Will Messrs Reeves and Raynor Still Be Around This Time Next Year?

ronib

growstuff I am well past 67 years. Exactly who is going to give me a job? My DH should be paying me to run the house? What nonsense is spouted sometimes.

The next thing will be VS comments about how childless people are paying for other people’s children . . .
Oh sorry, we’ve already had that.

ronib

growstuff for some, the USA is seen as first world! Certainly in economic clout, it’s way ahead of the UK.

Indeed! But the UK is still classified as a first world country.

ronib

growstuff I am well past 67 years. Exactly who is going to give me a job? My DH should be paying me to run the house? What nonsense is spouted sometimes.

I assume your DH is also over 67.

growstuff the point being?

But the UK is still classified as a first world country.

One of the benefits of being a first world country, is that we’re expected to pay out millions to poorer countries, even those poor enough to have their own space race plans.

growstuff

ronib

growstuff I am well past 67 years. Exactly who is going to give me a job? My DH should be paying me to run the house? What nonsense is spouted sometimes.

I assume your DH is also over 67.

Never assume anything!

Why would ronib get a job?
She’s retired!

growstuff

ronib It would make sense if you found yourself a job because you'd probably only pay 20% tax and your husband could work less. It's up to you how you divide the work in your household, but Doodledog is correct. Your husband is paying for your access to the NHS and other infrastructure.

Your husband is paying for your access to the NHS and other infrastructure

Do you mean no-one should be able to retire - ie work until you drop because younger people are paying for our access to the NHS and other infrastructure?

😁

Your husband is paying for your access to the NHS and other infrastructure

I don’t understand this point of view.
We all contribute to the NHS and other infrastructures through the taxes we pay. For all but the poorest of pensioners, we’re still paying income tax, but we and others who no longer work in paid employment, or have never worked in paid employment, pay taxes when we buy things, when we pay council tax, when we buy a new car or a different house etc.
I don’t understand the idea that those who don’t work don’t contribute, but in any case, I thought the provision of health care, education, roads, and other infrastructure was part of a civilised society. As I said, we all contribute.

I don’t understand the idea that those who don’t work don’t contribute, but in any case, I thought the provision of health care, education, roads, and other infrastructure was part of a civilised society. As I said, we all contribute.

Yes, we do. Less than half of Government revenue comes from income tax and NI contributions.

madalene

^Your husband is paying for your access to the NHS and other infrastructure^

I don’t understand this point of view.
We all contribute to the NHS and other infrastructures through the taxes we pay. For all but the poorest of pensioners, we’re still paying income tax, but we and others who no longer work in paid employment, or have never worked in paid employment, pay taxes when we buy things, when we pay council tax, when we buy a new car or a different house etc.
I don’t understand the idea that those who don’t work don’t contribute, but in any case, I thought the provision of health care, education, roads, and other infrastructure was part of a civilised society. As I said, we all contribute.

But where do those who don't earn their own money get it from? People don't have to work to earn money, if they have enough assets and can earn interest, but if they don't generate money themselves, they're spending somebody else's money.

Allira

growstuff

ronib It would make sense if you found yourself a job because you'd probably only pay 20% tax and your husband could work less. It's up to you how you divide the work in your household, but Doodledog is correct. Your husband is paying for your access to the NHS and other infrastructure.

Your husband is paying for your access to the NHS and other infrastructure

Do you mean no-one should be able to retire - ie work until you drop because younger people are paying for our access to the NHS and other infrastructure?

😁

Err .. no, that's not what I meant.

It’s not what I meant either, and in anticipation of deliberate ‘misunderstanding’ I spelt out that I didn’t mean people who had retired after a lifetime of working.

growstuff if you didn’t mean it, why were you expecting me to work at well over retirement age? You most definitely suggested that!!

Also, IMO husbands (or anyone else) only pay their own contributions. They don’t, and can’t pay for other people, however much tax they pay. The system is not set up like that. We all pay (if we pay) according to our own income, not the contributions of dependents.

growstuff you definitely suggested that ronib should/could get a job. She’s retired. Did you mean retired people should be getting a job?

I really don’t like the hype against a stay at home parent or unpaid carers looking after family. It’s shameful imo.

Husbands, or anyone else, only pay their own NI contributions, which will eventually ensure they get a state pension. However, everyone, including those on benefits, or who don’t work for whatever reason, are still contributing to the tax take.

Are you suggesting a citizen’s tax to pay for NHS and other infrastructures(you said you weren’t, but we need to clarify.) Or are you suggesting no one should have access to the NHS or other infrastructures (bit difficult with roads) unless they work and pay income tax, because you believe they haven’t contributed? In your opinion obviously, as in mine, they have contributed.

That was to Doodledog by the way.

ronib

I really don’t like the hype against a stay at home parent or unpaid carers looking after family. It’s shameful imo.

