same degree of ill-informed ranting that briefly freezing the age related allowance did.
The freezing of the CGT allowance will be felt by a somewhat more limited and dare I say, more prosperous segment of society than the freezing of the age allowance for existing pensioners and its removal altogether for up and coming pensioners.
In recent years, pensioners have become an easy and obvious target for the government in its attempt to reduce its budget deficit. Not only have we had the age allowance abolished, but also the link with RPI being replaced by CPI and of course, the raising of the State Pension age. The latter, I have no real issue with, but the other two having been fobbed off with either 'simplification' or 'a more realistic measure' does tend to leave a rather nasty taste0 -
The Age Related Allowance was another disincentive for people to save for themselves. Getting rid of it by boosting personal allowances for (nearly) everyone makes a lot of sense.I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0 -
In recent years, pensioners have become an easy and obvious target for the government in its attempt to reduce its budget deficit.
The facts say different. Pensioners have been the least hit group.Not only have we had the age allowance abolished, but also the link with RPI being replaced by CPI and of course, the raising of the State Pension age.
By definition, pensioners are already in receipt of the state pension and therefore unaffected by the state pension age rises. FYI, the state pension increases started in 1995 by equalising male and female and were extended under the previous Government to age 68. This Government has just brought the dates forward and closer in line with the original recommendations made to the Labour Govt. The state pension age increase affects those that have not retired yet. Not those already retired.I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0 -
The facts say different. Pensioners have been the least hit group.
By definition, pensioners are already in receipt of the state pension and therefore unaffected by the state pension age rises. FYI, the state pension increases started in 1995 by equalising male and female and were extended under the previous Government to age 68. This Government has just brought the dates forward and closer in line with the original recommendations made to the Labour Govt. The state pension age increase affects those that have not retired yet. Not those already retired.
Concerning the raising of the state Pension age; you can see that in my next sentence I state that I have no real issue with this. Indeed, equalising the ages of male and female eligibilty was long overdue and given the increase in life expectancy, I have no problem with an eventual SPA of 68 and even beyond0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards