[Misc] Will the Unions bring everyone to their knees?

[WATFORD zero]

He said, if you spent as much time on productivity as you do on chat sites talking to pensioners I’d give you a pay rise now, btw he was talking to his reflection [emoji6]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I am so glad you've taken time out of your busy schedule to explain what the term 'mirror' means

So, in the spirit of reciprocity, I'll explain one to you

pensioner

/ˈpɛnʃ(ə)nə/

noun
a person who receives a pension

It appears that only one of us is a pensioner by definition and as has been pointed out to you many many times before, but I will repeat yet again, that unlike yourself, I don't draw a pension

 

[LamieRobertson]

He said, if you spent as much time on productivity as you do on chat sites talking to pensioners I’d give you a pay rise now, btw he was talking to his reflection [emoji6]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Back off topic

Couldn’t have put it better

 

[Chicken Run]

I am so glad you've taken time out of your busy schedule to explain what the term 'mirror' means

So, in the spirit of reciprocity, I'll explain one to you

pensioner

/ˈpɛnʃ(ə)nə/

noun
a person who receives a pension

It appears that only one of us is a pensioner by definition and as has been pointed out to you many many times before, but I will repeat yet again, that unlike yourself, I don't draw a pension

Well at the age of 52 I’d love to know where I can draw a pension from [emoji2357]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[schmunk]

I don't think salary sacrifice has been mentioned.

This is a legal way of reducing your tax bill. In return for a voluntary pay cut, your employer makes a commensurately (or maybe not - eez complicated) bigger contribution to your personal pension, out of your gross pay, and therefore free of tax.

This is advantageous to all taxpayers, but is especially true for higher rate taxpayers, as it removes a chunk of your earnings from your taxed pay. This could have the effect of moving you down a tax band, on your marginal tax rate, as well as reducing employee's NI. It is also advantageous for the employer, as they don't have to pay employer's NI on the sum involved. It must still fall within the annual allowance rules.

Imagine paying all your gross income straight into your pension in the years approaching retirement. I realise this option is not available to everyone.

Of course, it only works if you anticipate that when you draw your pension, it will be taxed at a marginal tax rate lower than when you paid it in.

The only advantage of salary sacrifice is the NI saving for employer and employee. The employee's tax saving is unchanged.

I agree that the advantage scales with marginal rates but "down a tax band" isn't really a thing, given the way the tax bands work - yes you get relief at your highest marginal rate, but it has no effect on the rest of your income, which remains taxed at the same rates as it would have otherwise.

The relief is also capped at £40k of income p.a. (with unused relief available for carry-forward for 3 tax years) but this is further capped for earners above £150k, on a sliding scale which means that earners over £210k can only get tax relief on £10k of pension contributions p.a.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

It is a total misconception that because a high earner is an employee and therefore under PAYE that there is nothing that can be done to mitigate their tax liability. I gave examples in my previous post.

I won't add any more opinion of my own. I was pulled up earlier and accept I don't know the full facts. Personally, being as I am in terms of mental makeup, I found doing a full tax return to be almost debilitatingly stressful when I was asked to do it by HMG some years ago, and certainly did myself out of a lot of money by overestimating my taxable income.

I have been mocked by some for advocating a flat % for income tax, but for me this would solve all the problems we have about fairness, collecting what is due and mitigating against legal but ethically questionable minimisation.

Unfortunately there is no agreement about any of this and it remains a popular political football or stick with which labour and conservative use to beat one another. I heard Ange ranting about it on PMQT earlier.

And I thought that literary criticism was an area of extreme subjectivity . . . .

 

[Deleted member 2719]

If you can’t handle people challenging your posts, perhaps don’t make them so combative. Personally, I have no need to ask questions of you. You gave all your answers in your opening post. You set your stall out early, so I see no need to encourage any of your waffle .

I am simply remarking that if you start a thread in the manner you did, it’s a bit pathetic to blame the response you get on the mods and to cry that you are being rounded on.