👏👏👏

biglouis

Whenever I see Rachel Thieves and that dreadful hair cut I think of the kids at the "cottage homes" near the secondary school I went to. The boys had what we called a pudding basin hair cut as though they had, literally, had a basin put on their heads and trimmed around. The girls had a slightly longer version - known as a bob. It was done by the house mother as no one was going to send kids in care to an expensive hairdresser.

You would think someone in public life could afford a professional hair cut. Maybe no one offered her a freebie for it so her mum did it with the kitchen scissors.

What a ridiculous comment ! Judging a person on appearance is really archaic. This has nothing to do with the thread . All the comments here about her haircut are just catty .

madalene

Husbands, or anyone else, only pay their own NI contributions, which will eventually ensure they get a state pension. However, everyone, including those on benefits, or who don’t work for whatever reason, are still contributing to the tax take.

Are you suggesting a citizen’s tax to pay for NHS and other infrastructures(you said you weren’t, but we need to clarify.) Or are you suggesting no one should have access to the NHS or other infrastructures (bit difficult with roads) unless they work and pay income tax, because you believe they haven’t contributed? In your opinion obviously, as in mine, they have contributed.

NI isn't ring-fenced for state pensions. In theory, it covers all state benefits. In practice, however, the link between contributions paid and benefits received is very weak and NICs essentially act as a second income tax.

madalene

growstuff you definitely suggested that ronib should/could get a job. She’s retired. Did you mean retired people should be getting a job?

OK. She complained that her DH was paying 50% tax. I'm not sure how, but I accepted it at face-value. What I was suggesting was that her DH could work less (and pay less tax). If she were to find paid work, she would either pay no or basic rate tax, so as a couple they could be better off.

I still don't understand how her DH (who also seems to be of pensionable age) is paying half his income in tax, but none of my business.

So rather than having a go at me, take a few moments to read what I've written.

Syracute

biglouis

Whenever I see Rachel Thieves and that dreadful hair cut I think of the kids at the "cottage homes" near the secondary school I went to. The boys had what we called a pudding basin hair cut as though they had, literally, had a basin put on their heads and trimmed around. The girls had a slightly longer version - known as a bob. It was done by the house mother as no one was going to send kids in care to an expensive hairdresser.

You would think someone in public life could afford a professional hair cut. Maybe no one offered her a freebie for it so her mum did it with the kitchen scissors.

What a ridiculous comment ! Judging a person on appearance is really archaic. This has nothing to do with the thread . All the comments here about her haircut are just catty .

Aren't they just? I sometimes wonder about people.

madalene

^Your husband is paying for your access to the NHS and other infrastructure^

I don’t understand this point of view.
We all contribute to the NHS and other infrastructures through the taxes we pay. For all but the poorest of pensioners, we’re still paying income tax, but we and others who no longer work in paid employment, or have never worked in paid employment, pay taxes when we buy things, when we pay council tax, when we buy a new car or a different house etc.
I don’t understand the idea that those who don’t work don’t contribute, but in any case, I thought the provision of health care, education, roads, and other infrastructure was part of a civilised society. As I said, we all contribute.

What’s not to understand? Yes, if you contributed to a pension that attracts tax, you are contributing via that tax, as you did via the contributions your work made to society when you did it.

If your pension does not attract tax you still contributed when working (both in tax and in the production of goods and services), and nobody in the UK* would expect you to work till you die.

If you have never contributed though, your pension is equivalent to a benefit paid by others, as was your access to the benefits of living somewhere like the UK, such as healthcare, education etc which you took without paying for.

Fine if you were unable to work for some reason, such as caring for the sick or disabled yourself (or other reasons - there is no point in listing them as in a welfare state like ours they are valid reasons for not working, and long may that continue to be the case), but if you just chose not to work because you wanted to stay at home how can you ‘retire’? What are you ‘retiring’ from?

‘Paying tax’ by spending someone else’s money is not possible. If I earn £10 and give it to my child as pocket money, who pays the tax on the ice creams (or whatever) they buy with it? If they want to spend it on saving pandas, who has to declare the gift aid to get the tax credit?

Clue - not the one ‘donating’ someone else’s money.

As I keep saying I am 100% fine with paying into a welfare state - I’d much rather that than see old people starving if their families can’t afford to feed them, or children from poor families denied an education- but I do object to paying in being optional (and even more when those who opt out sneer at the benefit claimants who can’t hide their dependency behind husbands or others who are supposedly paying ’their share’)

*If I can’t say ‘first world’ I will say ‘countries such as the UK’ tedious though it u it s to type🙄. I have friends in ‘countries other than the UK’ who genuinely don’t understand ’free’ education heath and pensions as they have to provide everything themselves. When I point out that here they are all paid for by those who work they are again aghast that workers are paying for non working people to do nothing.