Budget 2018

Paul_Herring

There was someone trying to spin it on Radio4 in the last week or so. The interviewer did state the announcement was in 1993 and question the interviewee about their claimed surprise when they reached 60 recently.

Sounds like Saturday's Moneybox. Or they had the same person on that; claiming no knowledge of the impending increase from 60 to 65 when she was around 57, wittering on about it only being 'advertised' in the Financial Times when no housewife worth her salt would be caught dead reading anything other than Bella, Chat, or Women's Weekly where they should have held weekly or monthly articles on the change in state pension age so the poor dears wouldn't forget*....


---

* Note - may contain some hyperbole.

Thrugelmir

kidmugsy wrote: »

What matters is that the country enjoys enough confidence that it can rollover its debts - that people will lend it enough capital to let it pay off the old debts.

Debt has to serviced though. Not simply rolled over. The rate of interest on offer will determine the interest from international investors. The BOE isn't going to hoover up debt indefinately. Ultimately the UK will leave the safety of the harbour and be exposed to the full might of market forces.

ffacoffipawb

Semtex O'Donnell thinks he can do something about capital flight and a tanking pound.

Don't think so.

The money would be gone on publication of any exit poll showing those morons as favourites to form a government, oops, politburo.

GreasyPalms

Am I right in saying that someone like me, who contributes all his over HRT earnings to a personal pension will lose out in the long run because I’ll now be paying 10% more NI on more of my earnings?

Thrugelmir

thriftytracey wrote: »

But hey its OK to subsidise the corporates posting millions in profit.

There's moves afoot to tackle this. As detailed in the budget. Unsurprisingly there's a lack of international cooperation as will be winners and losers on a case by case basis. UK maybe going it alone.

kidmugsy

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Debt has to serviced though. Not simply rolled over.

I agree: it's a dangerous game that the developed countries are playing. But it still has sod all to do with paying it all back.

Zola.

kidmugsy wrote: »

Why on earth do you worry about paying it back? The only case I've ever heard of of a substantial nation paying back its debts was the UK after the Napoleonic Wars - and it took many, many decades.

What matters is that the country enjoys enough confidence that it can rollover its debts - that people will lend it enough capital to let it pay off the old debts. This confidence might be harder to sustain if debts increase faster than (say) GDP, and then the new debt costs more, and then the whole problem snowballs.

Of course, in the end all nations fail and all government debt is reneged on. There are, apparently, only three countries with a seriously long history of not reneging: us, Sweden, and one I can't remember - Switzerland, maybe? Or maybe it's only two.

Not really worried - when the crunch time comes we'll be long gone, but surely the debt cant just rise forever with it never being paid back, a bit of a nonsense in the end isnt it?

Paul_Herring

GreasyPalms wrote: »

Am I right in saying that someone like me, who contributes all his over HRT earnings to a personal pension will lose out in the long run because I’ll now be paying 10% more NI on more of my earnings?

Depends on if you're salary sacrificing the HRT earnings. If you're not, then probably.

2018/19
12% NI on £8,424 - £46,384, 2% thereafter
20% IT on £11,850 - £46,350, 40% thereafter (up to 45% band)

2019/20
12% NI on £8,632 - £50,024, 2% thereafter
20% IT on £12,500 - £50,000, 40% thereafter (up to 45% band)

So there's £208 at the start of the '18/19 12% band that's no longer being NI 'taxed', but an extra £3,640 12% band that's being taxed at the top that previously would only have been taxed at 2%.

GreasyPalms

Thanks Paul. Unfortunately I can’t salary sacrifice so looks like I’ve lost out on this occasion but allows me to put more into my ISA I suppose!

Silvertabby

“ There was someone trying to spin it on Radio4 in the last week or so. The interviewer did state the announcement was in 1993 and question the interviewee about their claimed surprise when they reached 60 recently.

Paul_Herring wrote: »

Sounds like Saturday's Moneybox. Or they had the same person on that; claiming no knowledge of the impending increase from 60 to 65 when she was around 57, wittering on about it only being 'advertised' in the Financial Times when no housewife worth her salt would be caught dead reading anything other than Bella, Chat, or Women's Weekly where they should have held weekly or monthly articles on the change in state pension age so the poor dears wouldn't forget*....

* Note - may contain some hyperbole.

My mum died in July 1995, having been housebound for 3 months and very ill for some time before that. Her magazine tastes were indeed limited to Chat, Take a Break etc - but she certainly knew all about the pension age changes because she had a right witter on on my and my sister's behalf.

Sorry ladies, but if a terminally ill woman - who had never read the Financial Times in her life - knew all about the changes in 1995 then there's really no excuse.

My theory is that they did hear/read about the changes, but put the information out of their minds because 'it only applies to pensioners - not me 'cos I'm only 39'.