It’s a bear pit mentality and it’s disappointing to see it on the Big Board. I thought we had all moved on. It appears not.

That’s all.

I agree that rounding on people is bear pit stuff, so why don't they stay in the pit?

No indeed. But you started a fire, and it keeps on burning....

No Hazza, I didn't start the fire, the RMT did, but the fire was raging inside the union and they publicly, fanned the flames.
All I did was gave people the chance to give their opinions on it.
Do they want to extinguish this fire or use it to burn the fingers of the public?
I don't expect people to make it personal about me, as they like to.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

I agree that rounding on people is bear pit stuff, so why don't they stay in the pit?




No Hazza, I didn't start the fire, the RMT did, but the fire was raging inside the union and they publicly, fanned the flames.
All I did was gave people the chance to give their opinions on it.
Do they want to extinguish this fire or use it to burn the fingers of the public?
I don't expect people to make it personal about me, as they like to.

No, you started the fire.

I don't consider that much of the response (the fire) has been about you. Much of the response has been about how your take is incorrect and that the provocative nature of your opening post was ill judged. That isn't about you but about the thread.

But you may take responsibility for starting the fire. I think you should. We get things wrong (as I did today on another thread, and admitted as much). Let's see if you, too, can man up, or if you'd prefer to keep digging.

 

[Deleted member 2719]

No, you started the fire.

I don't consider that much of the response (the fire) has been about you. Much of the response has been about how your take is incorrect and that the provocative nature of your opening post was ill judged. That isn't about you but about the thread.

But you may take responsibility for starting the fire. I think you should. We get things wrong (as I did today on another thread, and admitted as much). Let's see if you, too, can man up, or if you'd prefer to keep digging.

Let's not get into all this again.

I believe unions are driven by power-obsessed people, and they predominantly are just left, politicians, wanting to cause havoc to the economy and public in general. They hide under the umbrella of good Samaritan's, byt really are sheep in wolves clothing, IMO.

I still have not seen anything wrong with what I have said?

Give me an example, if I think I am wrong I will say and have done in the past, but not everyone chooses to see that,some have try to brand me, including yourself.....i think you know what I mean.

 

[Cheshire Cat]

Except your beliefs are mere that - your beliefs. And you are mostly wrong.

 

[The Clamp]

I agree that rounding on people is bear pit stuff, so why don't they stay in the pit?




No Hazza, I didn't start the fire, the RMT did, but the fire was raging inside the union and they publicly, fanned the flames.
All I did was gave people the chance to give their opinions on it.
Do they want to extinguish this fire or use it to burn the fingers of the public?
I don't expect people to make it personal about me, as they like to.

Blah blah, everyone else’s fault, blah blah poor me.

Grow up.

 

[rogersix]

Too many NUT workers spend time looking around to attack anyone outside of their group. Lets take money from the bosses, the shareholders, the government, the tax payers, commuters etc etc.

All I am suggesting is that some of their own workers seem very happy to take more from the pot. Think of the public kudos if the train drivers for example gave up demanding more on what is already a pretty healthy wage.

everyone could do that, you included

 

[rogersix]

I’m sure he is tough enough to deal with it….i just seem to remember a post by our leader asking people to be a bit kinder to each other…maybe I’m being ultra sensitive ….but when i see this happening i think more than twice about offering a view that doesnt quite ‘fit in’

does the view "fit in" with reality?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Let's not get into all this again.

I believe unions are driven by power-obsessed people, and they predominantly are just left, politicians, wanting to cause havoc to the economy and public in general. They hide under the umbrella of good Samaritan's, byt really are sheep in wolves clothing, IMO.

I still have not seen anything wrong with what I have said?

Give me an example, if I think I am wrong I will say and have done in the past, but not everyone chooses to see that,some have try to brand me, including yourself.....i think you know what I mean.

