Has Truss resigned yet?

[JohnD]

Taking the state amount off the allowance means it's effectively being taxed.

No it doesn't.

For example I have a Personal Allowance of £12,570 (frozen for several years).

If I had a state pension of, say, £9,000 (very few people get the so-called "flat rate")

Then the State Pension would be untaxed, using up £9,000 of my allowance

And there would be £3,570 allowance left, to put against my other pension(s) or earnings

So I would be given a tax code of about 357 so that my second source would give me £3,570 tax free, and I would be taxed on anything above that.

So I would receive £12,570 tax free income, as usual.

If I had multiple sources of income, the others would be given a tax code with no allowance

 

[ajohn]

No it doesn't.

Oh yes it does. I have a tax code of 510L and I have explained why.

 

[Notch7]

Yep...

They did get a sniff of power once...

And immediately tore up their pledge regarding tuition fees in order to play lapdogs to the nasty party!

Not really true

they had no choice

 

[Notch7]

Tony Blair cried, "Education, Education, Education!" then he introduced student fees.

And under Blair there was massive investment in education.

student fees were inevitable, Blair massively increased numbers going to university.

 

[blup]

Labour should be actively considering a coalition government with the lib dems to permanently remove the possibility of extreme governments on both sides of the political spectrum. Lord Hailsham wrote many years ago of the dangers of elective dictatorships, he was talking about labour, then thatcher got in, we seem to be addicted to "strong government". PR is considered to result in weak government, well look at the sh1t show we have had under BJ now LT.

Blup

 

[JohnD]

Oh yes it does. I have a tax code of 510L and I have explained why.

I can see you don't understand.

Never mind.

Do you by any chance receive a state pension of about £7470 with no tax deducted?

 

[Pat ex]

And under Blair there was massive investment in education.

student fees were inevitable, Blair massively increased numbers going to university.

Some mixed data might suggest that your comments were not so interconnected as they appear at first glance.

Yes education spending did increase under Blair, and it continued under Brown and the first couple of years under Cameron.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01078/

Yes Student fees were inevitable because he Unis were near bankruptcy despite the increase in Education spending.

Blair being responsible for additional Uni applications is a debatable point. In the first year of student fees (at £1000) there was a reduction in applications.
In 2004, when fees increased to £3,000, there was another drop in applications.
It took 7 years (1 year after the introduction of £3,000) of student fees for the Uni applications to reach dizzying heights, (9 years after his Education, Education, Education speech) This might have more to do with Unis opening their doors to more students than it does have to do with Blair.

Blair: I was right over tuition fees

TONY Blair claimed today that new figures showing a rise in university applications had "completely vindicated" his controversial decision to charge students top-up tuition fees.

www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk

 

[ellal]

The Unis were already under threat of bankruptcy. If tuition fees hadn't ben introduced the government would have to bail them out and that would increase government deficit

Maybe you could tell us how most EU countries can provide free or low cost tertiary education?

It has nothing to do with 'bankruptcy', it's all to do with UK political ideology rather than the more civilised European model!

Oh, and btw the government can't bail anything out, it is the taxpayer that pays...

And of course it is always the poorer people who pay the highest burden!

 

[ajohn]

If I had a state pension of, say, £9,000 (very few people get the so-called "flat rate")

Not entirely correct. Many people who had a private pension will have contracted out of the state pension which means they get the basic amount. Some years ago now financial advisors were advising people under 40 to contract back in as that would just about show a benefit when the state retirement age was reached. People who were not under 40 or didn't are still around or currently retired.

There is another factor here as well. Some company private pension schemes had zero interest in people working to 65 so retirement age was 60. Why - previous experience when people did. Another factor is bouts of early retirements with penalties when companies want to shed people. Sometimes the penalties would be reduced by various amounts - eg when they had a bout with teachers however they still didn't get their full pension.

My wife is a case of being part in the basic state pension and part not. The need for that depends on what their partners widows pension provides. The higher private pension by dropping the widows aspect was blocked some time ago.

 

[Pat ex]

Maybe you could tell us how most EU countries can provide free or low cost tertiary education?

What other countries do does not necessarily impact on what UK does. Granted, rational politicians should look at examples elsewhere to guide their judgement. But those following political ideology rarely do so.

It has nothing to do with 'bankruptcy', it's all to do with UK political ideology rather than the more civilised European model!

It has something to with ideology, but it also has a lot to do with priorities. UK has the NHS, for example, as a priority that other countries do not.
UK is almost obliged to fund the NHS before it funds higher education. Then there is primary education which ranks higher in priority than higher education.

Oh, and btw the government can't bail anything out, it is the taxpayer that pays...

Semantics. It's the government that decides how the tax take is spent.

And of course it is always the poorer people who pay the highest burden!

Not necessarily, sometimes the poorest people have access to other grants that are denied to middle earners, etc. But I take your point..

 

[ajohn]

Blunt has said Truss must go. First senior to do so. BBC gave a run down on the various ways she could be axed that get around their 12month no vote of confidence rule. Also how they could get the person that want and no party vote. Sounds like another Boris situation. Just needs enough letters to the 1922 committee. Some feel her position is worse than Boris's was. The feel she should have drawn the party together from day one and didn't. This would be done via cabinet position holders. Hunt is a late example but ..................

An odd coalition was mentioned. Sunak and Mordaunt but in a way that suggests it wont happen as one would need to be under the other. LOL read that as you like but the party appear to like illicit relationships. Reminds me of Mandy Rice-Davies - a different sort of "relationship".

 

[Vinty]

Trump wanted Europe (especially Germany) to buy US liquefied gas in preference to Russian oil, and US had sanctions in place against Russian energy industry.
That was the motivation for Trump's comments.

Isn't that what is happening now.

 

[ajohn]

sometimes the poorest people have access to other grants

1p off the basic rate is an example where the lowest paid suffer most. The gain from it wont achieve much for them at all. The cost to the gov could be distributed in a different way.

 

[Vinty]

And under Blair there was massive investment in education

Micky mouse degrees for every one.
And yet you can't get a decent builder.

 

[JohnD]

Many people who had a private pension will have contracted out of the state pension which means they get the basic amount.

I was contracted out for some years and get less than the basic amount because a deduction is made for each contracted out year.

Even if you worked and paid in for more than enough years, you get a deduction.