"I believe unions are driven by power-obsessed people, and they predominantly are just left, politicians, wanting to cause havoc to the economy and public in general. They hide under the umbrella of good Samaritan's, byt really are sheep in wolves clothing"

I can dissect this for you if you wish.

First, "I believe". Well, I don't do religion, so we could end the converstion there. But I won't...

"unions are driven by power-obsessed people". Let us consider this. Unions have existed for, what, 100 years? If their objective is to gain power, they have failed. They have no power. Yet they exists. Could this be because they are NOT obsessed by gaining power? Maybe they (the leaders) are elected by their memebers to pusue the interests of their membership?

"wanting to cause havoc to the economy and public in general." I am tempted to say that this statement is simply childish. However, let's give it some adult attention for a moment.....So unions are organizations that want to cause havoc (etc.). And yet workers join unions. So are you suggesting that employees are primarily interested in causing havoc? Crush, kill, destroy?

I'll leave it there. I don't think you have bothered to think any of this through. If people formed organizations to destroy society (which is anarchy) you might have thought there would be something that resonates with this, in their manifesto, and in their behaviour. Sabotage, bombs and that sort of thing, surely?

I could add further comment but . . . .

It may be useful to try to see the world through the eyes of others. It's called empathy. The alternative is to see the world through your own eyes only, and define anyone different as perverse and enemy. And define any view different from your own as wrong, by definition. And then to attribute all the evils of the world to that which you disapprove. It is very seductive, all that, and your brainstem will keep on telling you that you are right (if you let it). But it is liberating to put yourself in shoes not your own, and take a walk in them, from time to time.

All that said....it can be extremely disruptive to expose one's vulnerability and if you don't feel up to it, that's fine. I was over 40 before I was strong enough to make friends with the enemy (only to find they were not enemy at all).

All the best, as always

 

[rogersix]

Depends which end of the telescope you look through.

Every strike inconveniences another worker, sends a small business into bankruptcy, increases prices, pushes up inflation, and costs the taxpayer more. And so the circle of wage demands goes round again.

Way to go

so you're arguing for a maximum wage then?

 

[rogersix]

This country needs a wage cap, to include footballers.

what would you set it at?

and shareholder's dividends?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Yep, that’s exactly it. There’s always a lot of noise about high earners disappearing elsewhere but I really don’t think tax rates are the main driver of relocation. These people are often not as irreplaceable as they claim as well. Both management and workers are actually protected from wage market forces by artificial barriers. There is an endless supply of both from developing countries if the country wants it. People will continue to line up on this thread and in discussion elsewhere to blame one side or the other when neither is economically indispensable.

Tell that to the Bee Gees, Sir Sean O'Connery, Dame Shirly Bassy, Lady Tracy Emin, Sir Jensen Button, Lord Stelios Haji-Ioannou, Sir Michael 'Doors Off' Caine, Sir Philip Green, and Sir Michael Jagger.

I have no idea how we will replace the loss of such talent.

 

[A1X]

On my knees update: Nope.

 

[rogersix]

Yeah, who would have thought of it?
I won't be wasting my time on them, been there many times before.

It gets led by a mod with abuse somewhere on the board aimed at me and then all his disciples who have been suckered in all follow two by two.


Mick the mouth, has gone all Scargill. It's that simple.

What could go wrong.



Meanwhile, I will spend time with my family, rather than wasting my time going round and around in circles.

whilst watching gbnews

progress, mouldy; closure!

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

And from another thread, may I congratulete [MENTION=2719]Mouldy Boots[/MENTION] for single handedly schooling the British Nation into seeing it the Right Way.

 

[Bodian]

And from another thread, may I congratulete [MENTION=2719]Mouldy Boots[/MENTION] for single handedly schooling the British Nation into seeing it the Right Way.

View attachment 149239

If it's my post on the Tory Meltdown thread you're referring to, then I nicked it off TB on this thread - Post #760..!!